Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to inform hon Members that on 16 August 2023, I received two written complaints from the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai, regarding certain statements and remarks made by two Members of Parliament.
The first complaint is in respect of certain statements made by the Member for Bukit Batok Mr Murali Pillai during the debate on the second reading of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill on 3 August 2023. I will refer to this as the first complaint.
I directed that a copy of Mr Leong’s first complaint be shared with Mr Murali and asked for his written response. Mr Murali submitted his written response to me on 23 August 2023. Both documents will be distributed to Members at the end of my announcement.
I will now deal with the first complaint. During the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Bill, Mr Murali had said, and I quote: “The hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai had advocated some form of rent control.”
I will refer to this as the rent control statement. Mr Leong alleges that Mr Murali’s rent control statement had imputed improper motives to him as he had not made any such statement and that Mr Murali had thereby breached Standing Order 50(6).
Standing Order 50(6) provides: “No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member.”
The words “improper motives” imply something illegal, dishonest or morally wrong. I have perused the relevant speeches recorded in Hansard and I find that the rent control statement does not suggest or impute any improper motive on the part of Mr Leong. Rent control is a legitimate policy tool that can be implemented by the Government – for that matter, any government.
There were exchanges between Mr Leong and Mr Murali in the House, where both parties explained and clarified the context of their speeches made in respect of the subject matter of the Bill on rental structures between landlords and tenants. Mr Leong had asked for my ruling on whether the clarifications by Mr Murali were at odds with his speech.
I do not intend to repeat the details of the exchanges that are fully recorded in Hansard but, looking at them in context and totality, I find that in his clarifications, Mr Murali did not impute any improper motives to Mr Leong.
Both Mr Leong and Mr Murali had differing views of what each meant when they referred to rent control, but that is the nature of Parliamentary exchanges and debates. Each Member sets out his or her position and, if a Member feels that he has been misunderstood, he can seek to clarify or differ with the other Member’s position. Mr Leong and Mr Murali were given full opportunity in Parliament to clarify and explain what they meant. During the exchanges, Mr Murali did not impugn the honesty, integrity or personal character of Mr Leong.
Such exchanges are part and parcel of normal debate in Parliament. Sometimes, Members’ opinions may be irreconcilable and they should agree to disagree. Their speeches, clarifications and explanations are published in Hansard for all to read and discern.
I will now ask the Clerks to distribute copies of Mr Leong’s complaint dated 16 August 2023 and Mr Murali’s response dated 23 August 2023 to Members. I have directed both documents to be published in Hansard. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
I will give some time for the documents to be distributed.
I am of the view that the statements of Mr Murali do not impute any improper motives to Mr Leong under Standing Order 50(6), that there was no misleading impression created and no breach of privilege has been made.
I consider the matter to be now closed.
Mr Leong, did you raise your hand?
Well, first, I should say that under Standing Order 56, my decision on any complaint is final and is not open to appeal. However, for this instance, I will make an exception.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for indulging me. I will respect your decision, your ruling. But I want to have the opportunity to ask hon Member Mr Murali Pillai a question. Is that okay?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I do no intend to open the debate again. I have stated my position. As you know, under the Standing Orders, no clarification is allowed. But if you do have a clarification for me, you can direct it to me. And I am making this as an exception.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I understand that Mr Speaker, Sir. Can I direct a question to you and the question is for hon Member Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Speaker: A clarification. I am not opening a debate.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, a clarification.
Mr Speaker: A clarification for me.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes. Because \"rent control\" is a very strong word.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I am making an exception for you. If you have a clarification to my decision, please ask me the clarification. I do not and I will not allow the debate to be opened again. What is your clarification?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify that you also agree that rent control was never said by me?
Mr Speaker: Is that your clarification?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Speaker: You may sit down. As I have stated, I am not reopening the debate. I have set out the context of the matter and I have made my decision on the complaint that you have registered. I will not repeat myself. If you are asking me for my personal decision, that is my personal decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Second Complaint by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. I also wish to inform hon Members that on 16 August 2023, I received a second written complaint from the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai.
This second complaint is in respect of certain off-mike remarks made by Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, about Mr Leong, during the simultaneous debate on the Motions on Securing Singaporeans’ Jobs and Livelihoods and Foreign Talent Policy on 14 September 2021. So, that is two years ago.
On 15 September 2021, in a telephone call to Mr Leong, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had apologised for those remarks and Mr Leong had acknowledged and accepted the apology on the same date. The apology and acceptance of the apology were published on both Members’ Facebook pages, and this was reported in the media.
Two years after the event, Mr Leong now wishes to have Minister Vivian Balakrishnan come to the House to formally withdraw his remarks and put his apology on record in the Hansard, either in writing or through a Personal Explanation at this Sitting of Parliament.
A copy of Mr Leong’s complaint was forwarded to Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, who responded through a letter on 5 September 2023. Both documents will also be distributed to Members after my announcement.
In my opinion, the complaint is out of time by reason of the long passage of time. It was not made at the earliest opportunity as required under Standing Order 100(7)(c) after the Member had notice of the alleged remark.
In my view, there is no formal action for me to take in this complaint. The matter having been taken to its conclusion with the Minister’s apology and Mr Leong’s acceptance of the apology almost two years ago, is now closed.
I note that in Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s letter of 5 September this year, he accepts, quite rightly, that his private comments were inappropriate and he stands by his previous apology to Mr Leong. His letter to me will be published in Hansard and therefore his position will also be on the Parliamentary record.
I will now ask the Clerks to distribute Mr Leong’s complaint and Minister’s response to Members. I have directed both documents to be published in Hansard. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Again, I will give Members some time to look through the documents.
Let me repeat – I have directed both documents that Members are receiving now to be published in Hansard.
I wish to remind hon Members that the use of unparliamentary, offensive or insulting language about Members will not be condoned by the Chair. There must be mutual respect among Members and debates must be conducted in a manner that maintains the highest standards of decorum and conduct befitting of Parliament. Any breach will be summarily dealt with by me or referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I will continue to safeguard the dignity and decorum of this Chamber. Besides the use of unparliamentary language, Members should not persistently and wilfully obstruct the business of Parliament and abuse the rules of Parliament, for example, by making frequent interruptions or disregarding the authority of the Chair. This is considered disorderly conduct under Standing Orders 58 and 59, and may result in the suspension of a Member.
I advise Members to refer to the Leader of the House’s handout on \"Upholding Proper Conduct In and Out of Parliament\" which was distributed at the Sitting on 18 April this year and also, my recent advisory on the rules of Parliament that was circulated to all Members on 14 August this year.
[(proc text) Hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai raised his hand. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, again, I have informed you – and for that matter, all Members – that under Standing Order 56, my decision on any complaint is final and is not open to appeal. Earlier on, I allowed you one clarification. I do not intend to allow further clarifications because I do not want to make the exception a norm, of allowing clarifications for any letter of complaint that I receive from any Member of the House.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Queries into and Lessons from Recent Billion-dollar Money Laundering Case","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how have recent offences including forgery and money laundering with an estimated value of about S$1 billion in cash and various assets come about in such magnitude despite Singapore's robust laws and anti-money laundering frameworks; and (b) what is being done to prevent future recurrence of such cases.
2 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many suspicious transaction reports have been made by financial institutions about suspicious activities in each of the past three years; and (b) how many of such reports have resulted in the Singapore Police Force (SPF) mounting a formal investigation.
3 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent case of money laundering activities where an estimated value of about $1 billion in assets are seized (a) what new anti-money laundering initiatives does the Government plan to introduce; and (b) how will the Government ensure that these measures do not inadvertently impede legitimate businesses in Singapore.
4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how will the Government step up checks on individuals from high-risk \"golden passport\" jurisdictions; and (b) whether and how Singapore’s anti-money laundering regime needs to be further tightened.
5 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the extent to which anti-money laundering checks are conducted on entities before the granting of incentives under section 13D, 13O or 13U of the Income Tax Act 1947; and (b) whether such incentives have been granted to any entities that are associated with the money-laundering case reported on 15 August 2023.
6 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what public education programmes are in place for Singaporeans and businesses to avoid falling prey to money laundering and forgery gangs; and (b) what role can the individual trade associations and chambers of commerce play in such public education programmes.
7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many of the properties issued with the prohibition of disposal orders in the $1 billion money laundering probe have restrictions on foreign ownership under the Residential Property Act 1976; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that private properties in Singapore are not used to launder illicit money.
8 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how do the security agencies work together to reduce the possibility of individuals entering Singapore under false identities or with criminal intent to conduct cross-border organised crimes; and (b) whether there has been an increase in cross-border organised crimes in the last five years.
9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what more can be done to prevent individuals under false identities or with criminal intent to conduct cross-border organised crimes from obtaining work, employment, or dependant passes.
10 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many money laundering and forgery related cases involving S$500 million and above have been reported; (b) whether the number of such cases correspondingly relate to the number of scams reported in Singapore within the same time period; and (c) if so, how does the SPF intend to work with other agencies like the Ministry of Communications and Information and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to tackle these crimes holistically.
11 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Home Affairs what additional steps can be taken to prevent individuals with criminal intent to conduct cross-border organised crimes from obtaining permanent residency under the programmes offered by the Economic Development Board.
12 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how have the Ministry’s agencies enhanced their AML capabilities; (b) what further improvements will be made; (c) whether there are plans to (i) strengthen the requirements and capabilities of non-banking industries for customer due diligence measures to prevent criminals from converting illegal proceeds into assets and (ii) enhance reporting of suspicious transactions by these industries for timelier intervention; and (d) how will collaboration with foreign authorities be deepened to detect and stem the movement of illegal proceeds into Singapore.
13 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are investigations currently being conducted on donations made to charity fundraising platforms; and (b) what proactive measures will the Charities Unit consider implementing to monitor and address potential fraudulent transactions on such charity fundraising platforms.
14 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider (i) expanding the digital platform titled “Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases” (COSMIC) to include information on high-risk transactions reported by entities other than financial institutions and (ii) partnering international financial and inter-governmental institutions outside of Singapore to develop anti-money laundering analytics.
15 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how has the recent high-profile money laundering probe affected Singapore’s reputation as a leading wealth management hub; and (b) how does Singapore’s efforts to combat money laundering compare with other leading wealth management jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Switzerland and the US.
16 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does MAS identify suspicious transaction reports to be indicators of a wider network of unlawful activity; (b) whether the existing detection measures in our financial system can be supplemented and enhanced to build our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing reputation; and (c) how does Singapore’s measures across MAS and other relevant agencies currently compare with other jurisdictions such as the US, UK, Australia, Hong Kong and UAE.
17 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Singapore is working towards full compliance on recommendations 22 and 23 of the Financial Action Task Force for designated non-financial businesses and professions such as real estate agents, dealers of precious metals and stones, legal and accounting professionals and trust and company service providers.
18 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last three years, how many individuals or entities have been investigated for failure to perform customer due diligence measures and internal control measures as per section 67 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992; and (b) arising from these investigations, how many individuals or entities have been convicted.
19 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the high-value assets seized during the anti-money laundering operation conducted on 15 August 2023, whether the Ministry will review current anti-money laundering laws to determine whether any amendments or enhancements are required to prevent similar cases in future.
20 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the high-value real estate properties seized during the anti-money laundering operation conducted on 15 August 2023, whether the Council of Estate Agencies (CEA) has reviewed the Customer Due Diligence measures that salespersons are required to undertake on their customers to determine whether the measures are sufficiently robust to prevent recurrences.
21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the immigration status of the ten foreign individuals who have been charged in the S$1 billion money laundering case; and (b) whether foreigners who are convicted of offences are permanently blacklisted from entering Singapore and, if not, why.
22 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the extent to which Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) are useful in uncovering suspected money laundering activities.
23 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how have surveillance and international partnerships between MAS and other regulators helped to prevent and take down money laundering syndicates; and (b) what are the further plans to strengthen Singapore’s anti-money laundering systems.
24 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are practical disparities between the implementation of AML protocols when executed by officers employed in MAS-regulated financial institutions versus real estate agents regulated by the CEA; and (b) if so, whether there has been consultation between CEA and MAS to harmonise protocols for AML.
25 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the granting of approvals to foreign nationals for the purchase of landed residential property (a) whether the Singapore Land Authority considers the link to money laundering or suspicious financially activity in its assessment; and (b) what are the considerations in being satisfied that the foreign national had made exceptional economic contribution as part of the criteria.
26 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has data on the number of individuals who have held directorial and secretarial roles in more than 100 companies concurrently in the past five years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider imposing a statutory limit on the number of companies a person may hold directorial and secretarial roles in.
27 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry provides quantitative guidelines on AML triggers for suspicious real estate transactions for the share of the proportion of payment made in cash; and (b) if not, why not.
28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the authorities are satisfied with the effectiveness of STRs filed in the past few years; and (b) if not, whether there will be enhancements to improve on the effectiveness of the STR or the early scrutiny of all STRs filed.
29 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of STRs that have been lodged in relation to money laundering activities for the last three years; (b) how many of the STRs were acted on; and (c) whether any changes need to be made to Singapore's anti-money laundering measures or their enforcement.
30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last five years, what proportion of real estate transactions reported to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office have been blocked; and (b) whether more can be done to block such transactions in order to better detect and prevent money laundering, terrorism financing and other serious crimes.
31 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what forms of background checks are conducted on foreigners and what are the processes that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has in place before it grants foreigners the approval to purchase landed residential properties in Sentosa Cove; and (b) whether the SLA will review its processes for conducting such checks.
32 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the recent anti-money laundering sting operation, whether there were red flag indicators raised before arrests were made.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 32 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: Many Members have filed queries on the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore’s anti-money laundering framework. The queries cover a wide range of issues across several Ministries. Several Members have also filed related queries for the Sittings on or after 19 September.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with various other Ministries, will respond to the queries comprehensively in a Ministerial Statement in October. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
\tMr Speaker: Yes. Before I call on Ms Poh Li San for the next question, I also want to also welcome Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap and Mr Liang Eng Hwa back to our Chamber. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigations into Alleged Mistreatment of Children at Centres of Preschool Chain","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"33 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether an update can be provided on the findings from investigations carried out into the alleged mistreatment of children at childcare centres run by a local preschool provider reported in August 2023; (b) how will the Early Childhood Education Agency improve the standards of childcare teachers and the overall safety for children attending childcare centres; and (c) how will whistle-blowers reporting alleged mistreatment of children at childcare centres be protected.
34 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what safeguards and regulations does the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) have in place to prevent potential child abuse by early childhood educators on children in the childcare centres.
35 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there is a whistleblowing platform for early childhood educators to report any potential wrongdoings at their childcare centres.
36 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the processes put in place in childcare centres to ensure toddlers in the centres' care are not abused and mistreated.
37 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the arrests of two preschool teachers for their suspected involvement in the ill-treatment of young children (a) what are the measures taken to address the situation promptly and thoroughly; (b) what is the Ministry’s broader strategy to cultivate a secure and nurturing environment in early childhood education institutions; and (c) what are the ongoing efforts to educate teachers, parents and students to recognise and report potential instances of abuse.
38 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the alleged abuse incidents at preschools (a) what mental health support and counselling services are being made available to the affected children and their families; and (b) how is the Ministry working with preschools to ensure that mental health protocols are in place to address any form of abuse or trauma experienced by children.
39 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the arrests of two preschool teachers for their suspected involvement in the ill-treatment of young children (a) what are the current protocols in place to screen and monitor teachers working with young children in preschools and daycare centres across the nation; and (b) whether there are any plans to strengthen these protocols to prevent the recurrence of such distressing events.
40 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider bringing forward the deadline for childcare centres and preschools to install closed-circuit television cameras.
41 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether ECDA is providing assistance or support to the children, their families and staff at the respective childcare centres who are affected by the incidents reported in August 2023; (b) if so, in what ways; and (c) whether ECDA will consider (i) reviewing its licensing conditions to require childcare centres operators and staff to report any suspected case of child mistreatment under their care directly to ECDA and (ii) measures to protect whistle-blower.
42 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Ministry’s position on the ban of the usage of personal devices by staff working in childcare centres and preschools; and (b) whether the Ministry will take action against those that have implemented such a ban.
43 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the penalties of $5,000 and reduced licence tenure are sufficient to discipline negligent preschool operators; and (b) whether there is a need to further enhance penalties under the relevant legislation and regulations.
44 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there will be a guide on acceptable management of children in preschools that is developed by ECDA together with teachers and parents.
45 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he will consider implementing mandatory psychological tests for the employment of caregivers of vulnerable persons like young children and the elderly, including (i) preschool teachers (ii) nursing home and senior care centre staff and (iii) helpers for home care.
46 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) when did ECDA start tracking the number of preschools that have CCTVs on their premises; (b) of the preschools with CCTVs installed, what is the proportion of preschools where CCTVs are installed in areas used by children; and (c) of the preschools under the anchor operator scheme, what is the proportion of preschools of each anchor operator that have installed CCTVs on their premises.
47 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the past three years, how many cases of rough handling or abuse at childcare centres were reported to ECDA for investigations; and (b) what proportion of such investigations eventually led to a dismissal or criminal conviction.
48 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how does ECDA protect early childhood educators who whistle-blow on malpractices that occur at their childcare centres; and (b) how does ECDA intend to boost the morale of the vast majority of exemplary early childhood educators who have been affected by the recent incidents reported in August 2023.
49 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there is a mandatory whistleblowing regime for early childhood educators to report any potential wrongdoings at their childcare centres; and (b) what is ECDA’s position on certain childcare centres banning the use of personal devices by staff.
50 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the recent incidents of alleged abuses in two preschools (a) how does ECDA intend to prevent similar incidents from happening in future; and (b) how does ECDA rationalise the actions it is taking while balancing the interests of all stakeholders in the preschools including parents, children, teachers, staff and preschool operators.
51 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there is a need to tighten ECDA’s supervisory regime and increase the frequency of its unannounced audit checks on childcare centres.
52 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether ECDA's current standard operating procedure requires the immediate suspension of a teacher accused of abusing a preschooler to prevent the teacher from being transferred to another childcare centre or working for a different operator while under investigation; and (b) if not, whether ECDA will consider doing so.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 33 to 52 on today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, my response will also cover related questions raised by Members which are scheduled for subsequent Sittings. I would invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be. If their questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with these questions for future Sittings.
Mr Speaker, when the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart incident first surfaced on social media, like many members of the public, parents and preschool educators, I was shocked and alarmed. The videos were painful to watch.
This incident and the others at the Kinderland centres should not have happened. Our children deserve to grow up, learn and play in a safe and nurturing environment and our 1,900 preschools and 24,000-strong team of preschool educators are committed to providing this safe and conducive environment, day in and day out.
What we saw is not reflective of the wider preschool sector. Many preschool educators have expressed shock and dismay. They have been dedicating their time and energies in caring for and nurturing our children, putting the children’s well-being as their top priority.
To prevent such incidents from happening, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will work closely with the preschool sector to strengthen our system of multi-layered safeguards which has been built up over the years.
As a sector regulator, ECDA sets out clear policies and requirements that establish the baseline for a safe and positive learning environment in our preschools. There are explicit provisions in the Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Act and Regulations which make clear what actions educators cannot subject children to. And this includes force feeding, corporal punishment – for example, striking a child or any other form of aggressive contact – neglecting the child and causing psychological trauma. These are prohibited actions.
ECDA has also issued a Code of Practice to further detail what preschools have to do to meet these requirements, while stipulating that educators’ interactions with children must be respectful, responsive and reciprocal to support our children’s learning and development. Educators must also use positive and developmentally appropriate methods to manage and communicate with children.
ECDA will take action against operators and educators found to have breached any of these requirements, whether in the Act, Regulations or Code of Practice. For educators, ECDA can issue warnings or bar them from working in the sector. For serious cases where there may be criminal wrongdoing, the case will be reported to the Police for investigation and the individual may be prosecuted in court. For operators, ECDA can impose financial penalties, shorten the preschool’s licence tenure, and in the worst case, revoke its licence.
ECDA recognises that it cannot work alone to safeguard children's safety in preschools. Our system of multi-layered safeguards requires operators, centres and educators to also do their part. Our Regulations thus make clear the obligations of operators, centres and educators in discharging their duty of care for children.
All operators are required by our Regulations to put in place standard operating procedures (SOPs) and appropriate policies within their centres to maintain a safe environment for our children. They must also ensure that these policies are implemented effectively and consistently by all their centres and staff.
Centres are responsible for complying with the policies and SOPs their operator has put in place to ensure child safety. Centre leaders need to ensure that all staff are aware of these rules. This is done during orientation and induction training, with further emphasis at regular staff meetings. They are also expected to carry out regular observations of staff-child interactions and provide timely feedback to the educators on their management of children, as well as intervene when necessary.
All educators must be certified by and registered with ECDA before they can be deployed in our preschools. ECDA verifies their professional qualifications and conducts background checks. If there are educators assessed to pose a risk to children’s safety, they will not be allowed to be deployed. This includes those with previous criminal offences involving children, as well as former educators whom ECDA has earlier barred from working in the preschool sector. ECDA also requires individuals seeking employment in the sector to declare if they have a history of mental illness, and if so declared, the individual must obtain a certification from a psychiatrist that he or she is suitable to work with young children. Like other jurisdictions and many other professions, we do not impose mandatory psychological screening.
We also ensure that our educators are well-trained and equipped to work effectively with young children. The training curriculum for educators strongly emphasises the educators’ responsibility to ensure child safety and equips them with a range of classroom management strategies to work effectively with young children. They learn about children’s developmental milestones and how to interact positively with them to meet their needs and support their holistic development.
The training also lays out what educators must not do, such as corporal punishment and inappropriate child management practices. They are taught that such actions are an offence under the ECDC Act and Regulations. They are also made aware that they can be liable under other laws such as the Children and Young Persons Act.
Moving forward, ECDA will work with the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) and other training providers to strengthen training programmes so that all educators are clear of their duty and obligations to ensure child safety. Apart from expanding coverage of positive child management strategies, training materials will be more explicit in what constitute inappropriate and prohibited methods. This will help our educators be better equipped to call out child mismanagement practices in their preschool.
As part of its enforcement approach, ECDA conducts regular unannounced visits to preschools to check on their compliance with regulatory requirements.
During such visits, officers observe the educators’ classroom management practices and their interactions with children, as well as assess whether the children appear well-adjusted and that the physical environment is safe. ECDA also checks that the centre has implemented policies and SOPs to ensure child safety and briefed their staff accordingly.
Unannounced visits to preschools are conducted on average once a year. More frequent unannounced checks are conducted for preschools that require close monitoring, due to a higher incidence of feedback or incidents. Where non-compliance or breaches are identified, follow-on checks are conducted to ensure that these are rectified.
As part of our system of multi-layered safeguards, there are clear rules on the requirement for incident reporting. As several Members have pointed out, this includes reporting by educators who witness child mismanagement in their centres.
The ECDC Act and Regulations impose a duty on all educators and preschool staff to report child mismanagement or abuse to ECDA. So, for example, if a child is abused at home and observed in the centre to be unusually withdrawn or displaying abrupt behavioural changes, the educator must report this to the authorities. Likewise, if a child is abused or mismanaged in the preschool, the educator is required to report it. Signs of child abuse and the obligation to report to ECDA are covered in the training curriculum for all educators.
At the same time, ECDA’s Code of Practice requires operators to implement a policy for internal reporting of wrongdoing. When an incident affecting the health and safety of children or involving alleged child mismanagement by any staff occurs, the operator must notify ECDA within 24 hours. And educators can also report directly to ECDA.
There are multiple reporting channels. Preschools are required to set up their own internal reporting mechanism, at both centre level and the operator level. There is also a direct reporting mechanism to ECDA via its hotline, email or website. Apart from reports from operators, ECDA also receives reports directly from educators.
ECDA will continue to reinforce awareness of reporting obligations and channels among the educators. It will also get operators to improve and clarify with all their staff what they need to do if they witness any wrongdoing and how to use the various reporting channels.
Some Members have asked about the use of personal mobile devices by staff, in relation to collecting evidence of wrongdoing. I wish to emphasise that any operator’s policy on use of personal mobile devices at work should not hinder their staff from reporting any wrongdoing in their centres. If so, this is a clear breach of the operator’s duty to implement an effective reporting mechanism and ECDA will take action against the operator.
Some Members have asked about the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in preschools. ECDA has announced that the installation of CCTV cameras will be made mandatory in all preschools from 1 July 2024. Members may wish to refer to ECDA’s 31 August 2023 media release for more information.
ECDA did not come to this decision lightly or in reaction to the recent spate of incidents. Since 2022, ECDA has been engaging the sector and in February 2023, it shared with preschools its plan to mandate CCTV cameras. Ms Hazel Poa asked if the deadline to install CCTVs could be brought forward. We fully recognise that some parents may be worried and want the CCTV cameras in place earlier. I fully understand that. However, it is important that we give the preschools the time needed to procure and install the CCTVs correctly so that CCTVs are installed in appropriate venues and the necessary protocols are in place to ensure that privacy of children and staff, even as we leverage on CCTV footages to improve security.
ECDA has provided the sector with a set of guidelines to facilitate implementation and we encourage centres who can achieve the CCTV mandate earlier to do so. So, please install CCTVs earlier, if you can.
\t
To Mr Louis Chua’s question on ECDA’s tracking of preschools with CCTVs, I wish to clarify that ECDA does not track this as CCTV cameras are currently not mandated and it would be unfair for us to track something which is not stipulated. In our earlier engagements, ECDA conducted a one-off survey last year to seek centres’ views on the CCTV mandate, which included the question on whether they have CCTVs.
Ultimately, operators need to foster a strong safety culture where all staff always feel empowered to report to their principal and HQ management team when they see inappropriate practices in their preschools.
Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked about the frequency of child mismanagement incidents. There are about 10 substantiated cases per 100,000 enrolled children each year and this figure has remained low and stable over recent years. But, of course, every case is one too many and when an incident of child mismanagement happens, ECDA takes it seriously and will take appropriate action. ECDA has established protocols that ensure that every report received, regardless of whether there are visible injuries or not, is promptly followed up on. At the same time, there is a due process in any investigation and time will be needed to ensure the investigation is thorough, robust and objective.
For the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case, investigations by ECDA commenced the day after the video footages were received. There was thus no delay in the commencement of investigations. Members can refer to ECDA’s 4 September 2023 media release on the investigation outcomes and subsequent follow-ups. While the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case was followed up promptly, ECDA has acknowledged and apologised for a lapse where the educator ought to have been removed from classroom duties sooner, given the clear evidence and severity of the educator’s actions. We will learn from this case. ECDA is reviewing its procedures to strengthen this protocol and ensure better oversight of cases under investigation.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the adequacy of the regulatory actions for the Kinderland cases. When determining the appropriate penalties, ECDA takes into account all the facts of the case and imposes a penalty that is proportionate to the circumstances.
When considering what action to take against errant educators, ECDA can impose administrative actions like warnings or stern reminders, coupled with a requirement to undergo retraining. This is what it did for some of the educators in the recent Kinderland cases. If an educator commits a serious act of mismanagement, ECDA can bar the person from working in the preschool sector, as per one of the educators in the Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart case. This educator has also been charged in Court.
For operators that fail to adopt reasonably practicable measures to ensure that their centres and staff comply with the applicable regulations, ECDA may impose financial penalties, shorten the centre’s licence tenure or revoke its licence. For Kinderland @ Woodlands Mart, the operator was fined $5,000 and this is the maximum permitted under current laws. It also had its licence tenure reduced to six months. The shortened licence will impact the centre’s operations, as it will influence parents’ decision to enrol their child at the centre in the coming year. ECDA has also withdrawn the centre’s Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification.
Mr Speaker, Sir, colleagues, the current regulatory framework came into effect only in 2019. With the experience gained in operationalising this regulatory framework, ECDA intends to strengthen the framework and review the provisions to see if penalties imposed on operators for child mismanagement should be enhanced, including whether financial penalties should be raised.
As I have said at the beginning, the incidents at Kinderland should not have happened and are not representative of the vast majority of preschool educators. They have worked tirelessly to care for our children and provide them with a safe space to play, to learn, to grow.
I am grateful that Members such as Mr Melvin Yong have acknowledged that most educators are exemplary and that we ought to boost their morale as they have been affected by the recent incidents. These are educators who, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, showed up every day for work at our preschools. They provided an essential service to our frontliners and essential workers, who in turn kept Singapore going because they knew their children were in the good hands of our educators. I am glad to see that parents share this sentiment as well over the past few weeks, both online and in forum letters.
I agree with Ms Victoria Soen Minyi, a parent who wrote to The Straits Times which was published on 8 September 2023: \"We should not forget about the rest of the teachers who have been doing their job well. There are many passionate, wonderful teachers in our midst.” We should not let the errant acts of a few tarnish the good work of the whole.
ECDA is doing their part to improve the career proposition and working conditions of preschool educators. In October 2022, ECDA announced efforts to uplift salaries of educators to be market-competitive and commensurate with their growing competencies. We do so because we recognise and take pride in the improvements in the training and professionalism of our 24,000-strong workforce over the years and we want to retain the good quality educators that we have and attract more to join. We have worked with Government-funded operators to implement the increases in salaries this year and will continue to do so in 2024. ECDA also provides resources for educators to take charge of their professional development, deepen their expertise and plan for career advancement.
Some Members are concerned that the workload is heavy and contributes to stress on educators which can lead to adverse incidents. I thank Members for their concern. ECDA has been taking steps to improve working conditions. One major shift we announced in July this year was the removal of the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays. This is to enable educators to have better work-life balance and sufficient rest to recharge. This will take place from 1 January 2025.
More moves are also being planned, such as ECDA’s review of preschools’ practices on non-contact time. This is to provide educators respite during working hours to refresh and complete non-teaching tasks. The outcome of the review will be shared with the sector soon.
We will need the support of parents to operationalise these improvements in work conditions for the sector. Teachers who are cared for can better care for our children. At the same time, operators must also do their part and take the lead in supporting the well-being of their employees. We encourage educators who may feel overwhelmed to have open communication with their centre leaders or management on their work commitments and well-being.
To help operators support their employees, ECDA has launched a Good Practices Guide to guide them in implementing best workplace and human resources practices to foster a supportive work environment and support the well-being of their staff. ECDA also works with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Workplace Safety and Health Council to offer programmes to operators and educators to support their overall well-being.
Mr Speaker, I have met many teachers who have devoted their time and energies to raising our children with love, while putting their well-being as a top priority. I fully understand that it is not easy to care for young children, but it is our teachers’ passion and commitment that spur them to stay the course. Our children’s well-being is at the heart of what they do every day.
The recent spate of incidents of child mismanagement are not a reflection of the state of the preschool sector and educators. In our continuous efforts to ensure the safety of our children and support their growth and development in a positive and nurturing environment, we will learn from recent incidents to strengthen our system of preventing child mismanagement cases.
First, ECDA will strengthen its investigation protocol to ensure better oversight of cases under investigation. Second, we will enhance our regulatory framework, which includes a review of the penalty provisions for errant operators. Third, we will work with NIEC and training providers to strengthen educator training in both prohibited and positive child management strategies so that educators are better equipped to ensure child safety.
We have a system of multi-layered safeguards. Let us work together to strengthen it – ECDA, operators, preschools, educators and parents – to provide a safe and nurturing environment for our children to learn and thrive.
\tMr Speaker: There are 26 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) filed on this matter by 18 Members, so I will give priority to the 18 Members who have filed PQs. Can I request all Members to keep your supplementary questions short and likewise, for Minister of State Sun Xueling to keep her answers short. Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister of State Sun Xueling for the comprehensive clarification. On behalf of concerned and affected parents, I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, CCTVs are useful as a deterrent and for investigation, but they will not be fool-proof to prevent child abuse. First question – will ECDA and preschool operators implement programmes to build trust in parents and stronger rapport with teachers? Also, will ECDA provide guidance to parents to detect signs of unusual behaviour in their children that may indicate child mismanagement or abuse and also to update them on the reporting channels?
The second question pertains to preschool teachers facing a heavy workload to teach, prepare lesson plans and reports. Many centres are also short of staff and they face a heavy workload caring for special needs children. Will ECDA introduce a time-out system for teachers who are facing burn-out or mental health issues without being penalised?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. As I have mentioned in my main response, we have a system of multi-layered safeguards. We are not singularly relying on the installation of CCTVs in order to ensure the safety of our children. I have mentioned in my main reply the obligations of operators, centres, centre leaders as well as educators. Our educators also undergo training, pre-service and in-service, to know what are prohibited actions and also what are appropriate child management strategies.
I note the point that the Member has made with regards to the feedback loop with parents. Currently, different centres are employing different digital solutions in order to have an efficient and effective feedback loop with parents. Recently, I visited a preschool under Babilou and they showed me how they have used digital solutions such as a software to monitor their engagements with parents, that feedback with parents, so as to build trust in parents towards their preschool educators.
On the point about no-contact time, I have mentioned in my main response that ECDA is reviewing this area so that we ensure that our preschool educators have sufficient rest, that they are able to make use of this no-contact time to achieve a better work-life balance and also for them to engage in other activities that will help them in their teaching requirements.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I would like to find out what is the Ministry's view on requiring the installation of audio recorders, instead of CCTV cameras, to cover blind spots in preschools such as bathrooms and changing rooms so as to detect and even deter cases of mistreatment?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. I fully understand that where she is coming from is to make sure that we do what we can to ensure child safety. But, at the same time, I would like to caution against excessive use of digital devices to monitor the ongoings in schools. We are already taking a first step with CCTV installations, and we will be very careful in how we install, where we install the CCTVs. For instance, we will put them in places where the children regularly engage with their teachers – in classrooms, at very important access areas – and we will steer clear of private areas such as the toilets and rest areas, because we also have to ensure that the privacy of the children and staff are taken of. There are many parents who feel strongly about this as well.
\t
I would like to say that rather than for us to think whether it is better to have a CCTV camera or an audio recorder, so on and so forth, what is important is that we must inculcate from top to bottom – from the operator, centre leaders at the centres down to the educators – this entire concept around child safety, that they live and breathe child safety, that they know what practising child safety means and that they know how to recognise signs of abuse.
So, I would rather that we spend time educating our teachers, be it pre-service or in-service, rather than overly rely on digital means to monitor actions. Some parents and teachers may feel that having audio recorders in the toilet may be an invasion of privacy. So, I would just like to share that this is the thinking. But we will monitor, with the installation of CCTVs, how the responses of educators and parents are and we will be fully committed to ensuring that we provide a safe and nurturing environment for our students as well as our teachers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is: when exactly did ECDA decide to mandate the installation of CCTVs in preschools? Second, does ECDA know which preschools have or do not have CCTVs installed? For context, the reason why I am asking is because, in July, in response to be Parliamentary Question or PQ, it was shared that CCTVs are not mandatory. Yet, in the 31 August 2023 ECDA response and as shared by the Minister of State, this is something which was planned since last year. Secondly, I think the Minister also shared then that ECDA does not track CCTV installations. Yet, in ECDA's release, it was also said that more than 60% of preschools already have them installed.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. ECDA has been engaging preschools on the issue of CCTV installation. I mentioned in my reply that they started engaging preschools last year. There was a one-off survey whereby the schools were asked to indicate whether they have CCTVs installed. But there is a difference between conducting a one-off survey to understand where the sector was at that point in time, as opposed to tracking and monitoring.
As I have said in my main response, CCTV installation was not a mandated policy before. Therefore, it would be unfair for us to run after the centres to ask them whether they have installed. Then the follow-up question from that would seem to be, \"If you have not installed, then does it mean that it is a bad thing?\" So, we do not track and monitor the pace as well as which preschools have installed because this was not a mandated policy before. But now that we have announced that it will be mandatory, we will be working with the operators moving forward, after the installation deadline, to ensure that they comply.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for answering my question about the CCTV deadline. I understand that the operators will need some time to install the CCTVs. But in this case, the timeframe that is given to them of close to one year appears to me a bit excessive. Can the Minister of State explain why it is not possible for them to install the CCTVs in a timeframe of closer to like three to four months?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her clarification question. As I have mentioned, we announced the deadline for the installation of CCTVs to be 1 July next year. Currently, already 60% of preschool operators have CCTVs and it is almost 100% for EI centres. What we want to do when we announced a policy and something that is mandatory is that we must ensure that operators on the ground are fully equipped to be able to do it appropriately and properly. As I have mentioned in my main response, operators will need time to procure their CCTVs. They will need time to identify where the appropriate places are to install the CCTVs. To this end, ECDA has actually issued a set of guidelines to guide the operators as to where it would be appropriate to install the CCTVs. Of course, if the operators have questions, ECDA will be on hand to be able to engage them to address any concerns that they have.
Over and above that, operators must also have relevant protocols in place and also share that with parents so that parents know under what kind of situations it will be appropriate to ask for CCTV footages and what they can expect the response from the preschools to be. At the end of the day, while we have set a mandated timeline, we are encouraging operators who are able to do so earlier, to do so earlier, because we fully recognise the concerns of parents.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must first declare that I am also a parent of a preschool-going toddler. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first pertains to ECDA's reduction of Kinderland's licence tenure of up to six months and I understand that ECDA will not hesitate to not renew the licence if the centre fails to demonstrate significant improvements. Assuming in the event the licence is not renewed, I understand that the burden will be on the preschool to facilitate and make arrangements for parents to enrol their children in alternate centres. Under such circumstances, I believe that the relationship would have really soured and there will be a lot of mistrust between the centre operators and the parents. I, therefore, hope that ECDA will, under such circumstances, intervene and assist the many helpless parents.
My second supplementary question is in relation to the recent announcements of the mandatory CCTV installations. Following the announcements, some parents still do raise their concerns and share with me that there may be possibilities where the CCTV footages may be tampered with prior to the review of the parents of the affected children, or that there will be situations where the alleged child mismanagement incident actually took place at a blind spot or areas that are not captured by the CCTV. How would ECDA ensure that such parents' concerns are properly addressed?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. Please rest assured that ECDA will stand ready to assist parents of affected preschoolers if they so wish to transfer to another school. Right now, ECDA is already part of the discussions. And I understand that if Kinderland is not able to help parents transfer their children, these parents can write in to ECDA and ECDA will do its best to find placements for their children.
On the second point, it will be an offence to tamper with CCTV footage. The intent to have the CCTV footage to ensure the security and safety of the children is very obvious. So, if any operator were to tamper with the footage because they want to obscure or cover up wrongdoing, please rest assured that the authorities will take firm action against such operators.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I note that there have been efforts to recruit mid-careerists and persons who have not worked in childcare services to join this industry not only as teachers or educators, but as educarers and even service staff. What has ECDA put in place in the training and assessment of these new joiners to this industry and are these training efforts uniform across all preschools? In the event that there are complaints against these new joiners, what are the steps that ECDA will put in place to ensure that our new joiners are sufficiently protected in the investigation process, given that they could be new and inexperienced on the job?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the questions. Regardless of whether it is a new graduate from one of our local schools joining the sector or a mid-career individual who has decided to join the early childhood sector, there is available pre-service training and there are also continuous professional development courses, in other words, in-job training. Our operators also have obligations to provide orientation programmes to induct and socialise new staff on the values, mission, expectations and attitudes that staff should have when they join the preschool sector. Operators are also required to conduct ongoing training and provide development opportunities for staff to maintain their knowledge of child-safe policies and also their expected standards of care and appropriate behaviours in relation to children.
I had mentioned in my main response that as part of our regular review and the lessons that we will learn from these unfortunate incidents, that ECDA will be working closely with NIEC and other training providers to strengthen training for our educators, whether or not these are new joiners, recent graduates or these are staff who have converted, moved from another industry into the preschool sector.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a couple of questions for the Minister of State. Before that, I would like to declare my interest as being on the Exco of an anchor operator in the early childhood space.
The Minister of State mentioned earlier about protocols regarding the use of CCTVs. Could I just have clarity whether or not the protocol guidelines will be given by ECDA and then the various operators will be allowed to come up with their own protocols following these guidelines? Or will ECDA be prescriptive of the guidelines and expect the operators to actually follow those guidelines in detail?
The second question is: I understand that perhaps in MOE schools, they also have CCTVs that are being used and I am assuming that MOE would have protocols with regard to when and how such CCTVs will be used and accessed when parents come and request for them. Would ECDA consider consulting or engaging with MOE to find out what the protocols there are and perhaps apply them in their guidelines, be it prescriptive or just general guidelines, to the operators in the early childhood space?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his clarifications. I would like to refer Members to the media release that was issued by ECDA on 31 August 2023. This is with regard to the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in preschools. I have also shared in my main response earlier that ECDA has actually issued guidelines to preschools to be able to guide them as to where the appropriate places to install the CCTVs as well as what are the protocols in place for their engagements with parents should parents wish to view the CCTV footage.
\tMr Speaker: There are still many Members who have raised your hands. I will come to you but I am giving priority to those who have filed questions today, in their order. So, Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Minister of State for giving the data on the prevalence of such incidents in the childcare space, at I think 10 per 100,000, and staying at that level is encouraging.
However, could I get a sense from the Minister of State what have been the ramifications in these 10-odd cases a year in terms of the range of the highest penalty of a fine of $5,000 to actions taken on the school teachers, because I think it is important to communicate to the public that not only are the incidences low, but that concrete action is taken on each and every single one of them?
\t
\t
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. As I have mentioned in my main reply, the penalties that have been imposed on the operator include a financial penalty of $5,000 and this is the maximum allowed under the current framework.
I have also shared that ECDA, arising from this case, will be reviewing the framework to see whether the financial penalty is sufficient and if need be, we will be looking to raise this financial penalty.
This operator has also had its Centre's licence reduced to six months. This is a very important, serious penalty because it can affect the impressions that parents have towards the preschool. Do they still want to continue sending their child to a preschool whereby their licence tenure is only six months?
At the same time, this operator is a Partner Operator (POP) Scheme operator. And to receive POP funding, they would have to meet various key performance indicators (KPIs). And one of them is their Centre's licence and their licensing tenure will also be a key factor when ECDA looks at funding for the operator.
At the same time, as the Member has mentioned, there are specific actions towards the individuals who have now been charged for ill treatment of children. ECDA has barred one of the educators from ever working in the childcare sector. This individual is now being charged in Court for a criminal offence under the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) for ill treatment of children.
So, we have to look at it as a whole. There are different levels of penalties, financial penalties. There are also directions for the operator whereby they have to assemble a team of non-affiliated members and provide an independent review, with findings and recommendations as to how they can do better to ensure that these incidents do not happen in their centres again.
So, we need to look at, holistically, all the penalties and all the actions that ECDA has taken towards the operator; and also, there is obviously the Courts and the Police who are separately investigating the educator.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her answers. I would like to ask if ECDA is closely monitoring the staffing levels at all our preschools, especially the attrition rate. Because I feel that insufficient manpower and high staff attrition can be potential red flags, signalling the poor work environment at our preschool centres.
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. ECDA has been working very hard at trying to encourage more well-meaning individuals, dedicated individuals, to join the preschool sector. And as I have mentioned in my main response, we have raised salaries, we are trying to improve work conditions. All these would have to be done in tandem with the support of parents. Because when we reduce childcare service provision hours, cutting back from working on Saturdays, for instance, we also need the agreement and cooperation from parents.
So, in answer to the Member's question, ECDA is closely monitoring the state of our manpower, women power of the childcare industry to ensure that our early childhood educators are appropriately remenerated, that there is a skills ladder, that they have a work-life balance. And this is continuous work-in-progress. We are closely monitoring the status of the childcare sector.
\tMr Speaker: Before I call on Dr Wan Rizal, I just want to let Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Don Wee know that I have noted that you have raised your hand. I will come to you later. Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for sharing her replies. I share her sentiments too on how our preschool educators have worked really hard and they were especially instrumental during the COVID-19 period.
At the same time, I also understand that looking after kids in a classroom setting with varied abilities, does give them an extra burden. In that respect, I would like to ask what is the kind of mental health support that we provide to preschool educators. I understand that for them, with their tight schedules, it is pretty difficult to set up such an arrangements. But with this incident, perhaps, we can move forward and come out with a clear protocol and support that is required for them.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his concerns on the well-being of our preschool educators. As I have mentioned in my main reply, there are different levels in which we are trying to handle this issue.
First and foremost, we must, at the centre level, make sure that our educators have an outlet, have a channel, to be able to share with their centre leaders their concerns with their work, commitments and responsibilities and if there are any difficulties that they may have. That is why in my main reply, I have said that operators must do their part and take the lead in supporting the well-being of their educators.
At the same time, we are not leaving it as that. ECDA has launched a good practices guide to guide our operators in implementing best workplace and human resources practices to foster a supportive work environment. And ECDA is also working with HPB and the Workplace Safety and Health Council to offer programmes to operators and educators to support their overall well-being.
But over and above what ECDA can do and should do, over and above what operators have to do for their educators, I also hope to reach out to parents that in our engagements with preschool educators, to trust that they are doing their best for our children, to work with them closely to ensure that our children are thriving and growing up in a warm, nurturing environment. Let us all remember that teachers who are well cared for can better care for our children.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to ask my question again because it was not fully answered and I also have one supplementary question.
Can ECDA require all preschools to adopt a child protection policy and provide a template to all preschools to customise to their own needs? A child protection policy will articulate the minimum standards laid out in Government regulations and may also include additional safeguarding commitments that are tailored to the school's unique circumstances. It will help all stakeholders to live and breathe child safety, as Minister of State Sun has said just now.
My supplementary question is: is the Minister of State aware that a child protection policy not only protects children but also protects teachers and schools from unwarranted accusations by parents and students by setting clearer boundaries for all parties in their interactions with each other?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. I would like to reiterate that in my main response, I had talked about the multi-layered safeguards that we have in place, that we have built up over the years in order to ensure child safety. I have with me here three sets of documents that govern early childhood development as well as the various policies that are in place to protect our children. This is the ECDC Act that I mentioned, 65 pages. We have the regulations, 66 pages. We have a Code of Practice; this is in its second edition, 75 pages.
All these are policies which we constantly review, which we constantly engage industry and operators on. It is not for a lack of policies. We can have all the policies under the sun, in the world. But what is important is how well it is being executed on the ground.
So, I fully recognise and understand where the Member is coming from. We are all on the same page. We want to protect our children as best as possible and we believe that the best way to do this is, to have multi-layered safeguards. Therefore, ECDA will look at these policies, rely on these levers, to make sure that operators, centres, educators are doing what they should do to ensure child safety. At the same time, operators need to know and truly breathe child safety in their policies and SOPs. Centre leaders and educators have to take their responsibilities seriously.
On the Member's question as to how we can ensure that not only our children's safety is being taken care of but also that we have policies in place for our educators, that is precisely why we have mandated CCTV installation so that when there is feedback, that there are unfortunate incidents in the childcare centres, that we then have evidence to support investigations and be able to give a comprehensive response to parents should they have concerns about their child's safety in preschools.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recall that the Minister of State had mentioned that there was a survey done on the use of CCTV by preschools. May I ask when was this survey done and how many preschools were involved in the survey?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. I believe it was June last year. It was definitely last year, but I cannot remember which month. To the best of my recollection, it was in June last year. But I can come back and clarify that with the Member again, after I further check it.
Like I mentioned, it was a status check. It was just to get a sense of where the preschools are. So, it was not a survey that each and every centre responded to. So, for instance, an Anchor Operator (AOP) might have many centres beneath them. So, the AOP from their headquarters responded as to whether they have CCTVs installed. But like what I mentioned earlier, because CCTV isolation was not mandatory at that point in time when we conducted the survey, we did not go down to track and monitor the results or the inputs that they provided through the survey.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. Earlier in her statement, the Minister of State emphasised that ECDA do not currently impose psychological screening on preschool educators.
I would like to ask the reason for that. And in line with our common belief that in such cases, prevention is always going to be better than any kind of penalty or remedial action. Does ECDA see the value of putting in place some form of assessment or screening, if not every single preschool educator but at least to the business owners who want to apply for licences and the principals who are running centres? Because the culture of what it means to respect a child is something that needs to come from the leader of centres.
I agree fully with the Minister of State that the preschool teachers need to live and breathe the values and the beliefs of always protecting and respecting a child. I think the enforcement route is necessary, but we should not fall back only on the enforcement route to effectively prevent such cases.
So, my second question is, will ECDA consider putting in a mandatory screening or at least a mindset screening assessment to future or existing current operators and principals to ensure that they are in line with a culture of respect for the child in terms of running their centres and expecting the same of their preschool teachers?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her question. I fully understand where she is coming from and I also know that there many parents out there who are very concerned about the safety of their children.
I had mentioned in my main reply that all educators must be certified by and registered with ECDA before they can be deployed in our preschools. ECDA verifies their professional qualifications. We also conduct background checks, reference checks. And, at the end of day, if there are educators who assessed to pose a risk to children's safety, then, they will not be allowed to enter the preschool sector as an educator.
On the specific question of mandatory psychological screening, I would like to say that this is not done in other jurisdictions and this is not done for other professions. While we fully appreciate the importance placed on child safety and we are taking a firm stance on child safety by having those pre-employment checks that I mentioned earlier for criminal antecedents, whether they have bad references and they must be certified fit and appropriate to work for the sector.
\t
\t
But I would caution against mandatory psychological screening. Because if we take a step back, I think we must also fully recognise that there are individuals – some say that there are many individuals – out there who may be struggling with mental health conditions and, actually, their mental health conditions can be well managed with proper advice, medication from their doctors. So, I do not think that we should exclude these individuals who have mental health conditions if those mental health conditions are well managed from entering the preschool sector.
I would also like to share that currently there is a self-declaration form that potential educators have to fill up and this self-declaration form requires them to fill in whether or not they have mental health conditions and if they so declare that they have mental health conditions, then there will be need for a certification by a psychiatrist that they are able to work with young children.
So, I think that is the balance that we have to put in place to ensure child safety while ensuring that we do not stigmatise mental health conditions in our society.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I have two supplementary questions, both pertaining to CCTVs. I will begin by acknowledging that the Ministry has indicated that they will comply with PDPA stipulations. That said, I think there are still concerns when it comes to children.
For starters, children are generally unable to grant consent or to withdraw it and so one is left to wonder how the Ministry will finesse this issue of obtaining consent along PDPA guidelines. Similarly, do the guidelines limit access to footage, for example, how long such footage is stored and whether deleted footage is actually verified?
My second supplementary question is with regard to the response that the Ministry had put up in terms of the press release – where they stated that a 100% of early intervention centres had already installed CCTVs. Earlier on, Minister of State Sun also explained that it was a survey and, hence, it was unclear whether we could be certain about the statistics. How then is she so sure that a 100% of these early intervention centres, indeed, had implemented CCTVs?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. First and foremost, as shared in the media release by ECDA on the 31 August with regards to the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras, ECDA had shared that parents' access to CCTV footages will only be granted for the purposes of providing an objective reference point to clarify feedback or to assist the investigation of serious incidents within the preschool premises and the request has to be on reasonable grounds.
I understand where the Member is coming from, as to concerns about the privacy of children and that is why when viewing the footage, there is actually a requirement for the faces of the children and the staff who are not part of the investigation and inquiry into the specific instance whereby the parent has given feedback, for the faces of these children and educators to have their faces masked. So, this is a requirement. We will make it very clear to our operators and that is why we have issued guidelines to the operators. And the operators will also be sharing this with parents, so parents know what the boundaries around the viewing of footages with regards to the CCTV are.
On the Member's second question, like I mentioned, the survey was done as a part of various engagements that ECDA did with the preschool operators last year on a variety of issues, of which CCTV installation was one of them. We will have to take the survey responses as they are. I am very sure the survey respondents know that they would have to provide the feedback to the best of their knowledge and that they really should not be providing dishonest inputs to an ECDA-conducted survey.
But that said, I recognise the Member's concerns that even though some preschools may say that they have CCTVs but in actual fact, they may not and that is why we have mandated the CCTV installation by the 1 July. Please rest assured that because it is mandated, there will then be checks as well as monitoring on CCTV installation.
\tMr Speaker: We have been at this important matter for over an hour. I am just going to allow one more supplementary question, so that we can move on to the other PQs. Mr Don Wee.
\tMr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Member Zhulkarnain and myself have many young residents who are studying at Kinderland Choa Chu Kang. But at the same time, we also have residents who are teaching at the same centre. One told me that many preschool teachers are demoralised.
What is Ministry's view of certain operators banning mobile phone devices of the preschool teachers in classrooms and would this discourage whistle-blowing? At the same time, does ECDA have a hotline for the preschool teachers to call so that they can whistle-blow, or they have a listening ear to turn to?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. As I have said in my main response earlier, any operator's policy on the use of personal mobile devices at work should not hinder their staff from reporting from any wrongdoing in their centres.
That said, there can be good reasons why educators may need their mobile devices. For instance, they may need to address an emergency that has happened at home and, as I have mentioned, they may need their personal mobile device to record any wrongdoing. So, in these incidents, in such situations, the operator should allow the educator to use their personal mobile device. So, while some operators have a policy on the use of personal mobile devices, it has to be a reasonable one.
I have also mentioned in my main reply that there are various channels for anyone to report wrongdoing – members of the public, educators – there are hotlines, email addresses in which any member of the public and educator can report wrongdoing. And these channels do lead to ECDA.
So, I would like to assure the Member that there are multiple channels of reporting for wrongdoing and that members of the public, educators, parents, they can do so and we would encourage them to do so if they have reasonable concerns about their children's safety.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Question No 59? Sorry, Mr Speaker, can I take both Question Nos 59 and 60.
I think you may want the Ministry of National Development (MND) questions to be moved first? Speaker, there is Question No 53 that you may want to call on first, maybe? But I am okay if you want to do Question No 59.
\tMr Speaker: You are right. Question No 53. Sorry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social and Fiscal Impact from Introduction of Plus and Prime HDB Flats ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"53 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development how will new HDB BTO projects with Plus flats, in conjunction with existing Standard and Prime flats, improve social mix in HDB estates, improve affordability for buyers of new flats, and keep the system fair for all Singaporeans.
54 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development what is the anticipated fiscal impact arising from additional taxpayer subsidies extended to Prime and Plus HDB flats under the new HDB BTO flat classification system.
55 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development given the recent policy shifts announced in Budget 2023 and the National Day Rally 2023, how much more does the Government expect to spend each year on housing subsidies and grants to support home ownership for (i) Plus BTO projects (ii) singles in any BTO location across Singapore and (iii) resale HDB flats, respectively.
56 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development given the lower subsidies that will be applied to Plus BTO flats compared to Prime BTO flats, whether the Government will consider further calibrating the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) of Plus flats to shorter than 10 years to set a clearer distinction in sale and resale conditions between Plus and Prime flats.
57 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development (a) in light of the policy shift to allow singles to own two-room BTO flats in all locations, whether there will be more two-room flats offered in future Plus and Prime BTO projects; (b) if so, how will the Government ensure sufficient supply of bigger flats for couples and families in these projects; and (c) what are the Government's principles and parameters towards providing a fair chance for all Singaporeans to own Plus and Prime BTO flats.
58 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether it is projected that changes to the framework for HDB BTO projects will result in (i) lower sale prices for flats categorised as Prime flats and (ii) buyers of such flats enjoying a larger gain when the Prime flats are sold; and (b) whether the age limit for singles to buy HDB BTO flats can be reduced.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 53 to 58 on today's Order Paper?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Desmond Lee: Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the questions by Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry1, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Pritam Singh, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I invite Members to ask clarifications, if need be and if the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.
At the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee announced a new framework for new public housing flats. From the second half of 2024, Build-To-Order (BTO) projects will be offered under Standard, Plus or Prime models based on their locational attributes, rather than whether they are in mature estates or non-mature estates. This new framework reflects the Government’s commitment to achieve affordable homeownership, a good social mix, and a fair system. These objectives were affirmed through our engagements with more than 16,000 Singaporeans over the past year as part of our Forward Singapore Housing Conversations.
Under the new framework, we will launch Standard, Plus and Prime flats. Standard flats are public housing flats built all over Singapore – the BTO flats we know today. They will come with the Housing and Development Board (HDB)’s standard subsidies and standard restrictions. Plus flats are in choicer locations within a region and will have more subsidies and tighter restrictions than Standard flats. Prime flats are in the choicest and most central locations in Singapore, will have the most subsidies and the tightest restrictions. Let me elaborate on how this new framework keeps public housing affordable, maintains a good social mix and keeps the system fair.
Sir, first, the new framework keeps homeownership affordable. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan had asked, HDB keeps BTO flats affordable by pricing them with significant discounts off their market value. However, flats in choice locations come with higher market values due to their attractive locational attributes. Without additional subsidies over and above that for flats in other locations, the prices of such choice flats would be higher and would be out of reach for some Singaporeans.
We heard many suggestions during our engagements, including imposing a hard price cap on Prime and Plus flats as suggested by Mr Xie Yao Quan. But setting a hard cap can be distortionary, as prices may then not fully reflect the attributes of the flats. Instead, we will provide additional subsidies on top of the significant market discounts already provided for Standard flats, to make these choice flats more affordable to Singaporeans from a wider range of incomes. On top of these market discounts, we provide progressive grants through the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) to eligible first-timer homebuyers, to provide more support to those who need it most.
Second, the new framework seeks to maintain a good social mix in HDB estates across Singapore. Given that Plus and Prime flats come with higher subsidies, we will impose tighter restrictions on these flats. These restrictions include an income ceiling upon resale. In response to Mr Chong Kee Hiong's question, the income ceiling applied upon resale takes reference from the prevailing BTO income ceiling at the time of resale. Today, this is $14,000 for families and covers eight in 10 Singaporean households. The Government regularly reviews the BTO income ceiling over time to account for income growth.
We will also offer a variety of flat types across Prime and Plus projects to meet the different budgets and needs of Singaporeans. To ensure that our neighbourhoods remain inclusive, we will continue to build rental flats in integrated blocks where possible, as suggested by Mr Xie Yao Quan, including in future Prime and Plus projects. In fact, we did this for River Peaks I, which is the first Prime Location Public Housing project that we had launched in November 2021.
Some have asked if this new framework might cause our society to stratify further. In fact, on the contrary, this new framework seeks to achieve quite the opposite. Without the new framework, flats in choice locations will likely become more expensive and out of reach for many Singaporeans over time because of their good location and good attributes. By launching them as HDB Prime or HDB Plus flats, the additional subsidies and tighter restrictions, including the income ceiling upon resale, will help to moderate demand for such flats and keep prices affordable to Singaporeans from a wider range of income levels. Alongside a mix of flat types, these measures enable us to maintain a good social mix.
Let me provide an example of how the Plus model will help to make BTO flats more affordable. In today's market conditions, a choice 4-room flat in a central region may be priced at around $650,000 under the current BTO model. This is after significant market discounts, but the price is before grants. For a family earning a combined income of $7,000, which is below the median resident household income, this may not be within their reach. They receive an EHG of $25,000 but would still need to make an additional top-up of $52,000, either in cash or CPF, and pay a monthly cash outlay of $399 or some 29% of their income after the top-up.
Under the Plus model, due to tighter restrictions and additional market discounts, the price comes down to around $550,000 before grants. The family earning $7,000, the same family, would continue to receive $25,000 in EHG, but the $52,000 that they needed to put in terms of additional top-up is now, under the Plus model, reduced to zero. They now pay slightly more than a quarter of their monthly household income, 27%, and a monthly cash outlay of $273 versus $399 under the BTO model. This flat is now more within their reach.
Third, the new framework seeks to keep the system fair. This is because unlike Standard flats with standard market discounts, we will be providing additional subsidies to keep Prime and Plus flats more affordable.
To be fair to those who buy Standard flats that come with standard market discounts, we will impose tighter restrictions on buyers of Prime and Plus flats. In addition to the tighter restrictions, we will also impose a subsidy recovery rate for the first buyer upon first resale, which will be commensurate with the extent of the additional market subsidies given.
Because Plus flat buyers enjoy lower additional subsidies than Prime flat buyers, their subsidy recovery rate will also generally be lower. Similar to Prime flats, Plus flat owners will also have a longer Minimum Occupation Period or MOP of 10 years and will not be able to rent out their flat at any time. This is to ensure that these flats are primarily for owner occupation and not for speculative investment or rental yield.
In our Forward Singapore housing conversations, many Singaporeans shared their views on the length of the Minimum Occupation Period. Many supported imposing a longer MOP because they felt that HDB flats should primarily be for owner occupation.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asks whether Plus flats can come with an MOP of shorter than 10 years. We had considered this carefully. Plus flats are in choice attractive locations. We think that an MOP of 10 years seeks to strike a balance between strengthening the intent for owner occupation on the one hand and giving home owners the flexibility of moving home for genuine reasons.
Today, the vast majority of our flats come with a five-year MOP but most Singaporean households stay in their HDB flat for 10 years or more before selling it. For those who genuinely need to move out before the end of their MOP, HDB will assess their appeal on a case-by-case basis.
Members have also asked about the potential impact of the new housing framework on the broader property resale market. This will depend on many factors, including home buyers' preferences, market conditions, such as the prevailing economic outlook, supply, demand, financing and so on. Analysts and researchers also have a diverse range of views on potential impact on resale prices in the wider market and many agreed that the overall impact might not be so straightforward.
In the near term, Singaporeans who are looking for more affordable public housing in central or choice locations may wait for these new Prime and Plus flats to be launched on the market, if they are able to, while others who have more immediate needs or who prefer flats without these new restrictions may choose to purchase existing flats in the resale market.
In addition, Prime and Plus flats will only come onto the resale market in about 15 years' time. In the longer term, we expect that the tighter restrictions will moderate the resale prices to some extent so that the flats are kept affordable for a wider group of Singaporeans. Nevertheless, we will monitor the impact of the new housing framework on the broader resale market closely and review them when necessary.
Sir, we are committed to support and keep home ownership affordable. In FY 2021/2022, HDB recorded a deficit of around $3.85 billion in its Home Ownership Programme. Over the same period, HDB disbursed $372 million in grants for flats purchased directly from HDB and $849 million in grants for resale flats and Executive Condominiums.
In response to Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Pritam Singh, as Prime and Plus flats will come with more subsidies, the total fiscal impact is anticipated to be higher than if we keep to the status quo. The actual anticipated fiscal impact will depend on a number of factors, including market conditions at each launch, housing demand, the locational attributes of the sites and more.
In deciding which model to launch new flats under, we take into account various factors, such as their specific locational attributes, affordability for buyers and the need to provide a range of different options for Singaporeans. We will continue to set aside the vast majority of our new flat supply for first-timer families.
Under the new framework, across all BTO projects, first-timer families will receive two ballot chances, and first-timer parents and married couples or what we call the FTPMC, will receive three ballot chances and additional priority under the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme. More details on the specific prioritisation and quotas for different groups will be announced when ready.
We are also taking steps to enhance housing access for singles who will be able to purchase new 2-room Flexi BTO flats islandwide in Standard, Plus or Prime projects from the second half of 2024. To meet the housing demand from singles and the elderly who are looking to right size, we will be launching more 2-room Flexi flats. Over the next three years, from 2024 to 2026, we will launch up to 14,000 2-room Flexi flats, an increase of about 30% over the past three years from 2021 to 2023.
We have also been working hard to catch up on delays and have done so for 70% of our delayed flats. The median waiting time is about four to four and a half years because of the COVID-19 impact and we are pressing on to bring it down to three to four years by next year.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked if we can lower the age floor to allow singles to apply for BTO flats at an earlier age. Sir, with the changes that we are already going to make, we can expect housing demand from singles to go up significantly. Our priority now is to build enough flats over the next few years to address this demand before we decide whether to make any further changes.
Having said that, we have been engaging singles on their housing aspirations and heard many suggestions on new housing typologies, such as co-living and inter-generational housing, and we are actively studying them. These broad changes reflect the Government's commitment to ensure that home ownership remains affordable, maintains a good social mix in every town and region and keeps the system fair. We will continue to engage Singaporeans on these changes and announce further details on the specific policy moves when we are ready.
\tMr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Minister? None. Mr Sharael Taha.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development what is the mix of room types, including Public Rental Scheme flats, 2-room flats, and 5-room flats, that HDB aims to achieve in upcoming HDB BTO projects involving Plus and Prime flats."],"footNoteQuestions":["53","54","55","56","57","58"],"questionNo":"53-58"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bank Accounts Frozen for Suspected Involvement in Scam Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"59 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) to date, how many bank accounts suspected of being involved in scam activities have been frozen by the Singapore Police Force; (b) how many of such bank accounts belong to individuals who have only one bank account; (c) of the total number of bank accounts frozen, how many have eventually been found to be involved in scam activities; and (d) whether the Ministry has data on the number of applications to the Courts to access funds in frozen bank accounts for basic expenses.
60 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to bank accounts that are frozen by the Singapore Police Force for suspected involvement in scam activities, what is the average time taken from the completion of investigation to the eventual unfreezing of the bank account.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Minister of State, you can give your reply to both Question Nos 59 and 60.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) only freezes bank accounts when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including scams.
The Member may refer to SPF's annual Scams and Cybercrimes brief published on the SPF's website for the number of bank accounts suspected to be involved in scams which the SPF has frozen each year.
SPF does not track whether the frozen bank account is the owner's only bank account. Persons whose bank accounts are frozen can make an application to the Courts to withdraw money for reasonable living or other legitimate expenses. SPF does not collect information on the number of such applications to the Courts.
SPF would unfreeze frozen bank accounts when they are subsequently found not to be involved in criminal activity and are no longer required for the purposes of investigation, trial or other Court proceedings. SPF does not track the time taken to unfreeze bank accounts after investigations have been completed.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I thank Minister of State Sun for the clarification. For some of those affected, the bank accounts could be their only bank account and investigations may take many months and, in the particular case I have, it has taken more than six months. Would the Ministry consider at least providing the information to the affected individuals that they can apply for exemption or at least the release of some funds so that they can continue with their day-to-day living, please?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. As mentioned in my reply, persons whose bank accounts are frozen as a result of being recipients of suspected criminal proceeds can make an application to the Court to withdraw money for reasonable living or other legitimate expenses.
Under section 35(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the account holder can submit an application to the Courts to access their funds for the payment of basic expenses, including any payment for foodstuff, rent, the discharge of a mortgage, medicine, medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums and public utility charges, amongst others. So, if the Member comes across residents who have difficulties in this regard, please ask the member to approach his Investigation Officer and please refer the member to this section of the Criminal Procedure Code so that the member may know how they can go about being able to still have access to funds which they need for their daily living expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons from Incident where 10,000 Voters in Tanjong Pagar Received Two Poll Cards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"61 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister with regard to the incident where almost 10,000 voters in Tanjong Pagar GRC received two poll cards (a) what lessons have been learnt; and (b) what measures will be implemented to prevent future errors.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, please.
During the recent Presidential Election, the Elections Department (ELD)'s contracted commercial printer Toppan had mistakenly mailed test prints of poll cards, together with the actual poll cards, to 4,803 households, affecting 9,822 voters in Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (GRC).
Due to a human error, test print data was pooled together with production print data during the actual printing to generate poll cards for voters in Tanjong Pagar GRC. As a result, the affected households received duplicate poll cards. However, the duplicate poll cards showed the correct polling stations and the affected voters were able to vote at their assigned polling stations even if they missed the outreach by ELD on what to do with the duplicate poll cards.
Processes are also in place to ensure that the voters with two poll cards can only vote once as all voters must produce their NRIC or valid passport as proof of identification, which is verified against the polling station registers.
ELD will be instituting new measures to prevent such errors in future. ELD will require the printer to tighten its internal quality assurance processes to ensure that the test print poll cards are not mailed out in future elections.
Beyond this, ELD and the printer will conduct joint checks to ensure that all test print poll cards are destroyed before the production of actual poll cards. ELD and the printer will also perform a sampling audit to check that the details in the poll cards are accurate. This includes ensuring that the number of poll cards printed for a constituency is exactly the same as the number of registered voters in the constituency.
I would like to assure Members that ELD will continue to work with the printer to tighten processes and ensure that these safeguards are properly implemented in future elections.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira, keep your supplementary questions short. We are approaching the end of Question Time.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister how the problem was identified and whether there had been any confusion or problems reported to be faced by affected Tanjong Pagar GRC voters on the actual polling day? And were there any voters who were unable to vote as a result of this issue?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make three points in response to the supplementary questions by Ms Joan Pereira.
First, there is no change in the process. It is the same process by the same printer, done many times previously. How the mistake arose was that, in this particular time, they did not expunge the test data before they printed. So, they printed the whole series together. It is the same process. It is the same printer. So, we will work with the printer to make sure that we tighten this up.
The second point, in response to the question, while some of the affected households and voters received two poll cards, both poll cards showed the same polling station, which means that so long as the voter turned up at the same polling station, they would have no problem getting into the polling station to vote. What was different between the two poll cards for those affected is what we call the serial number. The serial number does not determine whether a person can vote or not. The NRIC or the passport, in this case, is the one that allows us to verify the person's identity to go inside to vote.
On the third issue, no, we do not believe that anybody was not able to vote because they received a duplicate poll card.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
[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":"Income Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Income Tax Act 1947 and to make related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance; read the First time. (proc text)]
\tMr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, you might want to turn on your microphone.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I think the microphone is not working.
\tMr Speaker: Actually, the apologies should come from us. My apologies. We will get the equipment checked again.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: In response to your question, Mr Speaker, at the next available Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: So be it.
[(proc text) Bill to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Free Trade Zones (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Free Trade Zones Act 1966 and to make consequential amendments to the Customs Act 1960\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Societies (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Societies Act 1966\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Immigration (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Immigration Act 1959 is the main legislation that regulates the movement of persons into and out of Singapore. It was last reviewed in 2018. Since then, the landscape has evolved and there are trends that challenge our ability to exercise effective border control.
First, traveller volume has continued to rise across all our checkpoints. It is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels by 2024 and continue to increase thereafter.
Changi Airport Terminal 5 is being built and the Johor-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link will be ready in a few years. Our immigration systems must be able to manage this high and growing volume of travellers efficiently and provide a positive clearance experience while ensuring our security.
The added challenge is our ageing population and shrinking workforce. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will have to cope without a significant increase in manpower.
Second, the unabated security threats, including terrorism and pandemics like COVID-19, call for us to go upstream in our immigration measures, such as the collection of advance passenger and crew information and entry restrictions to be imposed on undesirable foreigners even before they arrive at our shores.
To this end, ICA has reviewed its systems and concept of operations.
One key initiative is the New Clearance Concept (NCC), where ICA will make good use of data analytics and automation for more secure yet efficient immigration clearance of passengers and cargo. For travellers and businesses, there will be time and cost savings from smoother and faster clearance, and for our land checkpoints, reduced traffic congestion as well.
Mr Speaker, the Immigration (Amendment) Bill does not introduce major changes to our immigration policies. It is about putting in place provisions to better support and facilitate these new initiatives.
The proposals in this Bill are categorised along four broad objectives: first, to digitalise and automate immigration clearance; second, to future-proof our immigration systems and processes against new and evolving challenges; third, to strengthen our border controls; and fourth, to enhance the administration of immigration passes and permits.
Let me start with the first objective: to digitalise and automate immigration clearance.
With automated clearance and the use of biometrics as the new norm, clause 3 of the Bill will amend section 5A of the Act to specify that a person may undergo immigration clearance using an automated clearance system, if available, but that he may also be required to appear before an immigration officer for immigration clearance after using the automated clearance system, if so directed.
Next, to enhance the traveller experience at Changi Airport, the departure journey will be biometric-enabled, end-to-end, from the first half of 2024.
Biometrics will be used to create a single token of authentication that will be employed at various automated touchpoints, from bag-drop to immigration and boarding. This will reduce the need for passengers to repeatedly present their travel documents at these touchpoints, allowing for more seamless and convenient processing.
To facilitate this initiative, it is proposed that the Minister be empowered to authorise the disclosure of passenger and crew information to the airport operator for specific use cases, namely: (a) bag drop, access control and gate boarding; (b) passenger tracing within the airport for security purposes; (c) offloading of baggage for passengers who did not board the flight; and (d) verification of travellers' identity and tax liability for duty free purchases and Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds.
To this end, clause 41 expands the definition of \"passenger information\" and inserts a new definition of \"crew information\", while clause 42 expands the list of purposes in section 36B for which the Minister may authorise access to or disclosure of identifying information, passenger information and crew information.
ICA will ensure that the data shared under this initiative will only be used for authorised purposes and that there are sufficient data privacy and security safeguards. The airport operator is also subject to the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 governing the collection, use and disclosure of personal data.
The second objective is to future-proof our systems and processes against new and evolving public health and security challenges.
Advance passenger and crew information enables ICA to conduct more timely risk assessments and flag out undesirable travellers such as those who pose a public health or security threat before they reach our checkpoints.
Currently, a transport operator of a vessel, aircraft or a train that arrives, leaves or is due to leave Singapore must furnish a list of passengers and a list of crew, including their particulars, to an immigration officer.
Clauses 21 to 27 amend sections 22 to 23B and introduce new sections 23C, 23D, 23E and 23F to, among other things, impose requirements on the accuracy of the lists of passengers and crew furnished by transport operators, in addition to completeness and timeliness.
These amendments will enable ICA to also collect passenger and crew information from bus operators as well as the particulars of persons travelling through our land checkpoints via other modes of land transport such as cars, trucks or motorcycles or on foot. Non-compliance will be a strict liability offence.
ICA is engaging relevant cross-border transport operators on the approach for the collection and submission of advance passenger and crew information. We will take their views into consideration before any new requirements are implemented.
Separate from advance information, clauses 28 to 31 amend sections 24 to 26 to allow immigration officers to require all persons to furnish particulars about themselves upon arrival. This allows ICA to require travellers to furnish particulars such as their travel history or health status when the need arises.
Clause 9 introduces the new section 9AA to empower the Controller of Immigration – henceforth, \"the Controller\" – to issue to one or more persons for an in-bound conveyance, which I will refer to as the transport operator for brevity, No-Boarding Directives (NBDs) against undesirable persons, whether they wish to enter or transit through Singapore, to prevent them from boarding the in-bound conveyance at the point of departure.
This will remove the need for ICA to manage and remove or repatriate such individuals when they arrive in Singapore.
The clause also introduces offences if a person arrives in Singapore in an in-bound conveyance despite an NBD being issued. NBD regimes have been implemented in jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US).
The COVID-19 experience has also demonstrated the need for powers to prohibit the arrival or entry of foreigners during a pandemic. Clause 8 amends section 9 to clarify that the Minister is empowered to make such an order where the Minister thinks it is expedient to do so in the interests of public health.
Clause 8 also amends section 9(1A) to provide that an order made on the grounds of public security or public health can apply to persons with valid immigration permits or passes, such as Permanent Residents (PRs) or long-term pass holders. Such strict measures may be necessary in a severe pandemic situation where lives are at stake. They will be invoked sparingly.
Currently, a person subject to an order made under section 9 is a \"prohibited immigrant\" under section 8(3)(o) of the Act. Any immigration pass or permit he holds is therefore liable to be invalidated on this ground.
Clause 7 amends section 8(3)(o) to expressly provide that the Minister may exempt an individual from this provision so that he is not a \"prohibited immigrant\". His permit or pass will not be invalidated by the operation of section 8(3)(o), and he may return to Singapore once the order prohibiting his entry is lifted, for example, when the public health emergency has abated.
Currently, it is an offence under section 57(1)(k) of the Act for a person to make a false statement to obtain or attempt to obtain an immigration facility such as a permit or a pass. Clause 57 amends section 57 to:
(a) replace the section 57(1)(k) offence with a new offence of knowingly giving information that is false or misleading, or omitting any thing, without which the information is misleading. This offence will be punishable with a fine of up to $8,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months or both;
(b)\tintroduce a new strict liability offence under Section 57(1)(ka) for obtaining or attempting to obtain an immigration facility by giving such false or misleading information, which will be punishable with a fine of up to $4,000;
(c)\tprovide that these offences apply even if the applicants had provided the false or misleading information while outside of Singapore.
The amendments make clear that the applicants ultimately bear the onus of providing true and accurate information in their applications for immigration facilities.
I will now speak on the third objective of strengthening border controls. The first group of amendments are on detention, custodial management, and repatriation.
Today, immigration officers are empowered to examine persons arriving in Singapore. These persons may be denied entry for reasons such as invalid visas or expiring documents, and will be instructed to leave Singapore. However, it may take time for the necessary arrangements to be made for their departure, for example, the next available flight may be days away. Clauses 28 to 31 will amend sections 24 to 26 to empower immigration officers to direct such persons to remain at an immigration depot or at a place designated by the Controller, until arrangements are made for them to leave Singapore.
Next, to enhance legislative oversight over custodial management measures implemented at immigration depots, including the ICA lock-up, clause 56(c) will introduce a new section 55(1)(kb) to allow the Minister to make regulations for custodial management measures, such as medical triage and the control of unruly persons through the use of restraints.
Next, \"prohibited immigrants\" are currently liable to be removed to their country of birth or citizenship, their place of embarkation, or any other port or place designated by the Controller. Clauses 36, 37, 40 and 57(i) will introduce amendments to similarly empower the Controller to repatriate other categories of persons who have been ordered to be removed from Singapore, including \"illegal immigrants\" and “persons who remained unlawfully in Singapore”.
Mr Speaker, ICA is currently empowered under section 47A of the Act to recover funds from “prohibited immigrants”, to cover expenses incurred by the Government in connection with their repatriation. But it has to rely on moral suasion to do the same for the other categories of persons ordered to be removed from Singapore. Clause 51 will amend section 47A to rectify this anomaly. Nevertheless, ICA will assess all cases carefully, and government-aided funds may be made available to help persons who are genuinely unable to afford their own repatriation expenses.
The second group of border control amendments seeks to facilitate ICA’s taking over of protective security functions from the Singapore Police Force at authorised areas such as the land checkpoints.
Today, the Act only empowers immigration officers to stop and search persons or vehicles for immigration-related offences, or if an offence is committed within or in the vicinity of a checkpoint. For all other cases, police officers are needed to intervene, to stop such persons or vehicles of interest, and arrest them.
Clause 55 therefore introduces new sections 51AB to 51AE to allow immigration officers to arrest persons involved in such non-immigration cases and detain any vehicle driven by them or which is under their control, pending the handover of custody to the relevant law enforcement agency.
Next, clause 34 will amend section 30 of the Act to allow ICA to give instructions to all travellers arriving in or leaving Singapore, to prevent evasion of examination. This includes asking travellers to queue at certain lines, or to proceed to a waiting area. Currently, under the Act, ICA can only give instructions to arriving passengers and crew members carried in any vessel, aircraft or train.
The third group of amendments pertains to immigration offenders who are either exempted from caning or found medically unfit for caning. The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 provides that all females, as well as males above the age of 50 shall not be punished with caning. In addition, caning cannot be carried out if the offender is medically unfit to undergo that punishment. Such individuals can be liable for an additional imprisonment term of up to 12 months, in lieu of caning.
Some immigration offences attract caning. For foreigners who commit such offences but cannot be caned, such as if they are female, keeping them in our prisons for a longer term is not in the public interest. Our aim is instead to repatriate them as soon as possible.
Incarceration is also not an appropriate deterrent against an immigration offender whose goal is to stay in Singapore and even more so if the offender requires state-sponsored medical treatment. For such an offender, a fine, in lieu of caning, may be a more appropriate deterrent than additional jail time.
This is already the case for some offences in the Act. For example, for the offence of illegal entry without a valid immigration pass or permit, for which caning is mandatory, the Act requires the courts to impose fines in lieu of caning, for all females as well as males above the age of 50 who cannot be caned. However, for males who were sentenced to caning, but are subsequently found medically unfit for caning, the current law does not allow the imposition of fines in lieu of caning. To address this, clause 58 of the Bill introduces a new section 58A to allow the courts to impose a fine in lieu of caning on such an offender.
Clause 8(i) of the Bill will introduce a new section 9(7), to allow the courts to also impose fines, in lieu of caning, for the section 9(6) offence of arriving, entering or remaining in Singapore in contravention of a prohibition order by using a false travel document or a travel document belonging to someone else. This applies to all females and males above the age of 50.
The fourth type of amendment will allow ICA to better ensure a child’s safety and well-being when acting on a Restraining Order issued by a court that prevents the child from being taken out of Singapore. ICA already enforces such a Restraining Order when notified of it.
Clause 4 will introduce a new section 5AA that allows ICA to temporarily keep a child within the immigration checkpoint, after having prevented the child from being taken out of Singapore, until the child’s parent or guardian, or a police officer, is able to take the child into his care. The new section 5AA protects immigration officers from personal liability as long as they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care in complying with the court order or exercising this power.
Sir, I will now explain how the Bill enhances the administration of immigration passes and permits.
Foreigners should neither be entitled nor expect to be given the right to enter or remain in Singapore. This must be the absolute prerogative of the Government acting in the public interest.
To this end, clauses 7, 12, 13, 16, 33 and 37 remove the right of a foreigner to make statutory appeals to the Minister for decisions made by the Controller affecting his stay in Singapore. Most of these decisions are related to permanent residency. This aligns the treatment of such PR-related decisions with the treatment for application of immigration passes and Singapore Citizenship, for which there is no avenue of statutory appeal.
Although statutory appeal will no longer be available, individuals can continue to seek the Controller’s reconsideration of such decisions when there are relevant new facts or circumstances.
The Bill also seeks to clarify at law when a PR is deemed to have lost PR status. The proposal before Parliament is specific to the scenario when the person is outside of Singapore without a valid Re-entry Permit. Let me explain.
ICA issues a PR with two permits. The Entry Permit is issued when PR status is first granted and allows the person to enter and remain in Singapore. The Re-entry Permit or “REP” is issued to a PR upon application and allows him to re-enter Singapore after having left Singapore temporarily; it has a fixed validity period.
ICA deems a PR who is overseas without a valid REP to have lost his PR status. In the current Act, the PR has a grace period of one month after the REP has expired to apply for an REP to reinstate his PR status.
Notwithstanding this, ICA has been exercising flexibility in allowing some PRs who miss this deadline to have their PR status reinstated if they have legitimate reasons, for example, if they were hospitalised overseas. However, this means that the PR had effectively lost his PR status during the period between the REP expiry and PR reinstatement.
This Bill will introduce amendments to the Act to clarify at law when the PR status is lost, by introducing a definition of “permanent resident of Singapore” and setting out the circumstances that will lead to the loss of PR status.
(a)\tClause 2 will define a “permanent resident of Singapore” as the holder of a valid Entry Permit.
(b)\tClause 12 amends section 10 to provide that a non-citizen who wishes to be a PR must apply for an Entry Permit, and sets out what the Entry Permit authorises its holder to do.
(c)\tClause 13 amends section 11 to require a PR who is outside Singapore without a valid REP to apply for an REP within a period to be prescribed in regulations. The Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) intends to set this period at six months. This will give PRs sufficient time to remedy the situation, compared to the one-month grace period today.
(d)\tIf the said PR applies for an REP before the end of the prescribed period, and is successful, he remains a PR.
(e)\tIf the PR fails to apply for an REP before the end of the prescribed period, the new section 14A introduced under clause 17 provides for the automatic cancellation of his Entry Permit. His PR status will then be lost. This will take effect on the date immediately after the last day of the prescribed period.
(f)\tIf the PR applies for an REP before the prescribed period ends and his application is unsuccessful, this new section 14A also provides that his Entry Permit will be automatically cancelled, and this will take effect on the date immediately after ICA has rejected the REP application.
(g)\tClause 13 introduces section 11(2A) to clarify that the Controller may refuse the grant of REP to a PR. Each REP application is subject to a polycentric evaluation of factors relating to our policies and security, the PR’s period of residence in Singapore, his contributions to Singapore, family ties and conduct.
Given that six months is more than enough time for PRs to regularise their status, there will be no avenue for reinstatement once a PR loses his PR status in accordance with the revised framework. If a person who has lost PR status wants to be a PR again, he will need to make a fresh application for PR.
We encourage all PRs to obtain an REP or to renew their expiring REP in a timely manner, before travelling out of Singapore.
The vast majority of REP applications are approved as long as the PR continues to be committed and contribute to Singapore. This includes retired PRs because we recognise that while they may no longer be earning an income, they had contributed to Singapore during their working years. Most of those who are unsuccessful in applying for an REP to reinstate their PR have far exceeded the existing grace period for reinstatement despite the flexibility exercised by ICA. The rest do not live in Singapore anymore, no longer have family ties to locals here, are no longer contributing economically or have adverse records.
Sir, the Bill will simplify the process for imposing new conditions for immigration permits after they have been issued, or varying the existing conditions of such permits.
Currently, ICA must first notify permit holders of any such changes in conditions and invite them to make representations in this regard before such changes take effect. Clauses 12 and 13 amend sections 10 and 11 to allow such changes in conditions to be effected simply through the giving of notice to the affected permit holders.
Clause 56 updates the Minister’s regulation-making powers, such that similar provisions may be introduced to provide the Controller with similar powers in respect of immigration passes and certificates. These provisions will allow ICA to impose new conditions on permit, pass and certificate holders especially during a contingency such as a pandemic, as well as to regulate the conduct of the holders more efficaciously through the variation of existing conditions.
Last, the Bill also makes other technical, related and consequential amendments.
In particular, clause 61 repeals the Banishment Act 1959. MHA has been relying solely on the Immigration Act since the 1980s to remove undesirable foreigners. The Banishment Act, which also allows the Minister to remove a foreigner from Singapore, is no longer relevant today, and hence we propose to repeal it. There is no operational impact, and the provisions under the Banishment Act can be found in other legislation.
Mr Speaker, this Bill will facilitate the implementation of more digitalised and automated services for the benefit of all travellers, as well as enhance our immigration processes so that they are more robust, effective and efficient. This is imperative for Singapore’s safety and security, and to maintain our status as a world-class transport hub and destination. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker\t: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the primary aims behind this Bill, as enunciated by the hon Second Minister for Home Affairs in her speech, especially the proposal to digitalise and automate the immigration clearance.
It is well known that our ICA officers, staff and auxiliary police officers deployed at our immigration checkpoints have heavy workloads. The Woodlands Checkpoint ranks amongst the world’s busiest border crossing with more than 350,000 passing through every day. Just over the long weekend of the Presidential Election from 31 August 2023 to 4 September 2023, more than 1.7 million people crossed Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints.
These officers often make personal sacrifices to discharge their duties. Owing to the lean manpower situation, they frequently forgo going on leave during school holidays which coincides with the peak travel periods. This is so that fellow Singaporeans are not inconvenienced when they travel on holidays. They deserve our salute for steadfastly securing Singapore’s borders and keeping us safe despite the significant challenges, some of which were enunciated by the hon Second Minister.
With the manpower crunch that all sectors across Singapore face, it makes eminent sense to leverage on technology to ease the clearance process.
The plans to implement automated and contactless clearance and the checkpoints without passport presentation are particularly welcome. Not only will these measures result in faster clearance, but they also improve the experience of travellers too.
For these reasons, I fully support the provisions in the Bill to implement the automated and contactless clearance process at checkpoints.
Turning to the other objectives of the Bill, I seek clarification on three broad areas.
First, the revised approached to sentencing when dealing with immigration offenders, I note that it is proposed that fines be introduced in lieu of an extended prison term for immigration offenders convicted of immigration offences and who are exempted from or found to be medically unfit for caning.
On the face of it, the replacement of a prison term imposed in lieu of caning with fines instead of imprisonment alone may dilute the overall deterrent effect of the sentence. I understand that the policy reason for this is to reduce the state resources that would otherwise be committed when foreigners who cannot be caned have to serve longer imprisonment terms.
In principle, I do not have an issue with the policy so long as the execution of this policy is carefully calibrated with other sentencing aims. My query is two-fold.
One, why is this policy applicable to an offender convicted of the offence of employing five or more illegal immigrants under the proposed section 57(1B) of the Act? Usually, such offenders, being employers, are likely to be Singapore residents. Hence, the policy precipitating this change should not be applicable to this class of offenders.
Two, why is there no provision in the Bill to deal with the probability that immigration offenders do not pay the fine? I would imagine that most foreign immigration offenders would lack the means to pay fines. This is why they left their home to come to Singapore – to make money.
If fine sentences are imposed in lieu of imprisonment over the inability to carry out a caning sentence, we would have to deal with the high probability that these offenders would not be able to pay the fine.
In such a situation, since nothing is specifically proposed in the Bill, section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC, would apply. This provision gives the Court the power to impose an additional imprisonment term in default of payment of fine.
There is a scale under section 319 of the CPC that determines the limit of the imprisonment terms. For offences punishable with a term of 24 months or more, the maximum imprisonment term cannot exceed half of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence. This is the upper limit of the scale. For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 24 months, the maximum imprisonment term cannot exceed one-third of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence. This is the lower limit of the scale.
There are several offences provided in the Immigration Act that are subject to caning, for which the upper limit under section 319 of the CPC applies. And to illustrate that, if you were to look at section 9 of the Act as it currently stands, which deals with an immigration offender who has already been issued with a Prohibition Order. If he were to come into Singapore again, then, he may face an imprisonment term of not less then two years or not more than five years, and shall also be liable to be fined and caned.
As was mentioned by the hon Minister, if he is not medically fit to take caning, then the Court can replace the caning sentence with an imprisonment term of not more than 12 months. But with the replacement of the caning with a fine sentence, by applying section 319, because the punishment is more than two years, the upper limit of the scale would apply; in which case the default imprisonment term can go up to two and a half years – which is more than the 12-month period for not receiving a caning sentence.
In my respectful view, a simple provision in the amendment Bill would have taken care of this – spelling out that a shorter imprisonment period, or the lower limit under section 319 of the CPC may be imposed in situations where fines, imposed in lieu of caning, are not paid.
May I ask the hon Minister why is it not felt necessary to make this explicit in this amendment Bill?
I now turn to the next area. I would term this as an issue of fairness in dealing with foreigners.
In explaining this provision, I note the hon Minister's point: entry into Singapore is really the prerogative of the government. I have no quarrel with that proposition.
In addition, it is proposed that current section 8(4A), which requires the Controller to inform a person the class of prohibited immigrants of which, in the opinion of the Controller, the person is a member of, be also repealed too.
For the benefit of hon Members, there are 15 classes in the Immigration Act, ranging from a person who is believed to have no means of supporting himself or herself, or believed to be a prostitute or believed to be a person who advocates the overthrow of the government by violence.
Also, under the proposed section 39B of the Act, it is provided that the Controller is not required to give any person, who may be affected by his decision, an opportunity to be heard. Respectfully, I am concerned about these proposals for the following reasons.
First, from a values perspective, I disagree with the view that just because we are dealing with foreigners who should not expect the right of entry or stay in Singapore, we should deal with them summarily.
In my respectful view, our immigration system should reflect the values we stand for as a nation. Granted, we do not owe non-Singaporeans the same duties and obligations we owe to ourselves. But foreigners should have the same recourse to justice, as a matter of principle, and in this case, we owe them two specific duties as members of a common humanity.
First, a duty to treat them fairly. To mandate that they need not be told why they are labelled as prohibited immigrants, nor offer them an avenue to provide explanation does not, in my respectful view, fulfil this duty.
Also, we must be mindful that a good number of foreigners who may be subject of action by the Controller have spousal or familial relations with Singaporeans. Such affected Singaporeans would certainly expect that the system operates fairly for their spouses or relatives in dealing with immigration matters.
As I said on point of fairness, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I would imagine if the roles were reversed, Singaporeans who are immigrants in other countries would expect to be dealt with fairly by foreign immigration authorities too.
Second, a duty of due process. The current appeal process to the Minister ensures that there will be no single point of failure; from a system perspective.
We should be mindful it is proposed in this Bill that the Controller be vested with even more powers. As was explained by the hon Minister, one example is the No Boarding Directive to deny foreigners from boarding from places of embarkation, even as transit travellers.
Just by having an appeal process alone, we will ensure, system-wise, that the Controller will use his powers carefully and with circumspection. By having an appeal process, the Minister would be able to have access to all relevant facts of the case to make his own decision on the merits of the case. This is as opposed to a mere administrative review by the Minister on the basis that ICA comes under his charge. He is well capable of handling sensitive factors and information too.
In fact, this is the rationale for providing the statutory appeal to the Minister instead of to the Court which is ordinarily be accessible by members of public and the press.
Finally, I am not privy to any information that suggests that the current system is broken. I do appreciate that the Government must be pragmatic in dealing with immigration matters. However, unlike some countries which deal with immigration matters through the judicial system and have a backlog of cases to handle, I do not think a similar situation exists in Singapore. Hence, the question arises, if it ain’t broken, why fix it?
I would also like to point out that, as a matter of comparative law, countries such as Malaysia and Brunei which have similar history and similar pieces of legislation as our Immigration Act, still retain the statutory appeal to the equivalent of our Minister. I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s explanation to my concerns.
Finally, I turn to my last area – operational matters. For this area, I wish to raise two points.
First, on the proposal to allow immigration officers to collect Advance Passenger Information (API), I would like to enquire if it is proposed that public transport operators such as the operator of the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link that is due to be commissioned in about three years’ time or SBS Transit that operates service no 170 will have the obligation to collect API or would they be exempt?
The provisions in the Bill, as they stand, are to be wide enough to include public transport operators. Should they apply, however, this may create practical problems and bottlenecks having regard to the huge number of train and bus commuters that the operators will have to handle on a daily basis.
Second and finally, I note that it is proposed that the Controller be vested with the power to temporarily restrain a child from leaving Singapore in compliance with the court order until the child’s parent or legal guardian collects him or her.
I support the proposal. I would like to make a suggestion in this regard.
I understand from my professional colleagues who practise family law that, in the usual case, the Family Court would order that a child be allowed to leave Singapore where the other parent provides his or her written consent. Such orders would then be served on ICA. ICA will then have to take on the obligation to operationalise the order by checking to see if the \"suitable person\" wanting to bring the child out of Singapore has the requisite written consent. I wonder if there is scope to digitalise the entire process. They should cover both the notification of Court orders as well as the lodgement of written consent with ICA. In this way, I believe we will gain more efficiency and reduce the risk of making mistakes, too.
Sir, in conclusion, let me iterate my support once again for the provisions in this Bill aimed at equipping our men and women of the ICA with the necessary legal tools and teeth to effectively deal with the growing challenges that they face in carrying out their important task of securing our country's borders.
I have carefully reviewed the proposed amendments in the Bill dealing with sentencing policy in the Immigration Act. I do not believe they represent a derogation from our uncompromising stance against immigration offenders as well as traffickers and harbourers of illegal and prohibited immigrants, that the law will deal with them firmly by imprisonment, caning or fine.
It is important to maintain this tough stance so that we do not backslide to the situation several decades ago when we had a serious illegal immigrant problem that affected Singaporeans' safety and security. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my concerns that I expressed in my speech, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be addressing two areas of amendments in the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, namely, digitalising and automating immigration processes and the administration of immigration passes and permits.
The Bill will introduce provisions to support ICA's new clearance concept to further automate immigration clearance. I appreciate that ICA is in the forefront of immigration technology. But I have three concerns to highlight regarding the rollout of the NCC.
First, Minister of State Faishal told the House on 21 April that under the NCC, all manual counters and automated lanes will be replaced in phases with the next generation automated border clearance system gates. Does this mean that once the NCC is fully rolled out, the use of manual counters will no longer be an option for Singaporean travellers?
Some categories of travellers frequently face difficulties in the process of clearing immigration. For example, some elderly citizens are unable to provide usable fingerprints due to their dry skin. Wheelchair users may have difficulty getting their irises scanned due to the height and angle of the scanners. Iris recognition systems could become prone to error as people's irises change with age or after cataract surgery and the biometrics of young children are still developing and may change over time.
Will the NCC include reasonable accommodations, like wider gates for wheelchair users and adjustable scanners that can capture biometrics from travellers who cannot hold their head up for long?
Most importantly, will special assistance lanes which are manned by ICA officers continue to be provided at the passenger halls of Changi Airport and all land and sea checkpoints and will they be easily accessible by all travellers with special needs?
Second, I note that the Bill empowers the Minister to authorise the disclosure of passenger information to the airport operator for specific uses. Does this airport operator refer to only the Changi Airport operator or also operators of foreign airports? Do the specific uses include sharing of Singaporeans' biometric data? What enhanced safeguards are in place to ensure data security, particularly if Singaporeans' data will be shared with third-party vendors or foreign governments over which we have little control?
And third, I note that Singapore is one of the first countries in the world to implement NCC-type capabilities. As shared by Minister of State Faishal in April, some of these capabilities will be implemented in a form and manner not used or tested elsewhere. I also recall that the four-and-a-half-hour disruption to immigration systems on 31 March was caused by a failed upgrade to the multimodal biometric system (MMBS). May I ask the MMBS has since been fully upgraded? What additional contingency plans will ICA put in place to ensure that the upgrade to the NCC will not cause immigration disruptions of that scale or worse?
Another key area of amendments in the Bill is to enable ICA to more efficiently administer immigration passes and permits issued to foreigners and PRs. Cross-national marriages between a Singaporean and a foreigner make up about a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. Foreign spouses face many challenges settling down in Singapore, the chief of which is obtaining permission from the Government to remain in Singapore for a long term. This can be achieved first through securing a Long-Term Visit Pass or LTVP and, subsequently, a PR.
For foreign spouses who hold university degrees and draw high salaries, obtaining a LTVP, PR and even citizenship is usually not difficult since their income and skills add great weight to their applications. But those with low educational qualifications and incomes face far greater challenges in obtaining long-term residency.
At my Meet-the-People Sessions, which are attended mainly by residents in the lower-income groups, about a fifth of cases involve immigration matters. The Singaporean residents who approached me are usually disappointed that their foreign spouses' LTVP or PR applications were unsuccessful and want me to make appeals for them. Some shared with me their deep longing to start a family but their hesitation due to their spouses' uncertain immigration status. Most do not understand why the applications were rejected because no reasons are provided by ICA.
During a 2012 parliamentary exchange between Ms Indranee Rajah and the then-Minister of State Mr Masago Zulkifli, Ms Rajah highlighted three cases of Singaporeans with prior convictions who are facing difficulties getting their foreign spouses' LTVP approved.
Mr Masagos agreed with Ms Rajah that families are the pillar of support for ex-offenders but clarified that family, in this case, referred to an existing family unit, not a new family unit formed when an ex-offender got married soon after his release. He added that an offender just out of prison has many issues to deal with and an environment he is not familiar with anymore. He further stated that should a marriage not work out or the husband re-offend, the spouse, who is a foreigner, will not have relatives in Singapore to turn to nor jobs to sustain herself or her children as many are, generally, low-skilled.
Sir, parents and siblings are not the only pillar of support for ex-offenders. Many may be estranged from their existing families or may have suffered divorce while incarcerated and are starting anew. In fact, having a spouse provides stability and an added incentive for them to remain crime-free. We should not deny ex-offenders who have served out their prison sentence the right to get married to anyone they choose to.
Similarly, once they are married, it would be most unfair for the state to deny or delay a foreign spouse's long-term residency on account of the ex-offender's past conviction. This could put a strain on their marriage and finances and keep the ex-offender \"locked\" in a second prison.
The Government should not make it difficult for a married couple to stay together by denying an LTVP to a foreign spouse or child of a Singaporean. Family formation is one of the core social values in Singapore and our immigration policy must support it.
In 2015, ICA introduced the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment or PMLA to give prospective cross-national couples an indication that the foreign spouse is likely to qualify for an LTVP after the marriage. However, since the PMLA was introduced, out of an annual average of 7,200 LTVP applications, only 3,000 applicants or less than half had completed the PMLA prior to applying for the LTVP, according to a reply by the Minister to my question last month.
In my conversations with residents who face difficulty getting an LTVP for their foreign spouses, most were unaware of the PMLA before they tied the knot. Does the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages advise cross-national couples to complete the PMLA before getting married? I am aware that the ROM website advises them to undergo a PMLA. However, is this highlighted to the couple in person before the marriage registration process, keeping in mind that many of these couples may not be proficient in reading English? Furthermore, even passing the PMLA is not a guarantee of obtaining an LTVP after marriage.
In another reply to me last month, the Minister revealed that only 1,900, out of the 3,000 foreigners issued with letters of LTVP eligibility, were eventually granted LTVP or LTVP-Plus status, which means 37% were not. The Minister explained that not every person who has obtained a letter of LTVP eligibility goes on to apply for an LTVP. But it is unclear if this fully accounts for the 37% gap.
The Minister has stated in this House that ICA generally does not disclose the reasons for unsuccessful applications for immigration facilities. This lack of transparency is out of step with the practices in some other developed countries. In Canada, for spouse sponsorship applications that are refused, their government provides reasons for refusal in writing. Similarly, Australia's Department of Home Affairs explicitly states that if a partner's visa application is refused, the department will provide information on why the visa was refused.
I wish to propose four approaches that could improve ICA's immigration process for the immediate family members of Singaporeans.
First, there should be disclosure of the broad reasons for rejection of LTVP, PR and citizenship applications by foreign spouses, children and parents of Singaporeans.
Singapore does not permit dual citizenship. So, this is our citizens' only homeland. They do not have an easy option to settle in another country if their spouse is not given permission to live with them in Singapore for the long term, especially if they are from a lower-income group. When rejections happen without a reason, the Singaporean spouse can feel disconnected from their own nation. I have seen this in the eyes of my constituents who sought appeals for immigration applications for their spouses.
Second, where mitigation paths for future applications can be furnished, ICA should do so. For example, if an applicant was rejected because their economic contributions were not deemed sufficient, they should be informed of this so that they can take steps to enter the workforce, upskill themselves and strive to perform better at work so as to earn promotions and salary increments. This is preferable over an opaque dead end.
Third, ICA should provide more criteria transparency in the immigration framework similar to the Complementarity Assessment (COMPASS) framework for employment passes. Previous answers by Ministers in this House have revealed the range of factors that are considered for LTVP, PR and citizenship applications. Why not list all these criteria clearly on the ICA website and on application forms instead of expecting applicants to comb through the Parliament Hansard? Applicants meeting these criteria should get fast-track approval with discretionary rejections allowed on a case-by-case basis.
The Minister told this House in 2018 that ICA does not share the specific criteria or grounds for rejecting applications due to concerns that information about detailed assessment criteria can be abused to inflate an undeserving applicant's chances of success and that some people could then try to game the system.
However, in presenting the COMPASS framework, which is used to evaluate foreigners' employment passes and went live this month, the Government emphasised that it brings benefits like transparency, clarity and predictability for businesses.
COMPASS provides a points system, specific benchmarks for salaries and diversity and employs objective data so that firms can actually assess where they stand. Indeed, the COMPASS criteria spell out in no uncertain terms how many points are awarded for various factors, like salary, qualifications and improving diversity.
If the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is comfortable with the disclosure and transparency in the COMPASS framework in order to provide businesses with clarity and predictability for manpower planning, then surely, ICA can also extend these same principles to Singaporeans and their foreign spouses, children or parents who need the same clarity and predictability for their family planning.
The Minister also said that the reasons for rejection may be used to arouse negative sentiments in other countries and that this may create bilateral sensitivities and is not in Singapore's interest. Sir, it is a universally accepted principle that countries have the right to make their own decisions on immigration. In any case, ICA does not need to tell the applicant that they were rejected because they were from a particular country or a particular race. If there are reasons for rejection that may conceivably cause diplomatic friction, those need not be shared with the applicant. However, the vast majority of reasons for immigration rejections are not going to sour relations with other country. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Lastly, ICA should provide clearer channels for immigration appeals. The Bill removes the statutory right of appeal to the Minister on the decisions made by ICA on granting, revoking and varying conditions attached to PRs' permits. I have no objection to the removal of this right. I agree that foreigners have no right to demand to enter or stay in Singapore. And I note from MHA's statement that PR applicants and PRs may seek ICA's reconsideration of its decisions, particularly if there are new facts that were not previously submitted to ICA.
However, when searching the ICA website, I could not find much information on submitting appeals for failed LTVP or PR applications. The website only states that failed PR applicants may submit a fresh application if there are changes to their circumstances. Anecdotally, residents often tell me that they were advised by ICA officers to make an appeal through their Member of Parliament. While I am grateful for the chance to engage more of my residents at my Meet-the-People Sessions, submitting appeals through one's Member of Parliament should not be the default means of communication between citizens and the Government. An accessible, self-service channel should be made available, particularly for appeals with a substantial volume. A secure online form should be made available on the ICA website for all immigration appeals, with clear instructions guiding appellants to submit new facts that were not previously submitted or provided in their earlier application.
Mr Speaker, I believe these proposals will provide a balance between the Government's prerogatives and the needs of Singaporean families while upholding our national interests. They could lessen the anxiety and frustration that Singaporeans with foreign spouses, children and parents experience with the immigration process. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an open economy that relies on the free movement of people and goods. Following the challenges posed by the global pandemic, it is heartening to note that all our checkpoints are once again bustling with activity. The numbers crossing our checkpoints speak volumes about our nation's economic resilience and quick recovery.
The proposed legislation demonstrates our commitment to utilising technology and digitalisation to enhance ICA’s operations. The amendments seek to improve efficiency and productivity within our immigration processes, whilst upholding stringent controls to ensure that the right individuals enter Singapore. I would like to seek clarifications in two broad areas. First, on digitalisation and, next, on the self-declarations by passengers.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications on data security and operational issues. The adoption of the NCC, prompts us to consider its impact on the future of passports and its associated data security measures. Can the Ministry share how many countries have also employed such technologies regularly to allow for seamless travel? Could the implementation of such technologies eventually render physical passports irrelevant? It would be insightful to understand if the ICA envisions a time when passports might be phased out in favour of e-passports.
How does the ICA plan to collaborate with other Government agencies like GovTech, Cyber Security Agency and Smart Nation Digital Government Group (SNDGG) to raise the resilience of our digital solutions against potential scammers and frauds? As Singapore’s passport is highly sought after, any vulnerabilities and breaches in the system can result in the theft of critical passenger data.
How does ICA intend to address the needs of individuals who might not be digitally adept and ensure that no one is left behind in this transformative journey when residents use the NCC?
Second, the retention period of passenger data and the mechanisms to safeguard it are of paramount importance. Could ICA shed light on how long personal data will be stored? Also, will there be a designated timeframe for the destruction of this information? What rigorous measures are in place to prevent hacking or misuse? Could we receive assurance on how personal data, particularly biometrics, will be fortified against potential breaches?
Third, the introduction of NBDs for transport operators of land-based conveyances, has raised some operational questions. There have been concerns about the practical feasibility of implementing NBDs for buses, especially considering the dynamic nature of bus schedules and connectivity with different bus services and transport modes. Could the Minister clarify the exemption status of operators like SBS? Could the Minister also provide insights into the rationale behind this exemption? What about taxis and coaches which operate across our borders?
Furthermore, understanding the potential challenges faced by transport operators in complying with this new clause is critical. Are there plans for a transition period to facilitate a smooth implementation? When can we expect the composition framework to be introduced to support transport operators? Moreover, how can we address the concerns of passengers who are worried that some of these bus companies lack the necessary infrastructure to secure their personal data?
Fourth, the shift towards accepting digital versions of permits and passes to verify immigration status and declaration of goods raises a question about initial potential congestion, particularly at our land checkpoints. What are the projected short- and long-term impacts of allowing digital permits and passes on the flow of travellers at these checkpoints? How will ICA address situations where individuals may not possess a functional electronic device to present e-permits? Will physical permits still be issued or remain valid as an alternative option?
Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us proceed to issues concerning self-declaration. With regard to the offence of making false statements, how does ICA plan to effectively monitor and validate the accuracy of these declarations? Could ICA provide insights into the frequency of validation or fact-checking procedures? Are there plans to implement audit checks to ensure the compliance and accuracy of these self-declarations? As we all know, strong enforcement serves as one of the most effective deterrents against such transgressions. How does ICA plan to strengthen enforcement measures to discourage false statements and uphold the sanctity of self-declarations?
There is a concern that new diseases are not accurately declared. As we consider the potential health risks posed by contagious diseases, a pertinent scenario arises: if a passenger fails to declare symptoms of a new disease, or is ignorant of the symptoms, how would ICA issue a no-boarding directive or prevent such a passenger from disembarking in Singapore? How does ICA intend to collaborate with MOH to address this concern?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill serves as a vital tool in our efforts to strike a delicate balance between welcoming deserving visitors and safeguarding our national interests. With limited resources and space, we must be vigilant in managing the entry of individuals into our country. Singapore's allure as a destination for visitors and foreigners is well-recognised. However, our attractiveness also renders us susceptible to criminal elements, due to the significant influx of people.
While preventing acts of terrorism is a primary concern, there is an additional facet to consider. The recent high-profile $1.8 billion money laundering investigation underscores this point. Some individuals may exploit the guise of business and investments to engage in unlawful activities once they enter and reside in Singapore. We need to do our best to deny entry to individuals who have malicious intentions to commit crimes within our borders. To achieve this, the implementation of a more rigorous system is essential, safeguarding the safety and security of our nation and residents.
Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to conclude in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I suggest that we use technology to further differentiate different categories of control measures. This represents an important step forward to optimise productivity, especially in a tight labour market.
In addition, our manpower is precious and limited. We must be able to assess what we want to achieve. Can the authorities explain in detail what improvement measures we will implement to reduce the queueing time at Woodland and Tuas checkpoints? Can we calculate whether efficiency will increase or decrease in percentage terms?
Mr Speaker, the amendments reiterate our commitment to progress, security and efficiency. They pave the way for Singapore to remain open and innovative. We are fully prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead.
I support this Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to harness technological advancements to enhance our immigration procedures and bolster border security. The integration of cutting-edge methods, such as biometrics and data analysis, into our immigration processes improves security and overall travellers' experience. We can be secure without being burdensome.
The proposed amendments enable the ICA to achieve greater operational efficiencies from future-proofing against new and evolving challenges, digitalise and automate immigration processes, strengthening border controls and efficient administration of immigration passes and permits. I will address them in turn.
First, on future-proofing against new and evolving challenges. Mr Speaker, currently, airline, ship and train operators must submit advance passenger and crew information. Under the proposed sections 23C and 23D, the ICA will be empowered to collect advance passenger and crew information for entry into Singapore’s checkpoints via buses. This would unify the ICA’s powers to do so across all modes of entry, as entry into Singapore via buses is not covered under the Immigration Act. There is no reason why entry by bus should be considered less of a security threat compared to entry by air or sea. This unification of security measures gets us closer to completing our nation’s security infrastructure to collecting information.
In addition, the introduction of NBDs to direct transport operators to deny boarding to undesirable individuals, particularly those who pose a threat to our safety and security, is a crucial enhancement. It prevents such individuals from travelling to Singapore in the first place, instead of only being turned back at our checkpoints on arrival. There are four points that I would like to highlight for the Ministry’s consideration.
Firstly, it is worthwhile reviewing whether failure to comply with NBDs should be considered a strict liability offence. Human errors or technological glitches are realities in any operational system. Strict liability offences do not account for genuine mistakes or errors made in judgement made by transport operators. I would like to ask the Minister how can the Ministry balance between being thorough while yet being compassionate or flexible in cases where the breach of an NBD was not deliberate.
Furthermore, Singapore's reputation as an international transportation hub depends not only on security measures but also on its ability to facilitate smooth travel for passengers. Overly harsh penalties for transport operators could deter them from serving Singapore, potentially reducing our attractiveness as a transit point for travellers and cargo. I call on the Ministry to consider to strike a balance between our objective of making Singapore an international transport hub and safeguarding our security.
Second, it is currently proposed for NBDs to cover individuals who are both entering and transiting in Singapore. I believe that there is, indeed, value for NBDs to apply to transit passengers. Singapore cannot become an easy transit point for undesirable characters. Could the Ministry share how many instances of undesirable characters that have transited through our checkpoints in recent years and how these could have been avoided if we had NBDs?
Next, on the electronic service of giving notices of NBDs. Could the Ministry clarify how long in advance does the controller need to inform operators that an NBD is issued in relation to a passenger or crew they are ferrying? Furthermore, I would like to call on the Ministry to provide operators with a suitable transition timeframe to ensure compliance with NBDs. We must ensure that operators have sufficient time to adjust their operational design and workflow to comply with NBDs without unduly impacting their other business objectives.
Lastly, on the proposed amendments which grants ICA officers the authority to require travellers to furnish particulars about themselves upon arrival. As currently proposed, this power may be exercised by ICA officers to furnish particulars about themselves “as that officer may require”. I would like to ask the Minister on what grounds and circumstances can such powers be exercised? This will guide officers in their duties and also passengers in their adherence to the requests.
Next, on digitalising and automating processes. ICA's NCC is an excellent initiative. Given the current security environment, increased travellers’ demands, and the nation’s ageing workforce, there is a pressing need for secure and streamlined immigration clearance procedures. The NCC aims to automate routine tasks and allocate human resources to more critical functions. Could the Ministry share if manpower and operational workstreams are ready for the NCC?
Furthermore, what is the net impact on the ICA officers? How can they be trained and upskilled for a smooth transition? Perhaps we can redeploy affected ICA officers to other roles with higher human touch, or even providing courses for upskilling to help ICA officers transition into working alongside the NCC effectively.
Under the amendments, it is now proposed that digital versions of permits and passes can be used to verify immigration status. Under this initiative, the passenger's digital identity and flight information undergo backend processing to generate a unique token, which is then used along with their biometric data to confirm their identity and travel details at different automated touchpoints.
While the Ministry has stated that this data will be retained for a “short time” with adequate “safeguards”, there may still be concerns about the necessity and potential risks associated with holding such sensitive information. We are also constantly at risk of cyber-attacks. What are the cyber-security provisions to ensure the integrity of the NCC? What are the contingency plans during data breaches?
In recent months, there has also been significant delays at our immigration checkpoints due to technological glitches. How is the Ministry and the ICA stepping up to prevent such incidents? Perhaps the Ministry could share the measures we are taking to prevent a system-level breakdown like the one we suffered as recent as March 2023.
Next, the NCC will put Singapore as trendsetter in the global security landscape. However, additional value will be created for Singapore and our visitors if other jurisdictions come on board and integrate the NCC in their security administration. Could the Ministry share whether there are plans for us to work with regional partners to integrate the NCC as a cross-border initiative?
Lastly, on strengthening border controls. ICA personnel currently possess the ability to make arrests for non-immigration violations occurring within or near authorised zones and detain vehicles for immigration-related infractions. When non-immigration violations beyond authorised areas are identified at checkpoints, ICA relies on police officers to effect arrests or detentions. Could the Minister share more on under what circumstances would the proposed changes improve Home Team’s operational effectiveness?
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act mark a significant stride towards modernising our immigration processes and bolstering our nation's security. These changes are essential to adapt to the evolving challenges posed by technological advancements, increasing traveller demands, and emerging threats. By updating the Act, Singapore demonstrates its commitment to effective border management while embracing technology in line with our digital nation blueprint and greater operational efficiencies at our borders. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir. Singapore is a thriving international hub. We expect 12 to 14 million visitors this year. Last year, passenger movement at Changi Airport totalled 32.2 million and is expected to return to pre-COVID-19 traffic of 68.3 million by 2024. Over the same period, we had close to 1.2 million cruise passengers. At Tuas and Woodlands land checkpoints, daily crossings are around 300,000 to 400,000 people.
In 2022, 104.8 million travellers were cleared. An efficient, effective and resilient border control is critical to smoothen the movement of people and restrict criminals and blacklisted travellers from coming into Singapore. With the increasing number of visitors, juxtaposed against a shrinking workforce, the use of technology to automate immigration clearance is a critical enabler.
I support the introduction of the NCC. Advance technology will improve the speed of immigration clearance and enhance security. Digitalisation and automation will enable ICA to make efficient use of limited manpower resources.
ICA is one of the early adopters of facial recognition technology. When Changi Airport Terminal 4 opened in October 2017, the Automated Immigration Gates allowed Singaporean passengers to sail through immigration clearance without the need to interact with an ICA officer. The shift to the automated clearance by using facial recognition and fingerprint for identity validation was a major milestone then. ICA has extended the automated clearance to foreigners as well. Since May 2022, more than four million foreign visitors from 51 jurisdictions have enrolled in the automated clearance initiative and cleared immigration with their biometric details.
The next NCC will allow residents and visitors leaving Singapore to clear immigration without having to use their passports from 2024. Instead, they can use the Automated Border Control System with their biometrics for clearance. With the NCC, immigration clearance will become even faster and smoother for all travellers.
In addition, the amendments to the Bill will enhance ICA's powers to obtain information on travellers upstream. The introduction of NBDs will require transport operators to deny the boarding of undesirable individuals that are a threat to our security. Screening them prior to arrival and prohibiting them from arriving or transiting is a necessary step towards the protection for Singapore.
The benefits of faster and easier immigration clearance and manpower savings are evident. However, the typical pitfalls associated with digitalised and automated systems must also be highlighted and the mitigation measures carefully considered. I shall highlight three key concerns.
The first relates to system reliability and their massive knock-on effects. The system must be made extremely robust to prevent system breakdowns, long down time and false negatives, which will all result in delays in clearance, resulting in build-up of long queues and passengers missing their flights, and other knock-on effects.
Sometime in March this year, there were delays and long queues at Changi Airport and land checkpoints. This disruption to the immigration clearance system lasted more than five hours. All automated departure lanes in all four airport terminals as well as at Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints were affected by this system disruption and some passengers missed their flights.
Will the NCC be more resilient to such breakdowns? Here are some questions.
One, how can ICA prevent or minimise the occurrences of such failures? What measures does ICA have in place to protect and reinforce the systems?
Two, will the Ministry have regular independent audits to check on the failure rates?
Three, what are the contingency plans since manning levels will be minimal with the implementation of NCC?
Four, how quickly can the back-up response kick in?
I do hope that there are sturdy solutions to address these technical weaknesses and operational impacts.
The second concern relates to cybersecurity and biometric vulnerabilities. Despite cybersecurity protection, hacking incidents and data breaches continue to affect both private companies and public organisations more often than expected.
In 2021, there was a data leak affecting 580,000 Singapore Airlines' customers, arising from an external air transport information technology company. Last year, personal information of 4,749 KrisShop customers were exposed to a phishing attack.
For the departure process, the NCC entails an end-to-end biometric system to be used to verify identities and travel details at various automated touchpoints, from bag-drop, to immigration and to boarding. This would mean that the travellers’ biometric information will be stored and linked to even more points than we have today. Though this process will provide more convenience, will the trade-off result in an increase in a higher risk exposure to data breaches?
Internationally, the number of public and private organisations collecting and keeping biometric information has been increasing. Correspondingly, the number of hacking incidents involving biometric data is also on the rise. Given this trend, how will the Ministry ensure the strictest protection for biometric data?
Unlike passwords, we must be mindful that in the event of data breaches, biometric data such as fingerprints and iris scans cannot be reset. How can we assure Singaporeans, residents, and travellers of their concerns over the collection of their biometric information is a safer option compared to traditional identification methods?
I am also concerned about the credentials and quality of IT contractors’ systems and staff when it comes to outsourced technology work. How robust are the checks on theses contractors and the background clearance of their staff? What are the potential vulnerabilities from the involvement of foreign partners, firms and governments? Lastly, are these IT systems contracted out to firms with foreign associations?
My third concern is about small private bus operators. Bus operators had expressed that they are facing difficulties in submitting passenger information before their vehicles arrive at the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints. They are also worried that some passengers might use fraudulent identities. Understandably, these bus operators will not have the means to validate such information.
We should not burden the bus operators on immigration matters. To get around this problem, I would like to suggest that foreigners entering Singapore via the land checkpoints, submit SG Arrival Cards online three days before their arrival. This way, ICA can inform any affected passengers directly on any entry concerns. I hope ICA will assist these rather senior small operators who are not tech-savvy with their operating costs. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my three concerns raised, I will conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. Singapore's immigration has been one of the most user-friendly anywhere in the world. This latest Bill will make it even easier. The amendments allow further automated clearance for passengers, vehicles and cargo. Two of these changes, namely the advanced clearance for conveyances and for cargo, are likely to make a big difference in our land borders with Malaysia.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the intention is to have automated clearance for most of the vehicles passing through the Causeway and the Tuas link. Related to this, is it envisioned that foreign nationals coming through these land borders will also be able to take advantage of these automated clearance measures? I definitely think these measures will increase the speed of clearance at customs.
One concern that arises from this though is whether these changes will make checks become less stringent. In particular, does it mean that customs officials may not check people, vehicles and cargo for most vehicles passing through these checkpoints, or are there alternative automated methods for checking vehicles, cargo and passengers?
I am also interested to know whether ICA intends to share data and information with other governments which may make automated clearance possible for foreigners in Singapore, and for Singaporeans abroad? The sharing of data may also be made consensual, meaning that frequent travellers who prefer to clear customs more quickly may consent to their data being shared with governments of countries they regularly visit. This may be especially useful once the RTS Link between Singapore and Johor starts operating.
Currently, around half a million people cross the Causeway every day. If a good part of this traffic switches to the RTS, that may have the benefit of reducing vehicles and road congestion in Singapore. However, this option will become especially attractive if customs' clearance is automated for regular daily travellers. This may mean that travel from Singapore to Johor may one day be only a little bit more difficult than taking an MRT.
Many of the other changes in this Bill include giving ICA officers the powers they need to prevent undesirable people from entering Singapore, including provisions giving them the power to detain, if necessary.
The requirement for pre-clearance of passengers on board aircrafts and vessels also allow ICA to prevent undesirable people from boarding these vessels if they wish to come to Singapore.
These are sensible measures and I think better for everyone involved.
Currently, the only way to prevent these people entering Singapore is after they have already arrived but before they have cleared Customs. This means that individual concerns may have to be detained and repatriated. This step will be avoided if pre-clearance can be done.
One area of concern for me is how permanent residents (PRs) are being dealt with. This Bill sets out a legal basis for people who may lose the PR status and also it removes the avenue of appeal to the Minister. To better understand the people being affected, I would be interested to know and I have a few clarifications here.
The first is, how many PRs lose their status each year? The second – how many of these would appeal against such loss? Third, of those that appealed and failed, how many would take up the avenue to appeal to the Minister? And fourth, I know this last one may be a bit sensitive, how many such appeals have succeeded?
I think these questions will give us a sense of how many people will be affected by the changes and the extent of that effect. I understand the rationale for these changes is to make clear the basis for losing PR and the removal of the avenue for appeal to Minister is to harmonise the avenues for appeal for other foreigners such as employment pass and long-term visit pass holders.
However, I think people have generally regarded the PR status as being much more important. For many, it is part of a journey to citizenship, while for others, they could be husbands, wives or parents of Singaporeans. I think it would be helpful if PRs can be given assurance that their status is likely to be permanent as the name suggests as long as they reside in Singapore and are law-abidding.
Generally, though, I think this Bill makes important exciting changes to our immigration process. Most Singaporeans can expect even more seamless and convenient travel. I, therefore, support this Bill.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will strengthen border security by digitalising immigration processes, allowing faster responses to pandemics and other challenges, strengthening controls against undesirable persons and allowing efficient administration of passes and permits to foreigners and PRs.
I have three points of clarification.
My first point is on the right of appeal. The Bill removes the statutory right of appeal against certain decisions. The Bill will remove the right of appeal on the grant and revocation of PR status. MHA has clarified that PR applicants and PRs can still seek ICA’s reconsideration. ICA’s website appears to provide no information on how to request for such reconsideration. Can Minister clarify by what channels should PR applicants and PRs request ICA’s reconsideration of its decisions? What should such requesters provide and how long should they expect to wait for a response?
Will ICA consider providing a standard form for filing such requests? It would centralise ICA’s intake of requests and reduce administrative complexity. This form could also provide information about factors relevant to ICA’s reconsideration and warn against the inclusion of irrelevant documents and submission of frivolous requests. This would likely cut the time taken to review requests and reduce the volume of requests, saving Government resources.
Additionally, the Bill removes rights of appeal against other decisions such as the removal of persons unlawfully remaining in Singapore and entry and re-entry permits.
For this category of decisions, MHA has not stated that these individuals can seek ICA’s reconsideration of its decisions. Can Minister clarify whether individuals who are subject to decisions on removal from Singapore, and entry and re-entry permits can seek ICA’s reconsideration? If yes, what is the process for seeking ICA’s reconsideration?
My second point is on the variation of conditions of entry permits. The new subsection 4A of section 10 states that the Controller may publish any changes to conditions on a prescribed website or in the Gazette instead of giving notice to individuals if the Controller assesses that it is not practicable to give notice to every individual.
Given that entry conditions are important for the legality of stay in Singapore, can Minister share when it would not be practicable to give notice to every individual? How will individuals with no knowledge of prescribed websites and no habit of reading the Gazette learn about the variation of conditions of their entry permits?
My third and final point is about how children will be prevented from being taken out of Singapore. A new section 5AA states that an immigration officer may prevent a child from leaving Singapore or being taken out of Singapore. In doing so, the immigration officer may keep the child in an authorised area. This can be a traumatising situation for a child. We must ensure that there are robust standards for ensuring the well-being of the child.
Can Minister share what requirements it will set to ensure that facilities in the authorised area are appropriate for keeping a child? By what standards will immigration officers be held to ensure that they handle a child appropriately? Can Minister also share whether there is any limit to how long a child may be kept in the authorised area? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments to the Immigration Act that will strengthen our border security and ensure that our immigration system will be more efficient and responsive to the evolving challenges of our time.
Digitalisation and automation will help fortify our border security even as we speed up and simplify the immigration clearance process. We can substantially cut processing time, eliminate mistakes, improve the entire experience for passengers and reduce some of the tedious work for our immigration officers by utilising technology. This move will place us at the forefront of international practices for immigration processes, in addition to strengthening the security of our borders.
On the other hand, with increasing reliance on digitalisation and biometrics, there will be higher risks from system vulnerabilities and failures. How will the Ministry ensure the reliability and security of our IT systems at border controls?
Every day we receive reports about hacking and data breaches, affecting organisations across sectors and at all levels. Digital connectivity means that now we need to defend our systems from attackers from around the world, not just at our borders.
Physical copies of permits and passes still have their place as they are immune to hacking attacks, power failures and equipment malfunction. Even as the Ministry seeks to up our cybersecurity, let us continue to have backup plans and modes of operation as part of our resilient ecosystem.
I would also like to ask how the Ministry will protect the data privacy of individuals since biometrics are not replaceable. If biometric data breaches occur, personal identities can be stolen and the hackers can gain access to all aspects of the targets’ lives.
Another concern I have is regarding the inability to use biometric data, especially due to ageing. Singapore is a fast-ageing society, but so are many other countries. For some seniors, fingerprints can no longer be read well by scanners due to dry and worn-out skin. Eyes affected by cataracts or post-cataract surgeries may affect the effectiveness of iris scans. Even face recognition scans face challenges. What are the Ministry’s plans to deal with this problem as more of our people will be senior or elderly?
Next, our immigration system has been under a great deal of stress due to the world witnessing unprecedented challenges, such as pandemics. In such situations, we must quickly adjust. I support measures to enable ICA to establish processes to control the entry or transit of persons for reasons of public health.
Finally, I want to voice my support for the proposed measures to keep out persona non grata from our doorstep. We need to tighten border security measures to keep these unwelcomed persons as far from our border as possible. Doing so will reduce the time and manpower demands to process and subsequently send away these foreigners.
However, due to the high number of passengers travelling between Malaysia and Singapore every day, there is a possibility that persons impersonating others will try to slip through. Will the Ministry share with House the measures to counter these criminals? In the last three years, how many persons had been caught using falsified identification documents? With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, a defining characteristic of Singapore’s success has been its progressive attitude towards leveraging new ideas. I note this Bill introduces new provisions to support the use of new technologies and innovation to tackle an evolving security landscape. It takes into account learnings from the recent pandemic, factored use of digital technologies to improve both effectiveness and efficiency of border operations.
Singapore was early in reopening our boarders in 2022. Given the rebound of travel, it is timely for this Bill to be put before this House. These amendments will not only enable ICA to strengthen immigration controls but also help in its delivery of a more seamless checkpoint experience for residents and tourists. These steps will also help upkeep Singapore as a globally reputed transport and tourism hub.
As such, I support this Bill but would like to seek some clarifications.
The Bill introduces provisions to support ICA’s new procedures. This includes streamlining the clearance experience at Changi Airport, where a person’s biometric and flight information will be processed backend using a unique digital token at the various automated touchpoints.
With technology being at the core of this new operating model, any disruption to this critical system, will have considerable risk and costs that include security, reputational and financial. Given the technology risk around resiliency, can the Minister elaborate on the measures and safeguards to ensure service availability and the expected system uptime?
As system outages can be expected, can Minister also clarify the plans for redundancy and recoverability? For example, will sufficient ICA officers and related resources be available on standby to support an activation of manual clearance processes where required and what kind of tolerable service levels is being planned so that travellers can expect that the system should it not be available?
Regarding the access by the airport operator to biometric and flight information, can Minister elaborate on the measures and the safeguards against misuse, unlawful retention and cybersecurity risks? What are the level of governance standards around data usage applicable to ensure robust requirements across different organisations like Changi Airport and airline operators who may have differing data infrastructure and, therefore, security policies as well compared to, say, ICA? And will there be independent checks or audits by qualified authorities to ensure compliance?
I now turn to future-proofing against evolving challenges. I note that clause 27 of the Bill expands ICA’s powers to collect advance passenger information from currently, vessels, airlines and train operators, to across all modes of entry including from bus operators. ICA will also be able to issue NBDs to direct transport operators to deny the boarding of undesirable individuals, particularly those who pose a threat to our safety and security.
While I support the expanded collection of these data to strengthen our border controls, I note that there have been operational difficulties in this regard, where a number of airlines have failed to comply with the requirements to submit advance information to ICA since the inception of advance passenger screening in October 2019.
Can Minister clarify if ICA had sought to understand the root cause of these non-compliances and whether there are plans to improve or smoothen this reporting regime, other than by introducing a composition framework?
Also, considering that the bus operator sector is more fragmented than the airline industry, they also have customer management systems that are less sophisticated and there are ground concerns that such operators may face difficulties with compliance.
With this ground challenge known, how can ICA ensure the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information submitted as well as compliance with any issued NBD by bus operators? Are there plans for ICA to create a generic portal to help such operators to comply with the new regulations?
Clause 8 also expands the powers of the Minister to prohibit the entry or transit by foreigners on public security or public health grounds. This includes Singapore PRs and pass-holders.
In this regard, especially in considering PRs who are more likely to have families in Singapore, of which some of whom may even be our citizens, can the Minister clarify the factors of assessment before the exercise of such powers and if there is a lead time for notification so that such affected persons and their families can make adequate preparations?
I next move on to the enhancing of border controls and the administration of passes and permits, and on this point, with respect to the recovery of funds from offenders for their repatriation.
I welcome clause 51 of the Bill, which empowers ICA to recover funds from all categories of persons to be removed from Singapore and not just prohibited immigrants.
In recognising the closure of this gap, may I also seek the Minister's clarification on the number of cases and the total amount of repatriation costs unrecovered over the past five years?
Lastly, the Bill seeks to streamline processes regarding the loss and renewal of a PR status as well as the imposing and varying of PR conditions.
I agree with the underlying principle that the right to enter or stay in Singapore must be the prerogative of the Government. On this note, will ICA consider publishing high level guidelines on its assessment criteria to provide some clarity and, more importantly, to guide expected behaviour?
Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I am confident that this Bill will enable ICA to keep Singapore's borders safe and secure in a dynamic operating landscape.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, there is an urgent need to address the pressing global immigration challenges posed by false and stolen identities, exacerbated by the increased use of technology to evade immigration and customs control. It is paramount that Singapore recognises these challenges, acknowledges the evolution of technology used for such activities and emphasises the urgency of staying ahead of emerging threats.
As such, we must harness innovation and technology to enhance our immigration and border management systems.
In a world marked by unprecedented mobility, criminals and those with malicious intent are using technology to exploit gaps in our immigration and customs control systems. The ease with which digital documents can be forged and manipulated poses a grave risk to national security.
We must remain vigilant and proactive in our efforts to combat these threats. Criminals are increasingly adept at circumventing traditional controls and our response must be swift, sophisticated and technologically advanced. Over the years, our immigration technology has evolved, adapting to the changing landscape of threats.
Introducing biometric data such as fingerprints and facial recognition has strengthened our ability to verify identities accurately. These technologies are robust deterrents against false identities and those attempting to slip through the cracks. Furthermore, the advent of electronic passports and identity cards embedded with chips has become a standard practice, ensuring the integrity of our identity documents.
However, as technology continues to advance, so do the methods employed by criminals. Therefore, we must progress in tandem.
We have been using technology integration such as Automated Passport Systems, which expedite entry for legitimate travellers while maintaining a high level of security. Additionally, advanced data analytics has enabled us to detect patterns and anomalies, enabling us to thwart potential threats in realtime.
INTERPOL's Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database contains information on travel and identity documents that have been reported as stolen, lost, revoked or invalid. Today, it currently holds around 99 million records, all of which are potential threats. Two key issues why this is important.
First, it is fundamental proof that the existing physical travel document is vulnerable. The physical document holds critical information that is too slow to adapt and use new data points for verification and validation.
Second, the sheer existence of 99 million potential travel identity documents that nefarious and dangerous individuals can use. We must better safeguard ourselves and our loved ones.
The pre-journey bulk submission will reduce the risk for all travellers. It would have prevented those potentially dangerous from embarking at the start of the journey.
Embracing technology, digitalisation and innovation is our best defense against false and stolen identities. By staying at the forefront of technological advancements, we can ensure our immigration and border systems remain robust and capable of detecting these threats faster and more effectively.
In Singapore, the number of travellers attempting to enter Singapore using a false identity or one different from their past trips jumped from 28 in 2021 to 441 in 2022. This is a 15-fold spike in multiple identity cases and a rise in immigration offences in 2022.
In the UK, more than 20,000 fake documents have been identified over a decade. We must do more to keep pace.
At the same time, it is paramount that we prioritise privacy and personal rights as we employ technology to bolster security. Robust data protection measures and transparent practices will ensure that our citizens' rights are safeguarded.
Singapore continues to be at the front edge of technology to ensure that the best possible set of technologies is used to digitalise and automate our processes. This is an essential part of the system. As such, this amendment, comprising of these initiatives and the enhancement of the powers of immigration officers will further safeguard our security and keep our borders safe.
Here, I would like to thank our frontline immigration officers who have served us well all year around 24/7 and have kept Singapore safe.
I have two questions for clarification. First, given the increased data collection and usage, what are the cybersecurity measures taken to enhance the integrity and security of the data? Second, how do we detect system malfunctions where border entry approvals were wrongly granted? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Home Affairs Mrs Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their thoughtful comments and strong support of the Bill. Please allow me to address their questions in turn.
Where digitalisation and automated immigration clearance is concerned, there are three broad buckets of concerns. The first has to do with cyber readiness and resilience; the second on data security; and the third, how we deal with impersonations.
Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked many good questions. Ms Poh Li San knows the issues particularly well, being deeply involved in airport management.
Sir, Singapore will be one of the first few countries in the world to introduce automated, passport-free immigration clearance. Besides Dubai, which already offers passport-free clearance for certain enrolled travellers, we do not know exactly which other countries have similar plans. MHA and ICA will certainly seek to enable more convenient travel for our people but it is likely that physical passports will still be required for many countries outside of Singapore.
To prepare for this NCC, ICA has been training its officers since 2020. Mr Choo will be glad to know that as a result, around 4,000 ICA officers are able to take on higher-value jobs in assessment and investigation, using newly acquired skills such as investigative interviewing and profiling.
Besides levelling up staff capabilities, the key to a successful implementation of the NCC is universal coverage of all travellers. This requires a willingness to phase out traditional methods of identifying and authenticating travellers. The alternative of running two systems in parallel is not only costly but also cumbersome.
To assist seniors who may not be able to provide certain biometrics or who may not be digitally savvy, I assure Mr Gan, Mr Giam and Mr Yip that immigration officers will be on hand to help. The officers can also conduct manual clearance by exception.
As immigration clearance becomes more digitalised, ICA is fully aware of its responsibility in ensuring the availability and resilience of its systems. It therefore works closely with the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) and GovTech to meet reliability and security requirements in upstream design.
For example, the next generation Automated Border Clearance System (ABCS) will allow travellers to continue using automated clearance gates if there are any outages. This is possible because they will be equipped with failover capabilities such as UPS or uninterruptible power supply and can still function if the supporting systems such as the online biometrics database is down.
Nonetheless, some of the NCC capabilities are novel and highly customised to Singapore's context. Despite our best efforts, disruptions may still happen. Our business continuity plans will then be promptly activated through a combination of measures such as recalling off-duty officers and prioritising traveller clearance according to departure times. This should help minimise service degradation. This is also the careful approach as we undertake the ongoing upgrade of the Multi-Modal Biometrics System (MMBS), which Mr Giam asked about.
In addition, ICA monitors systems performance to ensure benchmarks are met. With large systems, external vendors may be involved. ICA and HTX can and will pursue liquidated damages from a vendor if the systems fail to meet the required standards.
To Ms Poh's query, only Singapore-registered companies can undertake IT projects related to ICA. All employees of vendors undergo a compulsory security screening exercise and must be cleared before they are allowed to work on the project. They are bound by a non-disclosure agreement and may be held criminally liable for any wrongful or unauthorised communication, possession or use of information under the relevant laws such as the Public Sector (Governance) Act.
To uphold high standards of cybersecurity, HTX also carries out independent Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing exercises prior to commissioning and annually thereafter. This complements the regular audits by ICA to identify and address vulnerabilities.
I hope Mr Vikram Nair will be reassured to know that ICA will also deploy more advanced scanning technologies and sensors to automate security checks for vehicles. Additionally, AI will also be used to strengthen detection capabilities for cargo.
These assurances are relevant for both cyber and data security. The Minister’s approval is required for access to and disclosure of data, and must satisfy the purposes specified in the Act, such as for the enforcement of criminal law, failing which an offence can be made out. In addition, the data will be encrypted and go through secured data exchange gateways.
Specific to the biometric-enabled departure journey at Changi Airport that Mr Derrick Goh asked about, the Changi Airport Group (CAG) will be bound by the terms of a data sharing agreement with ICA. It puts the onus on CAG to take all reasonable measures to ensure the data is protected against unauthorised access, use, disclosure, modification or misuse. This includes setting up relevant access controls such as Two-Factor Authentication. ICA will audit CAG’s compliance and conduct regular checks on CAG’s systems.
As for the questions Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Vikram Nair raised, whether such data will be shared with other governments or foreign airport operators so as to facilitate immigration clearance for Singaporeans abroad, for security reasons this is not yet on the cards.
Members will be reassured to know that ICA itself must also comply with data protection provisions set out in the Public Sector (Governance) Act and the Instruction Manual 8. It will retain traveller data only for the period necessary for immigration processing, analytics or investigation. Once these tasks are completed and ICA no longer needs the data, they will be de-personalised and properly deleted.
In the unlikely event of a data breach, ICA and HTX will immediately conduct investigations to stop the breach, trace the extent of the breach, and prevent further breaches through remediation measures. On top of that, system vendors are obliged to adhere to data protection, cybersecurity and breach procedures as part of their contractual obligations to ICA, and must extend full cooperation and assistance to ICA at no additional cost.
Whether with analogue or digital systems, a determined criminal may still try to breach immigration controls. ICA will deploy monitoring tools to constantly check on its systems. They are equipped with the capability to detect impersonation and forged or tampered passports presented for clearance. Mr Gan Thiam Poh will be glad to know that the more recent use of multi-modal biometric clearance systems has in fact resulted in better detection of individuals seeking to impersonate others.
For manual clearance, immigration officers are trained to conduct facial checks to ensure that the person is the rightful holder of the passport. For those undeterred and caught, we will deal with them firmly. Between 2020 and 2022, there were 38 cases prosecuted in court involving the use of false passports or travel documents.
The risk of entry approvals being wrongly granted, which Mr Shawn Huang asked about, is no higher with the NCC than with the current system. Moreover, ICA and HTX will conduct thorough end-to-end testing for any system changes before deployment.
Sir, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the impact of ICA’s shift to the use of digital permits and passes to verify immigration status. Since February 2023, ICA only issues digital Long-Term Passes. Individuals no longer need to visit ICA to collect the physical card, nor run the risk of losing or damaging it. ICA will not issue new physical cards for Long-Term Pass Holders but previously issued cards will remain valid until they expire or are cancelled. ICA will digitalise other pass types in due course.
If an individual does not have a smart electronic device to display his digital permit or pass, he can enlist the help of family members to access the digital documents from ICA’s e-Services and print a copy to be used at our checkpoints. As such, we do not expect the digitalisation of passes to cause congestion.
Next, I will go on to ICA’s future-proofing initiatives. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the root cause of non-compliance by airlines in submitting advance passenger information. From ICA’s experience, it usually boils down to tardiness. Without being able to screen incoming travellers before their arrival, immigration clearance will be slower. A composition framework is therefore necessary, and is already practised in established jurisdictions like the US, the UK and New Zealand.
On the provisions for buses to also collect advance passenger information, let me assure Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Yip Hon Weng that no timeline has been fixed. ICA has been engaging bus operators since July 2022, and will continue to do so before firming up any plans to collect such information.
Similarly for the NBDs, raised by Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Yip Hon Weng, we will continue discussions with the operators to find a practicable way forward before proceeding.
It is premature to go into details but in the event of non-compliance, ICA intends to make a holistic assessment of the facts of the case before deciding whether to prosecute. The offence of failing to comply with NBDs will likely be compoundable; and this can be provided for in subsidiary legislation.
Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about public transport operators such as SBS Transit. The Bill specifically excludes public bus operators from the submission of advance passenger information or to comply with the NBDs. This is because tickets are not being sold in advance and advance passenger information thus cannot be collected for ICA’s screening.
Mr Desmond Choo also asked for data on undesirable travellers transiting through our checkpoints. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a monthly average of 110 undesirable travellers denied entry into Singapore. With an NBD regime, we could keep such undesirable travelers from even coming to Singapore, especially those who pose a high security risk. Transport operators such as the airlines could also save resources from having to repatriate these travellers.
As a final point on NBDs, let me assure Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Yip Hon Weng that ICA will provide adequate transition periods for the respective domains and will do so in close consultation with the industry. For example, with the airlines, ICA intends to run trials from end-2024.
Let me now deal with the issue of false statements. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how ICA plans to monitor and validate the accuracy of such statements. ICA will review the historical records of a person’s self-declarations and conduct further checks when there are inconsistencies across records. ICA will also cross-check with other available sources. For persons who are suspected to have made false statements or provided false information, ICA will commence investigations.
In the event passengers fail to declare symptoms of a contagious disease, whether deliberately or otherwise, ICA will work with relevant stakeholders to ensure there are other means to identify them. This includes engaging the transport operators’ help to flag them prior to boarding.
During a pandemic situation, travellers may also be required to conduct pre-arrival health checks or tests. If, unfortunately, such passengers still manage to arrive at our checkpoints, ICA will work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to implement necessary measures to identify them promptly, such as through temperature screening or visual checks.
In terms of enforcement measures, ICA will maintain a firm and strict posture. Travellers deemed to have made false statements will have their entry into Singapore denied. With the proposed amendment at clause 57, it will be a strict liability offence for anyone who gives false or misleading information, or omits anything so as to mislead.
Mr Derrick Goh asked for factors of assessment before the exercise of powers to prohibit the entry or transit of foreigners. As I have mentioned earlier, we will only use such powers when the situation warrants it. The key consideration is whether such a restriction is proportionate to the severity of the situation. We have seen how in times of a pandemic, travel restrictions may have to be put in place at very short notice.
I shall move on to the proposals to strengthen our border controls.
Mr Derrick Goh asked for the number of cases and the costs unrecovered from repatriated persons over the past five years. From 2018 to 2022, there were 74 cases and more than $53,000 of Government-aided funds used for repatriation expenses. Most of the involved offenders genuinely could not pay their way; the rest were able to.
Mr Murali Pillai asked two questions on the proposed amendments to introduce fines in lieu of caning, for offenders exempted from or found medically unfit for caning. First, he asked why our amendment applies to offenders convicted of employing five or more immigration offenders, since they are likely to be Singaporeans.
To clarify, the law today requires offenders convicted of this offence to be caned. But for offenders who cannot be caned because of their age or sex, the current law also requires the Court to impose fines in lieu of caning. This is under section 57(1B), which we are not changing.
Our amendment does nothing more than extend this provision to males who are sentenced to caning for this offence but are subsequently found medically unfit for caning. This allows for the deterrent effect of the penalty to still be met without unduly expending our prison resources while the penalty is held in a suspended state. Such a move also ensures consistent treatment in offences where fines are imposed in lieu of caning.
Second, Mr Murali Pillai asked why there is no provision in the Bill to limit the length of the imprisonment term that the Court can impose on an offender who cannot be caned but defaults on the fine imposed in lieu. We agree with him, that in such cases, it would be ironic if the imprisonment for defaulting on a fine is longer than the prison term that could have been imposed in lieu of caning. Nevertheless, we have decided that this should be left to the Court’s discretion, looking at all the factors in each case. If the Court considers that an in-default imprisonment term is appropriate, it can also calibrate the length of the imprisonment. Section 319 only sets out the upper limit of the imprisonment terms that can be imposed and do not prevent the Court from imposing a shorter term.
I thank Mr Murali Pillai for the suggestion to digitalise the process of notification of Court orders and lodgement of written consent from the parent for a child to leave Singapore.
Currently, parties who wish to inform ICA of any Restraining Orders or provide their written consent can do so by simply emailing ICA at a stipulated email address. This is the process we have agreed with the Family Justice Courts and it is set out in the Family Justice Practice Directions. We will continuously explore new ways to make the process more efficient.
Mr Louis Ng asked if the facilities in ICA’s authorised area are appropriate for keeping a child. The new section 5AA seeks to give ICA ancillary powers to keep the child temporarily, while preventing the child from being brought out of Singapore by any person without the consent of the parent or guardian. While ICA facilities are not specially designed for a child, it will make all reasonable efforts to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. Whenever possible, immigration officers will ask that the travelling companion stays with the child until the child’s parent or guardian arrives. If a child is abandoned at the checkpoints, and the parent or guardian is uncontactable, ICA will hand over the child to the Police. Child Protection Services will also be involved if necessary.
Mr Murali Pillai spoke about the issue of fairness in dealing with foreigners and asked why there is a need to remove statutory appeals. Let me explain in greater detail.
As is the case in most countries, foreigners do not have the right to enter or remain in Singapore. That follows then that they should not be entitled to challenge the terms of their entry or stay under the law.
This position is reflected in our legal provisions regarding the issuance and cancellation of long-term passes and application for citizenship. There has never been a right of statutory appeal for such immigration facilities and this has also not prevented us from according the affected foreigners fair and reasonable treatment and protection from harm under prevailing laws.
The provision of statutory appeals for entry permit holders who are PRs is found in the Immigration Act 1959, an old piece of legislation dating back to the start of self-government. We are now simply updating and rationalising our laws so that the position for entry permit holders who are PRs is aligned with that of applicants for long-term passes and citizenship.
Let me also assure Mr Murali Pillai that we do not make immigration decisions in a cavalier manner. Like him, we are particularly sympathetic to foreigners with close family ties to Singaporeans.
Immigration decisions take into consideration a wide range of factors. In some cases, this includes sensitive intelligence information. As I mentioned earlier, each decision is also based on a polycentric evaluation of factors relating to our policies and security needs. While we understand the desire for explicit reasons to be provided, a blanket provision will be too blunt.
Instead, we will continue to allow foreigners affected by an immigration decision to make representations and to provide explanations to the authorities. As Mr Gerald Giam suggested, for certain decisions, ICA does advise affected persons in broad terms why a decision was made, for example, that his PR status was revoked because of his criminal offences.
Foreigners can continue to seek ICA's reconsideration of the matter and ICA will escalate the matter for the Minister's determination if appropriate. This approach strikes a better balance between the need to safeguard the public interest and our national security on the one hand and fairness to foreigners affected by immigration decisions on the other.
Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gerald Giam asked how affected persons can submit appeals. They can do so via a general feedback form on ICA's website and it will be directed to the relevant immigration officers. In any case, I can assure them that even without a Member of Parliament's representation, these appeals are attended to.
Mr Giam asked about the administration of the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA). This is outside the scope of this Bill but we would like to assure the Member that the Registry of Marriages and the Registry of Muslim Marriages do provide to couples in person advice to complete the PMLA before marriage.
Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Gerald Giam asked immigration criteria can be made more transparent, including the assessment criteria for the renewal of the Re-Entry Permit. Mr Vikram Nair asked if we can give assurance to law-abiding PRs of their stay in Singapore.
As Members know, we do not disclose our detailed immigration criteria. The reasons are well-known and not new. They are also not the focus of today's Bill.
Nonetheless, I should point out that the comparison with COMPASS neglects important differences. I was the Manpower Minister when COMPASS was conceived. Its considerations are that employment pass holders mainly impact the workplace and they are also mostly transient. But for PRs and Singapore Citizens, the applicants must be considered differently because they are not transient and they impact the wider fabric of society. Therefore, the considerations must be more holistic and sensitive to long-term impact. We must also recognise the stronger incentives to game the system if the criteria were fully disclosed.
Be that as it may, we have shared the broad criteria that ICA considers, such as whether an applicant is gainfully employed, contributing to Singapore or has family roots here. PRs who have conducted themselves well and continue to be a resident in Singapore should not have much difficulty with the renewal of their Re-Entry Permit. I can assure the Members that the vast majority of applications for Re-Entry Permit renewal are approved.
To Mr Vikram Nair's question, on average, 7,900 or less than 2% of the total PR population each year lose their PR status by being outside of Singapore without a valid Re-Entry Permit. Of those who appealed, the majority were successful as they had valid reasons for not renewing their Re-Entry Permit in time.
On the powers of the Controller to publish changes to permit and pass conditions on a prescribed website or by Gazette, Mr Louis Ng asked when such situations would arise.
There are many instances where ICA may impose conditions on permit and pass holders. For example, if an individual committed a minor offence or displayed adverse behaviour, ICA would notify the person individually that it will impose a condition that he shall not engage in such activities further or risk having his permit or pass cancelled.
However, there may also be situations where ICA is required to impose conditions en masse, for instance, during a pandemic. Given the large number of PRs and pass holders, it would not be practicable to contact each and every one to notify them individually. The Controller will then publish the changes on a prescribed website or by Gazette.
Mr Louis Ng rightly pointed out that many individuals may not know how to access a prescribed website or the Gazette. Hence, ICA will explore suitable avenues to reach out to as many affected persons as possible, for example, through media platforms.
Finally, in his concluding remarks, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how congestion at the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints can be improved. This is not the focus of the Bill today and I would draw the Member's attention to ICA's various announcements over the past months on its efforts. Nevertheless, I shall share broadly four key initiatives.
One, since January 2023, ICA has implemented the Automated Clearance Initiative to allow eligible foreign visitors to use the automated lanes for immigration clearance, without prior enrolment of their biometrics.
Two, ICA will progressively implement automated clearance for cars at the two checkpoints in addition to motorcycles, thereby reducing overall time taken to clear immigration.
Three, progressively from 2024, Singaporeans and departing visitors will no longer need to present their passports for immigration clearance and will instead verify their identity through biometrics, reducing clearance time in bus halls by up to 40%.
Four, over the longer term, ICA will redevelop Woodlands Checkpoint to enhance clearance for all types of vehicular traffic and reduce travel times, especially during peak periods.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the Immigration (Amendment) Bill will facilitate the implementation of more digitalised and automated services for the benefit of all travellers, as well as enhance our immigration processes so that they are more robust, effective and efficient.
Once again, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Minister? Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for her detailed replies to my questions. I have just two clarifications to seek.
I think I heard the Minister say that for security reasons, the sharing of Singaporean passengers' biometric data with foreign governments is not on the cards yet. This suggests that it may be on the cards in future. Can I ask if the Government will seek Parliament's approval before the sharing of such personal data with foreign governments in the future?
And secondly, regarding providing the reasons for rejections of immigration passes, can ICA minimally share the broad criteria that is already been shared in Parliament in their standard rejection letters to applicants so that applicants can figure out on their own where they fell short? Without this, the applicants will tend to just keep trying to apply with the same information and not really realising why is it they cannot make the cut.
Mrs Josephine Teo: I thank Mr Gerald Giam for both his questions. It is really premature for us to consider what steps might make it possible for us to proceed with sharing of biometric data with other governments or foreign airport operator. The technology must be secure enough and there must be also mutual acceptance of the additional safeguards that must be put in place. Without knowing exactly what those conditions need to be, I do not want to speculate on what approvals may be needed. It is really just too early for us to even contemplate such a step.
To his second question, I am very sympathetic to the situations when the applicants are told that what they would like to see by way of a grant of permanent residency or other passes has not been approved. In my own experience dealing with these applicants, even when the reasons are articulated to them, whether broadly or with a fair amount of detail, the disappointment does not go away. So, I will be quite realistic as to what these steps can achieve.
I think it is more important to look at it in broader context. The broad context is that we have been facilitative, particularly for families who have children, for applicants whose family ties are long-established and we will continue to support them in this process.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.46 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\"
Families are the cornerstone of our society. It is where we learn our first lessons about values that will shape our character and identity. Families also provide a safe environment to nurture our children. A strong family can also help children develop into resilient adults who will then go on to contribute to society.
While parenthood is a fruitful journey, it is also one that has its challenges. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey shows that the ability to manage costs of childraising as well as work and family commitments are key considerations of couples when making parenthood decisions.
The Government is committed to support couples as they embark on their parenting journey. One of the key ways in which we do so is through the Marriage and Parenthood Package, which comprises a suite of measures to support parents, such as parental leave and benefits and the Baby Bonus schemes.
To ensure that the Marriage and Parenthood Package continues to meet the evolving needs of parents, we periodically review our policies and introduce enhancements. Since the Child Development Co-Savings Act was introduced more than 20 years ago, we have made amendments to effect enhancements, such as the introduction of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave.
We have also introduced the Government-Paid Maternity Benefits to support mothers who are ineligible for the Government-Paid Maternity Leave because they are on short-term contracts.
The latest round of enhancements in 2021 saw the introduction of the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit and Government-Paid Adoption Benefits to support working fathers and adoptive mothers who are shorter-term contract workers.
This year, at Budget 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced the latest set of enhancements to strengthen our support for parents. They include an increase to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift by $3,000 and enhancing Government co-matching contributions to the Child Development Account for eligible children born on or after 14 February 2023. Deputy Prime Minister Wong also announced further enhancements to parental leave schemes, which include the doubling of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from 1 January 2024.
The Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill that is currently before this House seeks to give effect to the leave enhancements announced at Budget 2023. This includes the enhancements to our paternity payment and reimbursement schemes, namely, the increase of Government-Paid Paternity Leave by two weeks on a voluntary basis and increase of the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit in parallel as well as the extension of the Unpaid Infant Care Leave.
First, clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 set out the main provisions for the enhancements to our paternity payment and reimbursement schemes. These enhancements apply to fathers of children born on or after 1 January 2024 or with an estimated date of delivery on or after 1 January 2024 as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of the application to adopt a child is on or after 1 January 2024.
Clause 10 will allow the Government to reimburse employers who voluntarily grant additional paternity leave of up to two weeks to eligible employees on top of the current mandatory paternity leave of up to two weeks. The additional two weeks of paternity leave will be implemented on a voluntary basis so that employers have more time to adjust. The reimbursement limits for employers will, as a result, be doubled to cover both the compulsory paternity leave and additional paternity leave. Employers who are ready to grant the extra paternity leave to eligible employees will be reimbursed by the Government from 1 January 2024.
Clause 8 will double the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit from the current 14 days to 28 days of an eligible father’s total income. Fathers who cannot qualify for paternity leave under CDCA due to their employment arrangements may be eligible for this enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Benefit, which is a cash benefit in lieu of the paternity leave.
Clauses 7 and 9 will also effectively double the limits for the Government’s payment to eligible self-employed fathers for their loss of income when they stop work to care for their children.
We are encouraged by the increase in take-up rates of Government-Paid Paternity Leave since its introduction 10 years ago. Today, more than half of our fathers take paternity leave. Nevertheless, we want to encourage more fathers to be more involved in their children’s growing years. The enhancements we are making to the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit are critical steps that the Government is making towards normalising paternal involvement in our society.
We hope that this increase will allow fathers to be more involved in caring for their children from the very beginning. Research has shown that children whose fathers are more involved have better outcomes in their physical, cognitive and emotional development. Locally, data from the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study, or SG LEADS in short, has shown that paternity leave utilisation can increase marital satisfaction. It also found that taking a longer duration of paternity leave would significantly reduce children’s behaviour problems through the mediating effects of family dynamics.
Second, we will double the provision of Unpaid Infant Care Leave, from the current six days per parent per 12 months, to 12 days per parent per 12 months. All working parents will be eligible for the additional Unpaid Infant Care Leave if they have a Singaporean child below the age of two years on or after 1 January 2024. We hope that this increase will better support parents who require additional time to care for their children in the early years.
The Bill also contains other clauses to improve operational efficiency and clarity.
Clause 2 of the Bill will allow for a simplified revocation process for Approved Persons in specific scenarios. The Approved Persons are designated persons responsible for overseeing the administration of the Child Development Account (CDA), otherwise known as CDA funds, which can only be used at Approved Institutions. They ensure that the CDA funds are withdrawn according to the prescribed usages in the Child Development Co-saving Regulations (CDCR). The simplified revocation process will be set out in the CDCR and are intended to apply in scenarios where the Approved Persons for the Approved Institutions are clearly no longer able to perform the role, such as when the Approved Person is wound-up or dissolved.
There are also other clauses that clarify the total number of days of lost income that can be claimed by a self-employed person for childcare purposes in a calendar year, as well as to clarify the eligibility conditions and computation of benefits under the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit and discretionary reimbursements to employers under CDCA for employees employed for less than three months. This will ensure that the relevant benefits are disbursed according to the design of the schemes.
Sir, this Bill will strengthen our support for parents in managing their work and family commitments, as well as to encourage greater shared parental responsibility in caregiving. The Government is committed to this cause and will continue to review our measures to provide greater assurance to young couples as they think about starting and growing their families. Beyond our support schemes, it is important that, as a society, we also strive towards building a family-friendly culture.
One key challenge that couples contemplating parenthood often grapple with is how to balance their caregiving and professional commitments. Hence, it is most heartening when we see employers step up to address this issue. Since the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in February this year, there have been employers who have voluntarily started granting fathers the additional two weeks of leave, even ahead of the implementation date of 1 January 2024. Take the example of Telstra, a global telecommunications and technology company that has been operating in Singapore for more than 20 years. Telstra has more than 20 staff. They have moved to review their paternity leave policy immediately after the announcement and started offering the additional two weeks of paternity leave to their employees from 1 July 2023 before Government reimbursement will commence from 1 January 2024.
Since then, some fathers have enjoyed the additional paternity leave and feedback has been positive. On top of offering additional paternity leave, Telstra has also adopted other family-friendly work practices, such as a flexible working policy where employees can choose their work hours and location, with no mandated number of days in the office. This is a commendable demonstration of commitment towards adopting family-friendly practices. By doing so, employers will also benefit as they can improve their talent attraction and retention outcomes. Over time, we hope to see many more companies making it a priority to create a family-friendly workplace culture.
Sir, let me conclude. The Bill before this House today is part of our greater efforts to create a Singapore that values and supports family well-being.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is committed to supporting Singaporeans as they embark on their parenthood journey and will continue to work with our community partners, such as the Families for Life movement, to build up an ecosystem that nurtures strong families. To truly make Singapore a place where all families can thrive, we will need a collective, whole-of-society approach. Everyone has a part to play, from individuals and families, to employers and communities. Let us all work together to realise our vision of a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to increase support provided to parents in managing both work and child-caring commitments, encourage greater shared parental responsibility and to improve operational clarity for the disbursement of childcare-related benefits. However, I have some suggestions which I hope that the Government could consider.
Let me start by commending the Government’s efforts in supporting Singaporeans who wish to start a family.
In addition to the doubling of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave, the Government has also increased the Baby Bonus Cash Gift by $3,000 and enhanced co-matching contributions to the Child Development Account. Various Government agencies also prioritise families with children in areas, such as housing, and provide generous subsidies for childcare and education.
However, we must acknowledge that despite the Government’s best efforts, our total fertility rate continues to fall, reaching a record low of 1.05 in 2022. This signals that beyond the actual cost of raising a child, there are more deep-rooted issues that put off Singaporeans from starting a family.
During my house visits, I have met families with four, five and, sometimes, six children. They do not live in a big flat and everyone has to share their bedroom. But they tell me that they are happy that they get to share their joys and the simple pleasures in life with one another. But I have also met couples with one child, who tell me that it is too expensive to raise a child in Singapore and that they are unable to afford to have a second. The difference in attitudes reflects a difference towards what each value in life. I believe that this is shaped, in many ways, by their home environment and, crucially, their work environment.
Sir, several research papers have, in recent years, examined the interplay between work life and family life. The work-life balance or, in some cases, the lack of work-life balance, will affect decisions on how working people choose to allocate their time and energy when it comes to work and family roles. A 2022 study that examined stress in balancing between work and family among working parents in Hong Kong found that those who have children reported higher levels of work-life stress, possibly due to the additional load of balancing caregiving duties with work. I believe many Singaporeans will relate deeply with this.
I would, therefore, like to suggest for MSF to work with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to conduct a local study to examine companies that offer employees with the best work-life balance. The agencies can study if there is a correlation between quality of work-life balance and the number of staff in the company that choose to start a family. The outcome of the study can inform agencies with insights into certain work practices that need to be adopted, or perhaps even legislated, to provide Singaporeans with a more conducive work environment to start a family.
One such work practice would be flexible work arrangements, including work-from-home arrangements, where possible, if the work can be done remotely. COVID-19 has shown all of us that flexible work arrangements can work and the Labour Movement strongly believes that this should be an option when the job scope allows for it. There should also be clearer norms on after-hours work communications, so that we can give families protected time and for young couples to spend more time together and to start a family.
It has been close to three years since we launched the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces, guiding employers on establishing a work-life harmony policy to offer clarity on after-hours work communication. Three years on, can the Government consider elevating this advisory into a tripartite standard?
Flexible work arrangements are currently encouraged as part of a tripartite standard. We can certainly do more to encourage more companies to adopt flexible work arrangements for their staff. I, therefore, urge MSF to consider expanding Part 3 of the Child Development Co-Savings Act to allow for employers to claim benefits if they provide good flexible work arrangements to staff with children.
Sir, I often hear from our brothers and sisters working in the Public Service that the Public Service leads by example when it comes to offering flexible work arrangements. Some heads of department provide them with the flexibility to come into the office only when absolutely necessary, such as when there are in-person meetings and discussions. They also tell me that their senior management make a conscious effort in informing them that emails sent after office hours need not be replied until the next working day, unless the email is marked as urgent. These measures have allowed them to strike a better work-life balance, with more time to focus on the family. I urge other employers to mimic the Public Service in providing progressive flexible work arrangements and in setting clear after-hours work communication expectations to all their staff.
Lastly, I would like to ask MSF to consider providing adoptive and foster parents with a greater differentiation in benefits under the Act. Adoptive and foster parents often have to deal with a myriad of problems that are more complicated than a traditional family setting. We should, therefore, provide them with more support, such as more Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave.
Mr Speaker, it takes a whole-of-nation effort to raise the next generation of Singaporeans. While we acknowledge that the Government has done much in supporting Singaporeans who wish to start a family, we can do more to help shift some of the structural issues that discourage Singaporeans from having children. We should also provide greater support to adoptive and foster parents. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, children are the greatest joy, children are also the greatest source of worry and, as a society, we work together to find ways to ensure that we put the right support and structures in place to help Singaporeans fulfill their parenthood aspirations. Yet, we also wring our hands in despair at the stubbornly low total fertility rate or TFR despite over two decades of the Baby Bonus Scheme and its frequent enhancements.
Three years ago, this House debated the introduction of the Baby Support Grant (BSG), which offered an extra cash payment of $3,000 to encourage couples not to delay having children in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and the scheme was extended to eligible babies born before 14 February 2023. It was revealed that a total of $92 million was paid out in the first year that the scheme ran, a not insignificant sum of money. However, the birth rate in the years where the BSG payouts were made failed to go above the 2019 rate of 1.14% and in fact, dropped even to a record low in 2022 to 1.04%.
It should thus be more clear than ever that financial considerations are only a part of decisions that parents make about whether or not to start or add to a family. The amendments proposed by the Bill do go beyond cash payments to address the concerns that we have raised time and again in this House to bring in changes relating to the extinct parental leave system.
At the heart of parental leave is an acknowledgment of the important role that parents play in their children's lives, particularly in the early days, weeks and months. How often have we young parents heard people telling us that the days are long but the years are short? Time spent at work away from our little ones is time that we will never get back. After all, for those of us fortunate enough to have kids who go through the milestones of a first smile, a first step, a first word, the first wobbly tooth that falls, know too well the bittersweet thrill that accompanies these moments. It brings with it a flood of memories and also the realisation that your child is growing up.
Yet, on a personal and also societal level, we are torn by various considerations beyond the urge to want to seize every precious moment with our children. After all, we do not exist on fresh air and sunshine. So, how do we strike that delicate and constantly shifting balance between ensuring that economic and material needs are fulfilled, alongside ensuring the well-being of our child? This question gets evermore important in a rapidly disrupted world also facing the twin pressures of cost of living and climate emergency crises that show scant respect for borders.
Added to that, we have heard from many fathers about their desire to play an even greater role in bringing up their children, not only for reasons of personal joy, but also because there are benefits to children's development through more gender equitable socialisation. Some researchers, for example, argue that modelling of gender equitable relationships in child rearing correlates to girls being more ambitious in their working lives. These social and economic reasons are why the Workers' Party 2020 manifesto called for a total of 24 weeks parental leave to be made mandatory, to be shared between parents of all newborns as they deem fit for their family circumstances, with a minimum of 16 weeks to the mother and four weeks to the father.
Working parents would thus take comfort in the amendments contained in this Bill to tweak our existing parental leave system to increase paternity leave entitlements for working fathers. It seeks to increase the existing paternity leave entitlement from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis. The Government has also indicated that there are plans to make this change mandatory in due course, and this cannot come soon enough and I hope that we have a firm commitment about when this is expected to happen.
It is interesting too, that in Sweden with the highest levels of female labour force participation in the world, parents are entitled to a total of 480 days of paid parental leave, with 90 days reserved for each spouse that cannot be transferred. Single parents are entitled to all 480 days in recognition of the harder job that they have in bringing up their children. Latest statistics show that fathers currently take up 30% of all paid parental leave entitlements.
I am not suggesting that we blindly copy the examples in other countries. We have come far in our journey to support families in the workplace. We have mandatory parental newborn leave and childcare leave schemes that have been introduced. I do not doubt that this change is the result of the tireless work of all involved to change mindsets surrounding the support that parents and aspiring parents need from the workplace.
What I believe we can benefit from though, is to closely study the causative effect of flexible and generous parental leave entitlements where parents can exercise more choice in deciding what split works best for their family using the examples of, for example, Sweden described above, with its high female labour force participation rate and gender equity.
But to ensure continued progress, we should also automatically publicly track the uptake of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) taken by fathers. From a reply to a Parliamentary Question previously, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) says that just 40% of eligible fathers took the full two weeks of GPPL in each year from 2018 to 2020, with median GPPL taken increasing from 0.1 weeks to 1.2 weeks.
While tracking the uptake of the new four weeks of GPPL taken by fathers, could MSF also survey and study the reasons why fathers do not utilise their full GPPL entitlements? Anecdotally, we have heard that it is a matter of culture as well. Pressure from employers alongside wider societal norms are reasons why fathers do not take up paternal leave.
The Government has a responsibility to actively ensure that employers are not punishing fathers for taking up parental leave entitlement schemes and to see what effects this is having on our efforts to promote better support for young families and aspiring parents.
I also note that there is still a gap between an extension of such support to self-employed parents and those without full employment benefits. Self-employed parents or those not in full-time employment may end up feeling rushed to hurry back to work which in turn may end up with detrimental effects for both parents and children and also make it more stressful for such parents when deciding whether or not to have a child or to add to their family.
Beyond mandating mandatory leave days, we must ultimately look to the trust that we should and can build in the workplace in order to make it more conducive for young parents.
I myself benefited hugely from having had a boss and department where my team understood that sometimes having children makes it difficult for you to be at your desk in the office constantly and that a reasonable amount of give and take should apply. For us, this could come in the form of having to make an unscheduled school run to pick up a child who started having a fever in the middle of the school day or the flexibility to work from home in the mornings in order to spend more time with an infant who is still breastfeeding.
All of this was on the understanding that colleagues were ultimately responsible for doing their jobs conscientiously and timeously and that we would support each other in achieving our goals as a team.
This is similar to the conversation that we had about our medical certificate (MC) culture, which emerged during the coronavirus pandemic. This level of trust being common in workplaces may be dismissed as being unrealistic, as being naïve. But as the people of an improbable nation, I do not think that we do ourselves favours by selling ourselves short in thinking that this is an unachievable goal.
Beyond trust and empathy in the workplace. I hope that the upcoming workplace fairness legislation has specific measures to ensure that parents and in particular, working mothers do not end up being penalised and discriminated against, whether this is for employees being discriminated against for taking up the improved Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML) and GPPL entitlements or else for having to juggle childcare responsibilities with work.
While we are acutely aware that there are immediate business continuity costs associated with having to cover the work to be done with employees who are on parental leave, we must continue to look at the bigger picture. Businesses, ultimately benefit by being able to access a wider hiring pool when they are able to make reasonable accommodations for parents who have care responsibilities and the economy also benefits when we take these measures to support parenthood aspirations and address our low TFR.
While the amendment Bill today focuses on parental leave it would also be remiss of us not to bring up the importance of how it remains to look at the bigger picture. This means looking beyond traditional population and economic growth models and strategies.
As I said in my speech during the Baby Support Grant in 2020, we have to continue to seek sustainable solutions for how to afford the financial and unpaid cost associated with caring for an increasingly aged society while maintaining international and inter-generational fairness.
Finally, as we discussed building better support for parents, I feel that a segment deserves more attention. Families of children with special needs.
With latest data indicating that around 35,500 students have special education needs as of December last year, this is a significant group, especially as it does not include children who are not of school-going age, but whose parents are still responsible for their care. The number also does not include children who are suffering from other health conditions, both mental and physical, who also warrant extra care from their families and caregivers.
Greater awareness of an empathy for families of children with additional needs is undoubtedly growing but do we really understand and account for the larger amount of resources, mental load and emotional costs that parents bear when providing care for such children? Do we also pay attention and try to address the increased pressure that siblings of children with special needs often bear?
Parents of such children are often faced with both having to strive to give the best support available to their children while at the same time dealing with their own complex emotions, which may involve grief and feelings of loss associated with not being able to achieve dreams of their children doing things that so many of us take for granted sharing. Cheering their children on at football matches or Sports Days, graduation day, or even just curling up on the sofa with a book, and which can be quickly followed by devastating guilt for feeling such grief in spite of the deep love they continue to hold for their child.
I previously spoke about parental burnout and its lack of systematic quantification. I believe this is even more important for such families if we are to be serious about property supporting them. A workplace solution could become an increase support and flexibility when it comes to childcare leave arrangements.
While we call on our policies to do more, I believe that each one of us can start today by showing more empathy and understanding and non-judgement towards our fellow Singaporeans who may be finding it difficult to juggle it all. And if we are privileged enough to be able to take on a little bit more in any way in the hope that it can ease their burden, just a little, let us do so without complaint or expecting anything in return.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am glad we have introduced this Bill today which includes many things so many of us have been fighting for, for so many years now. The increase in paternity leave is very much welcomed. It is something very close to my heart and this change sends a strong signal about the important role that fathers play. It also signals that the Government is listening, listening to concerns on the ground and listening to our repeated questions in this House on these important issues, although we sometimes get the same repeated replies.
But this Bill also does not include many things that so many of us are still fighting for and I hope that changes will be made as we move towards a more inclusive society and a Singapore Made for Families.
I have three points of clarification. My first point is on equalising parental leave. This is a point I have raised repeatedly and will raise again and again, because it is an important point. Just last year, Minister Josephine Teo spoke about whether equalising parental leave would better reflect the desire for equal sharing of responsibilities. She said, “Questions like these should not be forgotten. Every now and then, we should revisit them. And even if we do not, Mr Louis Ng will make sure that we do.”
We should revisit this every now and then. I raised this earlier this year and will raise it again now. I am glad we have doubled paternity leave. But can go further to eventually equalise parental leave.
I am heartened that Minister Indranee Rajah has said that the Government will continue to work with the tripartite partners to review the scope for more parental leave provisions. Can the Government work with tripartite partners to come up with a roadmap to equalise parental leave? I fully understand this is not a one-year, two-year, or even three-year road map. Our four weeks of paternity leave will take time to catch up with the 16 weeks of maternity leave.
I agree with Minister Indranee Rajah who said that the two parts of the equation are fathers taking up paternity leave and employers being supportive of fathers going on paternity leave. Our employers will need time to adjust to equalising paternity leave. Let us help our employers by providing them with the roadmap they need for business certainty.
We should also remember that an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) study highlighted that our policies signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes. Equalising parental leave is a step forward towards reducing these gender stereotypes and I hope the Government will seriously consider this.
Next, I am heartened that as part of the Made for Families initiative, the Government is providing more support for families by increasing unpaid infant care leave. In the same spirit, I hope we can consider including introducing childcare sick leave for all Singaporeans. This, I have raised many times as well and I wish it was part of this Bill.
Civil servants already have childcare sick leave. Other Singaporean families should have this too. Childcare sick leave is a necessity. It is important for the health of our children and for families. Recently, a teacher emailed me to share her struggles with her child who is constantly falling ill. She told me that her child is always falling sick and had already been hospitalised twice for pneumonia and acute bronchitis. She told me that the number of childcare leave is really not enough.
She said: \"I feel the horrible lack of childcare leave days in Singapore has resulted in parents sending their sick kids to school, which in turn increases the infection rates and causes kids to fall sick easily. I have personally heard colleagues and friends saying that they send their kids to school as long as they don’t have a fever because they just have no choice due to the number of leave days. As a parent who tries her best to keep her child at home till he recovers, this is very frustrating because my child falls sick again a few days after returning to school.\"
This teacher ended her email by saying that, “Although I am passionate about teaching and impacting the lives of the younger ones, such experiences leave me thinking that I should leave the service, which is a waste.” Her story is not unusual. If we are to be a Singapore Made for Families, will the Government consider providing childcare sick leave on a per-child basis for all Singaporeans? This is no different from what we are already doing for civil servants.
My final point is on a group of parents who are often overlooked and discriminated against – single unwed parents. I am glad we have previously amended this Act, the Child Development Co-Savings Act, to provide more support for single unwed parents, including providing the CDA component of the Baby Bonus. I hope we can now provide them the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I know this is not part of the Bill today, but it really should be. This money is not a luxury but a lifeline for so many single unwed parents.
Since 2016, I have spoken up nine times for extending the Working Mother’s Child Relief, the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. This will be my 10th time raising this.
This is also an issue of fairness. This is not about incentivising or disincentivising any behaviours. What exactly is the policy objective of not providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents?
Seventeen years ago, Minister Indranee who was a backbencher in this House said, “The third group of people who do not really feel included are the single unwed mothers who are not allowed to rent Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. I do strongly feel that this is an outdated policy. I have spoken on this before, and I understand that the rationale is that the Ministry of National Development (MND) does not want to encourage them to have babies out of wedlock. But if this is the policy objective, it is not working, because there are many children born out of wedlock. As I have said before, the availability of rental flats is not something that the couple have in mind when they engage in the activity that results in the child. That is the last thought on their minds.”
I am quite sure that before the couple have sex, they similarly do not think about the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I am quite sure we all agree they do not.
We have progressed and changed our outdated policy of not allowing single unwed parents to rent HDB flats. It is time to also change this outdated policy of not providing single unwed parents with the cash component of the Baby Bonus.
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in 2013 that single unwed mothers need more help than others, including in the area of financial assistance. He said, “We’re all in this together and the Government will do its part.”
It has been 10 years since his speech. The Government has, indeed, done more for single unwed parents, but it can do even more.
In our national pledge, we pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. On the issue of the cash component of the Baby Bonus and the Working Mother’s Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate, we are doing the single unwed parents an injustice, an inequality.
I am not asking for single unwed parents to have more; only that they have equal to what any other parent is entitled to. I hope we can review our policy and start by providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I support the amendments proposed by this Bill.
The Bill will make timely and necessary improvements to the Child Development Co-Savings Act as we continue to design and implement a Singapore Made for Families. Since 1987, when Singapore ended its \"Stop at Two\" population policy, a range of pro-natalist initiatives have been introduced. These include paid maternity and paternity leave, childcare subsidies, tax relief, rebates, cash gifts and grants.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to note that Singapore currently boasts one of the most comprehensive set of programmes and policies in East Asia to promote marriage, increase fertility and birth rates, and provide incentives and support to couples wishing to start or grow a family.
Despite these considerable efforts, Singapore is still struggling to encourage couples to marry and, when married, to have children.
In 2022, Singapore’s total fertility rate was 1.05, the lowest it has ever been. This decline can be attributed to two key factors. First, more people are staying single or getting married later in life; and second, married couples are waiting longer to have their first child and having fewer children overall.
Both of these factors are influenced by evolving cultural, social and economic circumstances. Women are increasingly questioning the expectation to marry early, have children and stay at home to look after their children. Women are increasingly able to access independent and financially rewarding careers, both within and outside the marriage. And women are increasingly aware of the significant cost of raising children.
Mr Speaker, our Government acknowledges these challenges and has taken steps to facilitate marriage, housing access, education and financial stability. These initiatives are particularly vital for women who historically bear child-rearing responsibilities.
Gender equality is crucial for Singapore's continued success, as emphasised in the 2022 White Paper on Singapore Women's Development. To achieve this, we must maintain women's rights, make family life enriching and continuously engage Singaporean girls and women’s perspectives.
On that note, I would like to highlight a study, “The Aspirations of Singapore Muslim Women”, carried out by the non-profit organisation, Singapore Muslim Women’s Association (PPIS), in 2021. The study revealed that Muslim women’s top family aspirations include work-life balance, financial stability and the ability to raise children well. Mr Speaker, at this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that I currently serve on the Board of PPIS.
It is heartening to note that over the years, our Government has implemented policies to encourage married persons in Singapore to have more children. As mentioned, I welcome the changes in the Bill as it aims to provide additional support to make child-rearing an appealing and affordable option for couples.
However, I seek some clarifications about some of the proposed amendments. Before I do so, I would like to share my personal experience as a mother who benefited from the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
In 2001, I was working full-time as a Probation Officer with the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. In May of that year, my second child was born and he qualified for the Baby Bonus Scheme. This greatly eased the financial strain of raising two young children.
I remember bringing my son home. My first-born, who was two-and-a-half years old at that time, was eagerly waiting for his \"Thambi\", or “brother” in Tamil, and could not understand why his baby brother spent most of his time sleeping. In his excitement to play with his brother, he threw a toy police car into his crib. Luckily, he missed.
Interestingly, both my boys later completed their National Service with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and I believe the toy police car may have played a part in that.
As a working mother, it was difficult to supervise and care for two children under the age of three and keeping them both safe was my utmost priority. My eldest child attended childcare, a direct benefit of the Baby Bonus Scheme, and my mother took care of the baby.
I was also very fortunate to have supervisors who believed in measuring performance by outcomes and who allowed me to work from home. This was an immense relief and I would not have been able to balance my responsibilities as a mother and a Probation Officer without the support of my supervisors.
I consider myself privileged to have received emotional support from my mother; financial support from the Government by way of the Baby Bonus; and practical support from my employer. These opportunities allowed me to work from home, excel in my career and continue my education. Importantly, these opportunities allowed me to be a mother to my two wonderful children.
Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments to section 7. These amendments will assist to ensure the quality and professionalism of health and educational services provided by approved persons to children and their families.
With regard to approved persons, what are the eligibility criteria for approved persons, and what support or training are provided to help them meet these criteria? In the last three years, how many approved persons had their approval suspended or revoked, and why? What support is given to approved persons when suspended to help them regain their approval? If an approved person can no longer serve a child or a family due to suspension or revocation, what are their obligations in arranging alternative care, especially if they provide childcare services? Will the proposed duties for officers and employees of approved persons include an understanding of policies and procedures necessary to safeguard children who access their services?
Mr Speaker, I also welcome the proposed amendment to section 12H. The amendment will provide greater financial support to self-employed men. I would, however, welcome additional information on the support that exists for gig workers facing income loss due to parenting responsibilities; and whether the amendment covers gig workers, including those with casual or temporary hours and who have irregular income?
Finally, I welcome the proposed amendments to sections 12HA and 12JA. These amendments, I believe, will send a strong signal about the Government's commitment to a family-friendly Singapore.
However, I note that strong gender imbalances with respect to parenting, family and household responsibilities still exist across many East Asian countries, including Singapore.
On that note, do we have current data on fathers' use of parental leave, particularly in the private sector, given that MSF reported that 84% of public sector employees eligible for paternity leave accessed this leave?
What initiatives are in place to encourage men to utilise their paternity leave entitlements and how do we plan to address factors like company culture and social norms that may prevent fathers from taking up the leave? How are we promoting more equal parenting roles in households, especially during paternity leave, considering gender imbalances? What measures are in place to encourage employers to support family-friendly environments for a healthy, respectful work-life balance?
Mr Speaker, by addressing the concerns raised, I believe we can collectively advance towards achieving the mandate, A Singapore (Truly) Made for Families.
I appreciate Members’ attention and I would like to conclude by sharing remarks from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat during the launch of \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\" in November 2022. On that occasion, he noted, and I quote: \"Establishing a supportive and adaptable work environment for employees to achieve work-life harmony is not only pro-family but also pro-business. Workers who can balance their work and family responsibilities are better able to contribute effectively at their workplaces.\" Clarifications notwithstanding, I conclude in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Thank you, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, for sharing your story. Indeed, support from all stakeholders is important. Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, it has been 10 years since paternity leave was introduced in Singapore, during which time paternity leave has gone from one to two weeks, shared parental leave from one to four weeks, and take-up by fathers has gone up to 55%. More recently, amendments were introduced to avail benefits to birth, adoptive and stillborn parents in different employment situations. Ten years is a good time to take stock and see how the policy can be improved upon.
The experience of other developed countries suggests that prioritising paternity leave has a positive impact on parents, caregivers, their employers and, most importantly, the children. One of the most notable examples of this is Iceland, where parents now get 12 months of leave, six months for each parent, with six weeks of that being transferable. That shift that started in the year 2000, when paternity leave was increased from two weeks to three months was rapid and, today, more than 90% of fathers take paternity leave. It is normal and socially expected to see men out pushing their babies in a pram, and the research shows that men are experiencing the role as a father much more strongly and in a more positive way, for instance, being around for their babies’ first steps or first words.
Importantly, these early bonds are sustained. World Health Organization (WHO) research shows that Icelandic daddies enjoy the stronger position as fathers in the world, with children finding it easy to go to daddy whenever they have a problem. The statistics also show that it has reduced the gender pay gap, as mothers are able to return to work and normal working hours sooner, because childcare is more equally divided between both parents.
We are some way away from this in Singapore, where women still take on much more childcare responsibilities, even when working full-time. But if we want greater equality of opportunity for women, we need to provide greater equality for men at home. I repeat. If we want greater equality of opportunity for women, we need to provide greater equality for men at home.
And so, Mr Speaker, while the increase in paternity leave from two to four weeks, including for self-employed workers, is a step in the right direction, one wonders: is it bold enough? Is it a missed opportunity to signal the will to take firm steps, by making this shift voluntary rather than mandatory? Is it a missed opportunity to signal an intent to work towards narrowing or closing the gap between maternity and paternity leave, even if a practical approach is taken in implementation?
Many multinational companies already provide significantly longer paternity leave than the current two-week requirement, some equal to maternity leave and with no tenure requirement. These companies see a generational shift in their workforce. Paternity leave is part of their strategy to attract, engage and retain talent. In doing so, they have also had to be more intentional in rolling out supporting measures like flexible work arrangements, in line with the direction of travel that we have already set out on.
More companies should be made to see this as a first step, by making it mandatory or at least committing to a timeline in the not-too-distant future, rather than the current wait-and-see stance and by kickstarting a conversation about the importance of parental leave equality in promoting shared care. At this point, I would like to ask a clarification of the Minister. What are the markers that would signal that we are ready to move from voluntary to a mandatory increase in paternity leave?
Moving to the increase in unpaid infant care leave from six days to 12 days, on paper, sounds good. But what is the current take-up rate of unpaid infant care leave today?
In a recent response to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Louis Ng, the Minister of Manpower said that the Ministry does not track the utilisation of unpaid infant care leave. So, we are left with anecdotes. And the anecdotes suggest that above and beyond the subtle pressures that discourage fathers from using paternity leave, many fathers experience sometimes not so subtle pressures when it comes to taking unpaid infant care leave, even if they are willing to forgo the pay.
I have heard anecdotes from my Woodlands residents that taking any form of unpaid leave leads to an automatic zero bonus, that unpaid leave can only be taken when paid leave is exhausted, that shift workers are not allowed to take unpaid leave and so on.
So, for this laudable move to not turn cynical, it is important that the use of paternity and unpaid infant care is enshrined in the proposed anti-discrimination legislations. I would also like to ask a clarification to the Minister if the use of unpaid infant care leave will be tracked going forward.
I would like to devote the remainder of my speech to something that has been asked many times in this House but has been left out of the current Bill – increasing childcare leave from the current six days per year, for families with two or more young children. For many, six days is simply not enough. These are the real-life stories of my Woodlands residents.
Like Mr E, who has 4 children aged one, three, five and eight, who works 12-hour shifts at a manufacturing plant. His wife works 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. So, they are lucky to have their children in infant care and childcare at PCF Sparkletots so she can drop them off and pick them up after work. But every once in a while, one of the children will come back from school sick and when one child gets sick, it is an inevitability that it gets passed to one or more of the other children. And suddenly, they are faced with having to keep the kids at home for three, four, five days, a week. This happens three to four times a year. And we know that one bout of HFMD means seven days of MC for the child. Since six days of their childcare leave are already used on the six days that the centre closes, they end up using a fair chunk of their annual leave when their children are sick.
Mr K is a private hire driver with four children aged nine, 12, 13 and 15. His nine-year-old is a special needs child. His wife is a homemaker, caring for the children and for her mother who is a stroke patient. Each morning, he drives his children to four different schools, before starting to accept jobs, even though this means he misses out on some of more lucrative driving slots. Sometimes, he gets calls from the school to pick up his daughter when she is sick or from his wife to bring her mother to her medical appointment or his daughter to her developmental assessments, which further reduces his driving hours. He sometimes thinks about going back to the IT sector which will likely give him better career development prospects. But he feels he needs the flexibility that being a private hire driver gives him given his family circumstances.
And Mdm S, a single mother with two children aged eight and 17, who works in the healthcare sector. Each weekday morning, Mdm S sees her daughters off to school and then goes to work, secure with the knowledge that her mother will be there to watch her daughter when she is back from school at around 2.00 pm. But her mother recently suffered a stroke and is now in a nursing home. So, now, when her younger daughter gets out of school, she relies on a combination of friends, neighbours and her siblings' care to watch over her until her shift ends at 9.00 pm. And given that a 17-year-old often has other plans, that often means leaving the eight-year-old child alone for several hours a day. As a single mother, there are only two days of childcare leave available for her when her daughter falls ill.
Mr Speaker, Mr E, Mr K and Mdm S, they are not outliers. Their stories demonstrate the increasing varied situations and complex challenges working parents face and the trade-offs that they make on a daily basis to care for their children, including when they get sick. Each of them must weave together a different patchwork of solutions often based on family-specific factors, such as income, the number and ages of their children, along with the availability of grandparents, relatives, neighbours and domestic helpers and on the nature of their work and workplace dynamics.
The Government has stated that one of its key priorities is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable childcare and for their parents, and is increasing the number of childcare spaces. But the cost of childcare is still cited as a reason for couples to delay or forgo children.
And what happens when the child falls sick? For many parents, there is no alternative or safe place to take their child when he or she needs to be taken out of childcare for the day. Grandparents may be too old or live a distance far away or deceased, while leaving the care of a sick child to a helper may not be a solution they feel comfortable with. And indeed, some young parents find the mere suggestion of these solutions to be quite triggering.
Fortunately, there are an increasing number of progressive companies that have implemented family-friendly practices – childcare leave, flexible work arrangements and more broadly, a supportive workplace culture. In the Public Service, there are Ministries that grant six days of childcare leave per child below 12 years old, capped to a maximum of 10 days. I believe NTUC grants five days of childcare leave per child, capped at 15 days.
Yet, the Government has been slow to move to legislate further enhancements to childcare leave, citing a need to strike a balance in addressing the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. This is especially so for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), some of which may still be grappling with the effects of the pandemic. There is concern that mandating more childcare leave might affect employability.
These concerns are not unwarranted. It is not uncommon to hear managers and co-workers, especially singles or adults with no children, expressing annoyance or frustration with having to cover for colleagues who go on childcare leave at short notice. Singles or adults with no children often complain that they often end up caring for their elderly parent while their siblings with children excuse themselves, with even less support for parental care leave and financial support. And on the flipside, some parents with sick children who have to take more days, speak of feeling resigned to what they see as retribution in their performance appraisals and bonuses, particularly if they have ambitious single bosses or older bosses who have forgotten what it like to have a young family.
Mr Speaker, clearly, it is not a just a matter of legislation or guidelines on flexible work arrangements. Fundamentally, we must all have more empathy for others, more respect for all. This cannot simply be a campaign slogan for one, but a movement for all and we must work, Government and citizens, to make it happen.
But there are things we can do in the nearer team. The Government has committed significant funding to making a Singapore Made for Families, from higher Baby Bonuses, contributions to Child Development Account (CDA) and the proposed increase in paternity and unpaid infant leave. At the same time, a slew of initiatives are underway to support women's development, especially towards women at the workforce and in the community. There is also growing focus on our ageing population, on single moms, on special needs children.
In 2024, new TAFEP guidelines for flexible work arrangement will be released. Meanwhile, even with the sceptre of a recession, some sectors are still struggling to get enough manpower, including high demand sectors like healthcare and education, which also hire more women. The stars therefore seem to be aligned for stakeholders to act on the importance of sufficient childcare leave.
Given these, I urge the Government to consider two further enhancements today.
First, legislating more childcare leave for parents with two or more children. There seems to be enough parents across a range of family and work circumstances for whom an additional two days per child would make a material difference and enough evidence that improved benefits drive employee engagement and business results. The total number of days can be capped, say, at 10 days, but recognising the increased childcare burden with more children, can be really important to drive consistency with the policy of encouraging two or more children.
Second, taking an industry specific lens to enhancing childcare and childcare leave and driving customised solutions for each industry in partnership with employers and unions.
Working parents faces different constraints and preferences for key aspects of childcare, such as type of care, location and hours. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. This calls for a more de-averaged approach that pays attention to the difference in caregiver experiences, looks for gaps in care-specific to each industry and develops customised solutions that better meet those employees' needs.
For example, transportation workers and warehousing workers often require care starting as early as 4.00 am, while IT and retail workers may need more flexibility for later pick-ups. In high demand sectors like healthcare and education, the need to attract and retain employees and the high proportion of employees in the public sector afford the opportunity to drag along the rest of the industry in granting more childcare leave. Just as we have industry transformation maps that drive skills, that drive productivity solutions and workforce development at the sector level, the transformation to more family-friendly environments can be driven at the sector level.
Mr Speaker, making a Singapore Made for Families is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Our approach must be to give all families, parents and children, more help, whatever their choices and ambitions and around increasingly varied needs. We have made progressive enhancements to providing this support and choice, while maintaining our pro-business stance. But we need to go further and faster. I am confident we can continue to find innovative solutions to this. Notwithstanding my suggestions for further enhancements and clarifications, I support the amendments in this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a representative of the Labour Movement.
I count myself lucky to be a Singaporean. Did you know? Singapore ranks as one of the best countries to live in for a woman. We advocate equal rights for women and men, at work and at home. In this regard, I thank the Minister for the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is progressive and empowering. Yet, it could be more encompassing.
We can do more to advance gender equality and empathy for working caregivers at three levels – Government, organisation and the individual.
First, at the Government level.
When his newborn arrives on or after 1 January 2024, a self-employed man can count on the Government for paternity leave of 24 days or six days a week for a four-week period of lost income. Yet, this troubles the self-employed private hire car driver or hawker. Why is this so?
Regardless of the circumstance, the self-employed private hire car driver or hawker must pay rent for his car or hawker stall, seven days a week and rent is a significant expense.
Likely, he must dip into his savings to cover rent, other expenses and lost income. This is a tall order for many self-employed persons. The Institute of Policy Studies found that more than six in 10 private hire car drivers would fall into prolonged financial hardship if they had to stop working.
A self-employed driver or hawker thus hopes that the Government can enhance the calculation of paid paternity leave, from 24 days to 28 days. Doing so would allow the self-employed person to wholeheartedly embrace his duties as a supportive spouse and a father to a newborn. Therefore, could the Minister consider providing paid paternity leave to the self-employed father for the full four-week period of lost income?
Second, at the organisation level.
Employees' expectations of work and work-life balance have changed. Staffing is leaner, families are smaller. Many individuals are doing more. They take on multiple responsibilities at work and juggle various caregiving roles at home.
Employees thus seek balance and fulfilment, even as organisations pursue rejuvenation and growth. Bosses must therefore lead with new lenses. They must also evolve structures, policies and processes to meet changing aspirations.
Imagine these possibilities: structures that make work schedules and back-ups predictable? They give employees the leeway to balance dynamic family and work needs. Policies that facilitate time and work flexibility? They allow employees to prioritise tasks and manage deadlines. Work processes that accommodate both organisation and employees' needs? They empower managers to be empathetic and employees, especially frontliners, to be comfortable about making time for themselves and their families.
Like getting organisations onboard digital solutions, we can transform these possibilities into reality. We can expect forward-looking organisations to turn to the Government for guidance and resources to create family-supportive workplaces. These organisations are keen because they know that their employees want to be empowered as professionals and supported as breadwinners and caregivers. Could the Government consider helping these organisations to create work environments supportive of caregivers in their workforce?
Lastly, at the individual level.
Singapore's old-age support ratio declined to 3.8 in 2022. This means that 3.8 working-age people of ages 20 to 64 were providing economic support to a dependant aged 65 years or older. Compare this with 10 years ago, when nearly two times more working age people were supporting a mature dependant.
As society ages and family units shrink, every working person matters more so than ever. Women are especially taxed.
Duke-NUS' Centre for Ageing Research and Education found that women made up three in four of the 278 caregivers in their study. Many of us might know of women in our networks who had to give up their careers to become full-time caregivers because they felt that support was lacking. This is regrettable.
Therefore, could the Government consider expanding caregiving support to cater for more types of caregiving needs? For instance, caregiving-related leave would benefit workers, especially those in frontline roles.
I recall negotiating for urgent leave on behalf of a union member. She was a retail assistant who had to leave work halfway because an older family member suddenly took ill. It was a trying ordeal for her and me. She was also very stressed because she had to offset the urgent leave against her meagre earned leave balance.
Caregiving leave would have been a more direct and immediate way for her and other frontline workers to respond to urgent family needs.
Organisations that establish flexible work and family-supportive policies would welcome more recognition and support as these encourage their employees who are caregivers to stay on. Women, especially, would feel more supported.
A monologue from the recent movie, \"Barbie\", took the world by storm because it shone a light on the unrealistic expectations that women are held to. I quote a memorable line that proclaims that women \"have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people.\" How true that is!
Mr Speaker, the Child Development Co-savings (Amendment) Bill affirms equality as a reality. It could be enhanced by providing a differentiated approach for self-employed individuals. For self-employed parents, they hope to be granted Government-Paid Paternity or Maternity Leave that is calculated using a weekly index of seven days. They also hope that the Government could consider disbursing the claim amount at the start of the paternity or maternity leave period than after the leave period has concluded. Disbursing at the outset of the leave period would help to alleviate the financial strain that the self-employed person has during this period of lost income.
Organisations play a role in supporting employees' use of the enhanced leaves set out in this Bill and the Child Development Co-savings Act. Organisations could benefit from more recognition and support to develop and sustain family-supportive workplaces.
More importantly, the Bill sets the stage for the Government to consider introducing a broader spectrum of caregiving support. Establishing caregiving support as a norm in workplaces dignifies caregiving and caregivers. It lays the foundation for an inclusive workforce and strengthens the resolve of workers to cope. It makes for equal and empathetic workplaces and a kinder society. With this, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, fostering active fatherhood and shared responsibilities within families are important for healthy and happy families. At its heart, this Bill calls for an embrace of a collaborative journey that encompasses fathers and mothers alike in the nurturing of our future generations.
I would like to seek several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the adoption and effectiveness of the policies.
To ensure success, we must address the matter of take-up and track its efficacy. As recent data indicates, approximately 40% to 50% of fathers availed the entitled paid paternity leave last year. The median number of weeks taken stood at 1.2 weeks out of the available two weeks.
While it is heartening to witness fathers exercising their leave entitlement, there remains concerns and apprehension about negative performance evaluations due to extended leave-taking. This worry is likely to persist even when employees are wholly entitled to their leave privileges.
How can we ensure that fathers who fully utilise their paternity leave will not face hindered career advancements or negative performance evaluations? How will the Ministry work with companies to explore practical avenues to encourage more fathers to utilise their entitled leave allocation?
Undoubtedly, there are numerous advantages to greater paternal involvement. The proposed amendments currently provide that the Government will reimburse employers who voluntarily allow extra paternity leave for a period not exceeding two weeks. Could we not take a more assertive stance? Could we consider making this extended paternity leave mandatory rather than voluntary?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should examine the financial implications and mechanisms of administering these provisions. What is the Government's estimated annual commitment for these new paid paternity leave and benefits?
An important parallel concern pertains to the authenticity of claims for such leave and benefits. Drawing lessons from past experiences such as the over disbursement during the COVID-19 Jobs Support Scheme, we need robust measures in place. Does the Bill empower the Ministry to retrieve funds that have been erroneously disbursed? Furthermore, is there a dedicated unit within MSF that handles such disputes?
While clause 11 clarifies how the Government may recover funds from individuals who have been paid inappropriately, what is the time period for these individuals to make repayment? What measures are in place to recover funds from employers who may have inadvertently allowed the error to take place?
I ask this because lower-wage employees may have spent the money and may not be able to make repayment as quickly.
Also, putting some responsibility on the employer may resolve some of the administrative issues that the Government may face as regards to the disbursements of these funds.
A broader perspective necessitates us to examine the impact on the workforce left behind who shoulder the responsibilities of those on paternity leave. How do we ensure that the workplace remains efficient and productive during these absences, safeguarding against undue strain on those who continue to serve? We must acknowledge the valid concerns raised by singles who often find themselves shouldering additional responsibilities due to their marital status, which can lead to feelings of inequity and being discriminated against.
Thus, we must delve into the effects these changes might have on businesses. How do we strike a balance that supports families while recognising the operational challenges businesses might face? How do we support companies like SMEs who have lesser employees and may feel more constraints when employees go on paternity leave?
Additionally, it is worth considering the consolidation of various existing leave schemes. At present, an array of leave options is available, classified under marriage and family leave by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). These include childcare, eldercare, maternity, paternity and a more encompassing family care leave.
Not all of these are obligatory. TAFEP merely recommends potential leave schemes for companies to adopt.
Given the current landscape, can we explore amalgamating these leave schemes and rendering them fungible? For example, we could introduce a family care leave scheme to heighten flexibility for both parents and caregivers. The move toward amalgamation aligns with the evolving needs of our society as more people are choosing to prioritise their loved ones over work if they may afford to do so.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, expanding paternity leave and benefits is a promising step towards fostering a family-friendly culture. Drawing from my experience as a father of five, I have witnessed the pivotal role of paternal involvement in shaping our children's lives.
Research reinforces this notion, indicating that the impact starts prior to birth. Partner support during pregnancy links to improved maternal health and better outcomes for mothers and infants. Extensive studies consistently highlight the positive effects of active father involvement on children, spanning from enhanced self-esteem and reduced behavioural problems to heightened social competence.
Remarkably, these benefits often shape the trajectory of the next generation, with children raised by engaged fathers becoming involved parents themselves. But embracing the role of an active and engaged father presents an array of challenges.
I know this from first-hand experience. Utilising my designated paternity leave to care for my newborn was but a fleeting moment within the grander journey. If you ask my wife, she will say that those two weeks flew by so fast, they were almost negligible! This stems from the fact that child-rearing is an uninterrupted, daily commitment we undertake as parents – a commitment that extends until our children reach a stage of independence.
Undeniably, appealing for more leave is not a viable solution. As a small, competitive nation, we must weigh these advancements against its potential effects on businesses, ensuring a balanced approach. We must vigilantly track the impact of these policies to discern whether they truly move the needle in the desired direction.
Transformative change cannot be achieved through a single or few policies within a short timeframe. Moreover, we cannot simply replicate solutions from other countries due to our unique context. But we must concede the indisputable significance of work-life balance and the cultural ethos in nurturing a society that offers Singaporeans the confidence and assurance to embrace parenthood.
Encouraging fathers to embrace an active role in nurturing their children goes beyond the allocation of paternity leave. Beyond this defined leave period, fathers must continue to strategise their time during work weeks to cultivate meaningful family connections. This transcends remuneration and leave benefits. It necessitates purposeful allocation and investment of time.
In times of family emergencies, the understanding and accommodation of employers and colleagues become paramount. Employees should not be made to feel guilty or worry about their career progression because they had to take time off to care for loved ones. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to conclude in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]\tTherefore, we need a collective whole-of-society effort. That is really important.
I urge everyone, every stakeholder, including the Government, businesses and the people to build a common vision and make Singapore a strong Singapore that is made for families.
Thank you, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Thank you for boosting the total fertility rate, Mr Yip.
I still recall when I first entered the Chambers in 2006, paternity leave was zero. I am glad that we have made lots of progress since.
Let me now call on Mr Ong Hua Han. I look forward to hearing your maiden speech in Parliament.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Child Development Co-savings Act (CDCA) was first introduced in 2001.
At that time, Singapore was alarmed with a declining birth rate. The Government had to act. The response? The popularly known Baby Bonus Scheme was born. Its message was clear and unmistakable – to encourage family building and to renew our population.
Fast forward to the present, family dynamics have shifted and the Government's response? Key amendments to the CDCA, among them, a decision to double paternity leave from two to four weeks.
I wholeheartedly welcome this decision and I support the change. It again sends a resounding message – parental responsibility is a joint effort and not just a mother's duty. This House is no stranger to the undeniable benefits of active fathers and I commend the Government for championing this. It is clear when the Government recognises the changing needs of our society, the Government responds and acts.
Mr Speaker, while I applaud the Government's proactivity in addressing our society's changes, there remains still a group of Singaporeans facing additional challenges. This group I am referring to are parents of children with disabilities. They too deserve the attention and response from the Government.
Disability is estimated to affect 3% of our population. This means that about 30 newborns out of a thousand live births are born with disabilities every year.
Children with disabilities often require more specialised care and incur higher expenses than their peers.
Their parents shoulder additional financial, physical and emotional challenges. These are challenges they do not see coming; challenges that affect all income levels.
It also goes without saying that the early years of a child are a critical period. Tapping into their growth potential through early intervention ensures greater independence in their later years.
Children with disabilities, like all Singaporean sons and daughters, have the same access to the Child Development Account (CDA). They could use the funds in the CDA to pay for childcare centres, kindergartens or even assistive technology like hearing aids. While it is heartening to see an inclusive range of services that caters to most needs, assistive technology can become very expensive very quickly. Cost of living is also rising.
Here I pause to ask if MSF can consider more financial support through the First Step Grant or boosting co-matching of the savings of such parents. By enhancing support, we not only ease their financial burden, but also send a strong message to these parents that the Government stands with them, recognises their added challenges and is committed to ensuring that all children have an equal start to life.
Today, there are many support schemes available for persons with disabilities. We live in a blessed age and we can be thankful for much. Among these schemes, some use a means-testing approach. This is a good thing – it is sensible to allocate more to those in greater need. While those in extreme circumstances surely benefit, I worry if these schemes place the same support out of reach for many other Singaporeans.
Consider the Assistive Technology Fund (ATF). The ATF has the potential to greatly aid persons with disabilities. When used in early intervention, assistive technology offers immense benefits to children with disabilities. For instance, a quality pair of hearing aids can cost thousands of dollars to purchase. And then there are also regular maintenance costs to account for. Yet, their value is undeniable. They provide enhanced sound quality, crucial for early language development and social communication.
While the ATF’s lifetime cap of S$40,000 seeks to account for ongoing costs that could stray well into the tens of thousands, access to ATF is very limited. To be eligible, per capita household gross monthly income must strictly fall below S$2,000.
Similarly, there is the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS), which subsidises dedicated transport fees. Among others, children with disabilities attending early intervention programmes can benefit. Again, the reach of the ETS is limited. For Singaporeans to access the subsidy, per capita household gross monthly income must be no more than S$2,800. According to Singstat, median per capita household monthly income from work has risen to almost S$3,300 in 2022. This means a typical household with substantial assistive technology and transport expenses would not be supported by these schemes.
These families, often with one full-time caregiver, need and deserve help, too. To address this, could we consider revising the income threshold of such schemes to align with median per capita household income? Or, perhaps, look beyond household income as the basic qualifying criteria. May I suggest that we factor in actual costs borne by these families in means-testing? This further calibrates our approach, ensuring that our well-intentioned policies truly serve those in need.
Mr Speaker, these are very real issues – issues that, when addressed well, can lead to a brighter future for many young Singaporeans, in turn, benefiting our community exponentially down the road.
To share my own personal experience, I was born with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. This genetic condition gave me brittle bones. During the most challenging period of my childhood, I could sustain up to six fractures a year. I was confined at home, often in a cast, when my friends were out there playing in the sun.
Needless to say, frequent hospital trips, treatment and surgeries also meant that medical costs were high.
Raising children is already a monumental task for most young parents. Caring for children with disabilities adds to the cognitive load. Yet, my parents were unwavering in their care. They are the reason why I have become who I am today.
Up until junior college, my father drove me religiously to school and back. My mother made the swift decision to become a full-time caregiver shortly after I was born. During primary school, she accompanied me daily, buying food for me during recess and helping for toilet breaks. She even tried to find ways to enrich my learning, bringing me to art and piano classes, long before it was obvious I had zero artistic talent.
Mr Speaker, my story is certainly not an isolated one. Children with disabilities need additional support from their parents. And their parents, in turn, need support from the community, their employers and, ultimately, sound policies.
Not all parents have the same ability or resource to do what mine did for me. For struggling parents, finding opportunities to enrich their children's lives can be overwhelming. Some parents come from more difficult backgrounds. Some are single mothers. Some just need a bit more help, some encouragement and support.
We need to encourage all parents to look at their child as beacons of potential, despite disability. As assets, not liabilities. Learned helplessness must be unlearnt right from the beginning.
Children with disabilities can grow up to become world-class musicians, neuroscientists or elite athletes. We have living examples right here in Singapore. Clearly, disability alone does not prevent one from success.
I am glad that the Ministry recognises that each and every child is precious and can thrive under the right environment. I commend the Government’s effort to improve upon the CDCA. It is a small step towards better parental support for young Singaporeans and it benefits all children, whether they have a disability or not.
As we reflect on the Government’s proactivity towards societal changes, I urge MSF to consider this third response, to share the parenting load of children with disabilities more extensively. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications above, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Ong, for sharing your story. Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which aims to enhance support for aspiring as well as existing parents with young children to better manage their work and family commitments, as our nation moves towards building a society that is Made for Families.
In July 2021, the PAP Women’s Wing and Young PAP jointly presented a paper on women’s development. Titled \"Take Action for Women in Singapore\", it was drafted based on our engagements with over 1,500 people comprising different age groups and backgrounds who were surveyed on issues faced by women in schools, workplaces and home.
One recommendation which I resonate with – and more particularly so currently as an expectant working mother in my third trimester – and of which I have been advocating for during the White Paper debate on Singapore Women’s Development in April last year, is to further encourage equal sharing of childcare responsibilities amongst mothers and fathers – something that we have aimed to achieve since as early as 1961 when the Women’s Charter was first enacted. Section 46 of the Act specifically sets out that \"upon the solemnisation of marriage, the husband and the wife shall mutually bound to cooperate with each other… in caring and providing for the children\" and \"the husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household.\"
Increasingly so, fathers are playing a more active and significant role in caring for their children, from bringing their kids for medical appointments to walking them to and back from school. My Woodgrove residents have often shared with me that the role a father plays has been expanding and this is keenly felt within each family. Many more fathers have also been seen doing so, signifying a change in public attitude towards the sharing of parental responsibilities. Notwithstanding, the rebalancing exercise sought to be undertaken by this Bill should also be accompanied by a re-examination of the support given by the state in order to ensure that it remains fair to our children, mothers, fathers and, not to forget, the employers.
I, therefore, applaud the additional enhancements which will be introduced through this amendment Bill, such as the increment of Government-paid paternity leave and other benefits. Nevertheless, I wish to take this opportunity to seek several clarifications and make several suggestions.
Firstly, providing parents with the flexibility to decide how to share their parental leave. This was one of the recommendations set out in our Women’s Development recommendation paper.
Currently, a working mother can share up to four weeks of her 16-week maternity leave with her husband. With the increment of the Government-paid paternity leave or benefit from two to four weeks, I wish to take this opportunity to seek clarifications if couples will still be able to enjoy this flexibility of enabling the working mother to apportion up to four weeks of her maternity leave with her husband, such that her husband can have up to two months of paternity leave to support his wife and their new-born child.
In relation to this, I would further urge the Government to consider providing full flexibility to all couples to decide how they wish to share their maternity and paternity leave between themselves.
Through my many interactions with the young parents that I have met in Woodgrove during our Embracing Parenthood-themed community engagements as well as during my house visits, I have realised that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution for parental leave arrangements. Every family has its own unique set of circumstances and preferences. Some mummies may prefer to have their husband to play a more supportive and active role after childbirth as they look forward to resuming work sooner, while others would much prefer their maternity leave to be extended further so that they can fully concentrate on their new-found state of motherhood, nursing their children and being present for significant milestones before returning to work.
My second point pertains to clarifications on the period of a female employee commencing her Government-paid maternity leave.
Under the Bill, female employees may only commence their maternity leave no earlier than 28 days before childbirth. However, we have seen cases where expectant mothers have had to be warded for more than 28 days from their estimated or actual delivery date or were intermittently required to go on medical leave for treatment even before their child was delivered due to pregnancy complications. In such situations, the working mothers had to rely on their own paid or unpaid medical leave as they were still considered ineligible for Government-paid maternity leave.
Mr Speaker, the current debate presents an opportunity for us to further improve the support measures given to aspiring and current parents. On this note, I would like to ask whether MSF would consider additional amendments that will allow some flexibility on the commencement date of the maternity leave for those medically certified cases. For example, instead of a continuous period of no earlier than 28 days from the date of confinement, could expectant mothers be given the aggregate 28 days of Government-paid maternity leave that may be consumed in their final trimester? Or while all medical appointments are important and necessary, there are some which are straightforward and which will not take the full working day. For situations, such as this, could the Bill perhaps provide for the flexibility of the \"time-off\" and/or half-day consumption of such leave days?
My third point pertains to the readjustment of Child Development Account restrictions to include other child-related expenses.
When I attended Woodgrove’s Bonding with your Child Day just yesterday alongside 80 of our Woodgrove residents with young children at an indoor activity playground theme park, I took the opportunity to gather more feedback about the challenges faced by our young parents.
One common reply was the concern over rising inflation and increased cost of living. They shared that while they appreciate our local community’s effort in cushioning such impacts, they also hope that more flexibility can be exercised on how monies in the Child Development Account (CDA) can be utilised.
For example, monies in their child’s CDA can be utilised to pay for preschool fees, but not the optional extracurricular activities organised by the preschools. Although many parents still see the need to enrol their kids for these optional activities to prevent them from \"losing out\", doing so would require the parents to pay out of their own pocket an amount ranging from a few hundred to several thousands of dollars per month as they are not allowed to tap on their CDA funds.
Fourth point is in relation to the introduction of family care leave.
In a recent focused group discussion which I co-organised in my capacity as the Head of Policy for PAP Women’s Wing, one resounding feedback gathered from over 70 participants was a consensus call for the introduction of family care leave, in order to provide some flexibility for Singaporeans to deal with various family issues that may crop up from time to time. These issues would, of course, vary from household to household, for example, managing the effects of post-partum depression for mummies; accompanying toddlers for speech therapy sessions; or attending to the medical needs of ageing parents or relatives and so on.
The fifth point and my final clarification pertains to employers’ buy-in.
While we strive to achieve conditions that will better support Singaporeans to embrace families, I am also mindful that we must take care to ensure that employers’ interests are not forsaken as this will ultimately affect the livelihood of the employees. To this end, can MSF share, based on the feedback that they have gathered from its various engagements conducted with employers, what are some of the issues that employers have been facing, or expect to face in this regard and whether such concerns were shared with their employees so as to arrive at a win-win outcome?
Mr Speaker, it is my belief that these suggestions, if implemented with the endorsement of employers, will address the evolving needs of every Singaporean while they play their part to support their families, further reinforcing the notion that Singapore is Made For Families.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker Sir, the proposed amendments support our young families, particularly on the pivotal role that fathers play in a child's upbringing. Societal norms, work and family structures are evolving. Families are faced with competing caregiving responsibilities for their young and old. Fathers want to actively participate in their child’s upbringing, and both fathers and mothers want to share the duty of caring for their elderly parents. These amendments can help families to better cope with their caregiving responsibilities. Fathers will have the support and encouragement to be more engaged and present in the precious moments of their children's lives. It will also indirectly help to provide support to their wives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two aspects of the Bill: (a) the enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL); and (b) the enhanced Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL). I will also be highlighting the importance of workplace support in line with the proposed enhancements.
First, on the enhanced GPPL. The enhancement is a clear signal of the Government's steadfast commitment to supporting fathers in their pursuit of shared parental responsibilities. These enhancements will benefit both employed and self-employed fathers.
The GPPL will be doubled from two to four weeks for fathers of Singaporean children born from 1 January 2024. As a start, employers have the option to provide the extra two weeks of leave voluntarily, and the Government will reimburse them. This transition period is critical for employers to adapt their work and operational systems to the new normal. Some companies have taken the lead, such as H&M and Electrolux, which are amongst some of our nation’s employers who have taken an early start in providing paid paternity leave of four weeks since 2022.
Standard Chartered Bank has taken a giant leap by offering 20 weeks of paid paternity leave. This is commendable, but at the same time, I recognise that not all companies can do likewise and will need time to adapt. But clearly, companies see this as an important HR policy and have taken the lead to do so.
Would the Ministry consider also setting a clear timeline on when the enhanced GPPL benefit will be made mandatory? Such a clear signpost would give both clarity and impetus to companies.
In legislating these enhancements, we must also recognise the importance of supportive workplaces and awareness regarding the enhanced GPPL. Many fathers would be assured if their management comes out strongly to support them in taking leave to care for their newborn. Ensuring that eligible fathers are well-informed of the benefits will enable them to make full use of their GPPLs.
Can the Ministry broaden its work with the trade associations and chambers, and the Labour Movement to spread such support and awareness? This becomes even more critical for self-employed fathers, such as freelancers and gig workers, who may not have the same level of workplace support and awareness of such schemes.
Next, a requirement for self-employed fathers to be eligible for GPPL is that they must be engaged in a particular trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months before the child’s date of birth. This effectively means that the self-employed father would have to be working continuously until the date of the child’s delivery. There would be instances where the self-employed father would need to support his wife in the pre-delivery phase. I hope that we can provide flexibility in meeting the continuous three months criteria. It would help our self-employed fathers to cope with their responsibilities better.
Next, on the UICL. Enhancing the UICL by six days per parent per year for children under two is important. Parents would know that young children under two require frequent visits to the doctor. There would be routine checks and the unavoidable catching of viruses and bugs. The UICL will indeed go some way in helping parents attend to the needs of their children while being employed.
To enhance the usefulness of the UICL, we should enhance the flexibility of its usage. Rather than mandating that employees take the entire entitlement of the proposed 12 days in a single year, it would be beneficial to allow parents to use it flexibly during the child's first two years.
Moreover, could the Ministry consider a measured increase in the number of UICL days based on the number of children? Families with multiple young children may have different caregiving needs, and tailoring their allowances accordingly would be a good step forward.
Furthermore, we must also address the concerns of parents facing financial constraints, as the UICL is currently unpaid. We must ensure that the intended benefits of UICL are accessible to families across the socio-economic spectrum, including low-income workers. It might be difficult for low-income workers to use the UICL. Perhaps we could consider offering a partial subsidy or support for lower-wage workers in taking the UICL. This would alleviate financial burdens and make it more feasible for them to utilise this support.
Next, on the importance of workplace support. Offering paternity leave is not sufficient in isolation, and this is reflected by the low take-up of paternity leave of 55% in 2019. One of the commonly cited reasons was the lack of workplace support. Could the Ministry share the latest take-up rate of paternity leave?
Promoting such a workplace culture can start small, beginning with raising awareness among employees about the availability and importance of paternity leave. The longer-term goal would really be to dispel stigmas associated with men taking time off for family responsibilities.
Offering flexible work arrangements, such as remote work options or adjusted schedules, can further facilitate fathers' involvement in childcare without compromising their professional commitments. Additionally, companies can provide resources, like parenting workshops or support groups, to help fathers navigate their roles and responsibilities more effectively.
For example, Citibank has been running a “Maternity Matters” programme, aimed to support mothers throughout their motherhood: from providing support in designing handover plans and also buddy programmes to help mothers assimilate back into the workforce post-delivery. We can also similarly develop such programmes for fathers.
Such initiatives exemplify the corporate world's potential to contribute to the well-being of families. Employers should look into implementing such programmes for both mothers and fathers. Where required, the union, the Labour Movement, stands ever ready to help our SMEs with developing such policies.
Mr Speaker, the nation has been significant strides in supporting families with young children. However, there are also families facing pressures with having to care for both the young and elderly. Increasingly, as our population ages, more of our workers will have to assume some caregiving responsibilities for their elderly. The families that we are supporting today to raise their young children would also need support to care for their parents. The instances when they have to bring their elderly parents to the doctor are comparable to that for their young children. We must not forget that our workers who are single would also face caregiving responsibilities for their elderly parents.
As we work towards providing support for our workers to care for their young children, I hope that the Government can also look into providing more support for workers with caregiving responsibilities for the elderly.
Mr Speaker, in Singapore, where family values are the cornerstone of our society, these proposed amendments represent more than just legal adjustments. They signify a progressive stride towards recognising and facilitating fathers' active involvement in their children's lives. As Singapore ages rapidly, I urge the Government to also consider how we may also recognise and facilitate our family members’ active involvement in the caregiving of their elderly family members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: It is now my pleasure to call on Ms Usha Chandradas for her maiden speech.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. But I have some comments to make that I hope the Government will take into consideration.
The proposed extension to paternity leave from two weeks to four weeks in the Child Development Co-Savings Act marks an important milestone in Singapore’s commitment to gender equality. It aims to reset traditional perceptions that child rearing should be the sole responsibility of mothers.
In some ways, these legislative changes are in step with what is already happening in multinational enterprises, in recognition of how the world is changing. In fact, Minister of State Sun Xueling mentioned the example of Telstra as a business that has already started to adopt expansive family friendly policies.
Standard Chartered Bank is another example that I would like to cite. Employees at Standard Chartered Bank will now get a minimum of 20 weeks of paid parental leave \"irrespective of gender\", or how a child comes to permanently join an employee’s family. HSBC also recently announced extended paternity and maternity leave for its employees. For HSBC, paternity leave will increase to eight weeks, up from the current two weeks; while maternity leave will increase to 26 weeks, up from 16 weeks.
While the present legislative amendments that we are addressing today, do not go as far as what these private institutions have done, they signal to me the Government’s broad commitment towards adapting and making changes where necessary, when traditionally-held societal norms start to change. Whether it is a question of perhaps, eventually equalising maternity and paternity leave entitlements, or perhaps giving recognition to the needs of different kinds of family units, it is my hope that the Government continues to keep pace with the times and that it will display the same fortitude in future policy reform that it has demonstrated today with these proposed amendments.
With the present expansion of paternity leave, it is also important to bear in mind that pressing family needs may well go beyond the care of children and newborns. We are very concerned in Singapore about our falling fertility rates, but let us also not forget that we have a rapidly ageing population. By 2030, almost one in four Singaporeans will be over the age of 65.
While there is much discourse about empowering our elders to continue learning, working and remaining productive for as long as possible, it remains critical that we acknowledge and find solutions towards supporting those who are no longer able to work. Frail elders are more likely to suffer from chronic health issues and are thus more likely to require full-time caregiving. As our population ages, more seniors will need care and there will accordingly be more caregivers who will need support. Based on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s 2022 labour force survey, about 90,300 residents outside the labour force cited caregiving responsibilities as the main reason for not working, and 12,400 of these caregivers were looking after aged, ill or disabled parents.
While we enhance leave entitlements for the care of newborns, better support for caregivers of the elderly remains just as important an area for policy-makers to look into.
While flexible working arrangements go some way towards alleviating caregiver stress, they also fundamentally assume that eldercare duties are not serious or taxing enough to require dedicated days off from work. Flexible work arrangements also do not necessarily assist self-employed persons.
Certain communities, for example, the arts community, have large percentages of its members in self-employed roles. In the arts, according to the latest Singapore Arts Plan, at least one-third of the workforce operates on a self-employed basis. Anecdotally, I have heard from members of the arts community that eldercare duties can be not only isolating but a source of extreme financial stress while juggling the demands of freelance jobs that do not offer leave provisions.
I know that this is not the subject of the Bill today, but I do urge the Government to consider paid eldercare leave entitlements for all and especially for the self-employed, in a similar manner to what is presently being proposed for paternity leave.
Finally, workplaces must also do their part to reassure staff that although greater amounts of paternity leave are now being contemplated, it is not the case that childless employees, who may well be facing other stresses, will simply be left to bear the brunt of work that has been left behind and with no ostensible reward. Feelings like these, if left to simmer and brew, will only result in greater workplace tension and resentment, and these may well reverse any positive steps taken towards the ending of maternity discrimination.
Sir, notwithstanding my comments today, I stand in support of this Bill. The changes proposed today are very welcome ones towards \"ungendering\" workplaces. These changes will render much-needed support to workers, in recognition of the many challenges of family life. It is my fervent hope the Government continues this push towards inclusiveness and the caregiving needs of our country as a whole and as societal norms continue to grow and evolve over time.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, it takes a village to raise a child. Back in the day, when families were larger and when extended families lived together, there were economies of scale in households to take care of the young, almost by the batch. Close neighbourly relationships also meant that there was usually a set group of women in the neighbourhood who would help with babysitting. However, shifting attitudes and social trends, such as dual-income families and smaller households, would need us to redefine what a \"village\" means in modern-day Singapore.
I believe that Singapore parents will welcome this Bill and the providence of more paid leave for parents, especially for fathers, as they heed the call for a more balanced share of child caregiving duties. The Labour Movement appreciates that the Ministry has listened to our workers' feedback and has considered our calls for more caregiving leave.
The amendments to this Bill is a great start to supporting Singaporean families by providing them with additional resources to alleviate their financial and time pressures and indeed, it makes allowances for fathers to be more present during the early development of their child.
However, two practicalities need to be taken into consideration in the roll-out of such leave support: (a) the workplace cultural norms which need to be developed to catch up with legislative calls for more parental leave; and (b) the long-term sustainability of continually increasing paid and unpaid parental leave for workers as well as businesses.
Let us talk about the current state of workplace norms. The reality is that for many workers, when it comes to taking time-off from work, it is sometimes a sticky conversation. It is not always so straightforward. Workplace policies to create allowances for working parents do not necessarily translate to these allowances being realised. For example, merely 40% of eligible fathers made use of the complete two-week duration of Government-Paid Paternity Leave between 2018 and 2020.
And why is this so? In an ideal world, the process goes like this. A working parent is faced with a home emergency. They approach their employer with a leave request which is readily approved and the working parent goes on leave to resolve the situation. However, ground realities can be quite different. Many face the dilemma of how taking more time away from work may negatively impact the impression their bosses and colleagues have of them. They may worry about their career progressions at work, or even finding alternative employment if they find themselves victims of discrimination.
If you think about it, how many times has the \"office\" congratulated a \"co-worker\" on the birth of their child, while also in the same breath, complained of how much more \"productive\" they need to be as they cover their colleagues' work while they are away on leave. Of course, the unions have our workers' back should they be faced with unfair treatment, but many working parents seek for favourable work relationships, choosing not to rock the boat and thus not fully utilising their full entitlement.
Mr Speaker, as such, we must take a holistic view of the reality that working parents and caregivers face. Providing more paid leave for working parents and caregivers to tend to their families is welcomed, but we need our work cultures and work arrangements to catch up with legislative moves.
While we empathise with new parents who feel the sheer physical exhaustion, especially sleep deprivation, that comes with taking care of a newborn infant, let us also not forget the many other types of familial duties – parents with older kids who need help in school, or in navigating the sensitive period that is adolescence; parents who are raising children with special needs; and sandwiched working parents who are also caregivers to elderly parents or relatives. These are the everyday caregiving burdens that many households in Singapore face today – the challenge of juggling of work and family. All of these efforts require more than just a few weeks of time away from work. It is an intense balancing act, constantly juggling between responsibilities at home and commitments at work. This is a lifelong balancing act that perhaps, calling for leave, is just a start.
It is therefore timely that we begin to explore more sustainable options for work-life harmony to complement the increasing number of days of leave. The Labour Movement has been advocating for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for decades, and we continue to believe that FWAs is the catalyst for changing workplace norms when it comes to work-life harmony and it is the long-term solution to keeping our working parents in the workplace. In a recent survey by the NTUC's Women and Family Unit on FWAs, 87% of 2,711 respondents, both men and women, said that FWAs are an important factor in their decision-making to stay or leave their current jobs.
During the pandemic, FWAs were implemented as the defacto way to work and companies scrambled to find ways to implement FWAs with existing technologies and resources. In the post-pandemic modern workplace, companies have started conversations with their workers on implementing enforceable, practical policies around providing FWAs as a long-term solution. FWAs are not only about working from home but FWAs can mean flexi-time, flexi-place and even flexi-load. FWAs are an important way for companies to reinvent their company's work cultures, their attitudes towards caregiving leave, paving the way for more engaged workers and in return higher productivity.
At the NTUC Women and Family Unit, we recently introduced the C U Back at Work Programme, or what we call CUB programme for short. This programme piloted with a Singapore-based company which provides fully flexible work hours, flexible work locations and even flexible training hours in an effort to attract and retain working parents. This programme was launched to much fanfare and with successful return to work applicants, both mothers and fathers They shared that the programme enabled them to come back to work as the company had a work culture which not only tolerated but embraced working parents' needs for leave and flexible work. However, in the same period of time, the company also went through, with the help of NTUC, e2i and company training committees (CTCs), a continued process of work redesign, including investing in a new HR team, a new scheduling system, a policy of recognising employees who have covered the work of co-workers on extended leave and a clear policy of career progression and performance appraisals.
Legislation alone will not be able to change the existing culture in our workplaces. Employers must continue to play a part to encourage working parents to leverage family-friendly workplace policies, such as paid leave and FWAs. In the equipping of our companies in long-term adoption of FWAs, the Government can consider supporting our employers in their job redesign processes, which often can be costly and may be disruptive to current business processes. MSF can also consider awarding companies which adopt and embrace family-friendly workplace policies a form of recognition, so that their best practices can be shared and further propagated.
Today, the news of a baby on its way is still very much met with joy, but the \"village\" now consists of not only of just mothers and fathers, neighbours and extended families, but of employers, bosses, co-workers, human resources and the Government. I agree that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but for greater sustainability of work-life harmony, let us consider the levers of a modern workplace in flexible work arrangements, which not only supports new parents, but all working parents and caregivers alike. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Let me now call upon Mr Mark Lee for his maiden speech in Parliament.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. As a father of three children, with the youngest being just 14 months old, I am intimately acquainted with the immense joy and profound responsibility that parenthood gives to us. Within my household, I have proudly taken on the role of the elected or rather, nominated vaccination officer, ensuring my youngest daughter attends all her vaccination appointments. There is no privilege greater than cradling our little ones in our arms, offering comfort when they are gripped by fear and pain, especially after the prick of that daunting vaccination needle. In such moments, we are starkly reminded of the irreplaceable role that parents play in their children's lives.
Overwhelming scientific evidence reinforces the importance of active father involvement in a child's life. Esteemed institutions, like the \"Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\" have convincingly demonstrated that children, particularly during their infancy, reap immense benefits from the presence and engagement of their fathers. Their cognitive, emotional and social development receives a substantial boost, laying a strong foundation for their future.
Beyond the personal joys and individual benefits, the father-child bond holds profound implications for our society as a whole. It moulds the future we are shaping for our children and the society they will inherit.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the business community champions the family unit as integral to the fabric of society. Policies that support parenthood enhances socio-economic resilience and maturity, which are fundamental to a thriving economy anchored by vibrant businesses and a productive workforce.
The proposed bill seeks to double Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL), Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL) from 1 January 2024. Businesses appreciate the pragmatic approach taken with GPPL enhancements, such that the Government will reimburse companies for the additional two weeks of paternity leave taken by employees and implementation by companies will be voluntary for a start.
Paid paternity leave entitlements vary worldwide, ranging from zero days in the USA to over 50 weeks in Japan and South Korea, though usage often falls short of what is allowed. Singapore's calibrated increase in paid paternity leave reflects the pragmatic approach to reinforcing our social compact through healthy familial bonds and progressive workplace practices, all while maintaining economic vitality in a tight labour market. Mr Speaker, let me now continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government and businesses care about the well-being of employees and their families. Besides paternity leave, businesses also must navigate the challenges of nurturing employees' skills, promoting career advancement and fostering social emotional well-being, all the while maintaining the operational efficiency in a demanding operating environment.
Singapore's economy will continue to face strong headwinds ahead. We narrowly avoided a technical recession in the previous quarter and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has reduced the upper bound of 2023's GDP growth of Singapore from 2.5% to 1.5%.
The recently released Singapore Business Federation (SBF) Manpower and Wage Survey indicates that businesses expect that economic conditions will remain weak, with increased business costs as their top challenge. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce's 2023 survey also came out with similar concerns as the SBF survey, indicating that over 85% of companies expect costs to increase, with more SMEs, expecting a higher cost increase of about 10% to 25%, compared to large companies. Despite this, Singapore's labour market remaining robust, with seven consecutive quarters of employment growth and a low unemployment rate of 1.5% as of June.
The introduction of GPPL and UICL enhancements may post significant challenges for certain businesses, especially SMEs. With their streamlined workforces, each employee's role is crucial to daily operations. Frontline service-oriented industries may need to recruit temporary personnel to cover for employees taking extended leaves so that they can maintain minimum staffing levels and service requirements.
I will continue in English.
(In English): The Bill aims not to create an uneven playing field or unfairly disadvantage companies constrained by their operating structure. To address these limitations and facilitate higher adoption of GPPL and UICL, we can consider the following measures.
The Government could revise the reimbursement schedule for GPPL and GPML.
Currently, these leaves can be taken intermittently within 12 months from the child's birth date, with reimbursement claims permitted only after the last day of leave is utilised.
With potential increases in paternity leave days, employees may choose to spread their leave over time, causing delays of up to a year in Government reimbursement to companies. To alleviate the cash flow strain on SMEs, the Government could consider allowing pro-rated reimbursement filings for GPPL and GPML at more frequent intervals, such as quarterly.
The Government might also consider a tiered support structure to incentivise SMEs and frontline service industries to voluntarily adopt enhanced GPPL arrangements.
This could take the form of higher reimbursement rates for smaller enterprises or enhanced Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) support to assist these companies to adopt staffing and scheduling solutions in managing their workforce deployment effectively.
There exists also an opportunity for essential stakeholders, including Government agencies, labour unions, trade associations and chambers, to collaborate with frontline service sectors in creating a consolidated pool of skilled workers. This pool could be deployed to provide immediate workforce support for SMEs within these industries.
Current job platforms facilitate ad hoc job matching but lack a structured approach to organising this workforce pool, ensuring they receive training, insurance and other forms of support for swift and effective deployment to SMEs, especially on short notice, a pressing need in regulated fields like the security industry. The Government could consider providing initial funding to key players for piloting such initiatives.
Also, such an enhancement to GPPL and GPML, taken together along with initiatives such as Tripartite standards and Progressive Wage (PW) Mark accreditation are necessary for us to build a fairer and more inclusive workforce.
I would like to suggest using this opportunity to establish a comprehensive framework for recognising companies that support these national-level initiatives. Such a framework would empower companies, especially SMEs, to enhance their workforce support, aligning it more effectively with their operational and strategic requirements. This framework could also evaluate a company's contribution and credibility in aligning its practices with national objectives and could be used to acknowledge companies that excel in this area.
Finally, beyond recognition, the Government could consider linking this framework with practical economic incentives such as inclusion within Government procurement methodology, currently linked to PW Mark accreditation, and even temporary enhancements to foreign workforce access. This would serve as a powerful incentive for small and medium enterprises.
In conclusion, through collaborative efforts, we can advance our pro-family, pro-worker and pro-business objectives in a synergistic and mutually beneficial manner.
This Bill goes beyond extending parental leave. It is about recognising the profound role fathers play in their children's lives, strengthening families and, ultimately, building a better future for our country. Let us take this important step together, for the benefit of all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Sun Xueling].
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate what day?
Ms Sun Xueling: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Losses from Scams and Malware Fraud: Doing Right by Bank Customers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, financial scams have become a major issue affecting Singaporeans. According to the Police's annual statistics for 2022, reported cases of scam and cyber crime increased by 25% year on year, totalling nearly 33,700 cases or 92 reports per day. Many more may have gone unreported.
Criminals are also becoming increasingly sophisticated and even more technologically savvy young adults are falling prey to these scams.
On the human level, the suffering caused by such scams is devastating. As Members of Parliament, we see too many residents who have lost large sums, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In most cases, lost monies are unlikely to be recovered.
The losses suffered by each victim are not just measured in monetary terms, that is, how much was lost; but also measured by the impact of that loss on the individual or the family, on persons with serious health issues, on retirees, on those with mouths to feed, on the vulnerable.
When it comes to scams, the Government and, in particular, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has consistently said that it expects banks to treat its customers fairly.
Well, what exactly does the MAS expect of banks and how does it exercise its supervisory power? For the customers, what recourse or support does the Government provide to them?
That is the focus of my Motion today.
In a Straits Times opinion piece last Thursday, 14 September, technology editor Irene Tham opined that in order to fight scams, we may have to ditch some practices that make transactions easy. She pointed out that among others, banks needed to start accepting more responsibility. Consumers too may have to put up with some inconvenience to keep online dealings secure.
In my view, the Government, as the regulator, also needs to step up.
Before I proceed further, it is only fair to acknowledge the efforts by multiple agencies to address the scourge of scams. Among these efforts, the most visible are the scaled up public education and the setting up of the Anti-Scam Command and Anti-Scam Centre, with collaboration between law enforcement and banks.
I have also come across cases where banks managed to contact customers quickly and were able to stop a transaction before it was completed. But such success is, I believe, relatively rare.
On the specific question of who should bear the loss of scams, we understand from a Parliamentary answer in May that the MAS intended to issue a public consultation on a framework for the equitable sharing of losses in the third quarter of this year. This was the latest update to the House after pushing back the publication date for more than a year, citing the complexity of the issues.
No doubt one such issue is likely the wide typology of scam victims, from those who are tricked by half-baked schemes to the tech savvy who inadvertently loaded malware onto their phones.
That said, the first clarification I would like to seek is – is the time frame for releasing the consultation by third quarter of this year, that is, by this month or two weeks from now, still on track? If it is not, then what is causing the delay and by when can the paper be released?
Sir, while the draft framework has not yet been published, the MAS has previously indicated that bank customers have a responsibility to take necessary precautions and should be expected to bear the proportion of the loss depending on whether and how the party has fallen short of its responsibilities.
Sir, this is inadequate and unjust for three reasons.
First and fundamentally, consumers are not sufficiently equipped to combat scams. Fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated and can now take control of a customer's phone and obtain their bank login details through the clicking of a malicious link. Even the most technologically savvy person could easily make this mistake and within a day, have their life savings wiped out.
While education and outreach efforts may go some way to mitigating this, it will always be playing catch up with these organised criminals. With their increasing sophistry, targeting prey through social engineering, does the targeted person really stand a chance?
Second, deciding in each case what is equitable will take time and may be irrelevant to the more vulnerable in our society.
According to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), which oversees many such disputes, most cases are resolved within six months. For a family whose life savings have been wiped out, this would be an inordinate and stressful delay.
Further, forcing certain vulnerable groups such as the elderly to confront a big bank would be far from ideal. On a practical level, it would be difficult for them to gather and present evidence to prove that they have taken necessary precautions as will be required by the MAS.
Lastly, as to who should lead in combating scams, banks are best positioned and the best resourced to do so. Therefore, banks should take an outsized role in preventing them. Banks are able to monitor transactions, block suspicious payment flows and keep abreast of the latest technological developments. Such endeavours are beyond the remit of most bank customers.
Having emphasised why the banks should take the lead in combating scams, I shall move on to three policy solutions the Government should consider. The first suggestion looks at how some other jurisdictions are protecting consumers. The second deals with some additional safeguards that the Government should require of banks. Thirdly, I will argue why the Government should not take a hands-off approach when banks enter settlement agreements with affected customers.
First, policy suggestions and what some other jurisdictions are doing to protect consumers. Mr Speaker, I urge the Government to consider the solution used in the United Kingdom (UK). From next year, banks in the UK will be required by law to fully reimburse scam victims. This will apply except in cases where the customer was fraudulent or grossly negligent or the transaction involved cryptocurrency or international payments.
The mandatory reimbursement would cover payments through their Faster Payment platform in situations we are familiar with such as customers being tricked into transferring money, customers clicking on fake advertisements on social media, customers who were phished or hacked despite precautions and customers who were groomed over time such as love scams. The solution for such mandatory reimbursement is simpler and quicker. It will generally not require a time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication process for each case.
Sir, the UK payments regulator has explained how this would work. It would be limited only to certain types of domestic payments, with both the sending and receiving payment providers each sharing half of the reimbursement. These providers would have to do so within five business days. It is noteworthy that the UK is a major financial centre and is prepared to take this tough stance against the banks.
What about other jurisdictions? Australia is also reportedly considering adopting similar measures. Meanwhile, the European Commission (EC) too has moved on this. In July this year, the EC proposed granting a refund to victims of authorised push payment fraud in certain circumstances as part of revisions to the EU payments directive.
Sir, I believe that this solution can and should be implemented in Singapore. It could cover all transfers between banks in Singapore via the FAST and PayNow systems. Like the UK system, it could be scoped to protect customers who are consumers, small businesses and charities. This would give Singaporeans the confidence to transact using these methods without fear that their savings would be unknowingly syphoned off. It would also ensure that victims of these scams will be compensated in a timely manner without having to undergo a complex adjudication process.
Sir, while some may argue that this would be unfair to the banks, I disagree. As I mentioned earlier, banks are best placed to identify and detect suspicious transactions such as when a customer's bank account is emptied over a short time, transfer limits are quickly changed, and new payees are added. A cost-benefit analysis by the UK Payment Systems Regulator has also shown that the reimbursement model would incentivise payment service providers to improve the detection and prevention of fraud.
This finding seems to resonate with banks who have been reimbursing customers who have been scammed. According to a senior official of UK bank TSB, having to reimburse customers for online fraud has incentivised it to be more proactive in detecting and preventing scams from the outset, resulting in less fraud. To state the obvious, prevention is preferable to reimbursement as it stops the problem at its root.
As more jurisdictions adopt such measures, international banks will not baulk at such requirements or see Singapore as an outlier if it adopted similar measures.
Sir, I also wish to address the concern about individual responsibility. While the MAS did note that bank customers have the responsibility to take necessary precautions, it cautioned that compensation paid should not weaken the incentive for all to be vigilant. The reimbursement model still retains an element of individual responsibility as there will be no reimbursement where a customer is grossly negligent. However, the point remains that individual responsibility alone is insufficient to combat these increasingly sophisticated and malicious scams.
Mr Speaker, I also urge the Government to consider ensuring that the loss-sharing framework applies retrospectively. While there is a general presumption that the laws should not apply retrospectively, this is a specific instance where it should.
The Court of Appeal has explained in the case of ABU vs Comptroller of Income Tax that retrospective legislation is undesirable because it imposes penalties or other disadvantages without fair warning and undermines expectations.
However, I would argue that this would not apply here, given that banks have been put on notice since the MAS informed the banks of a desire to implement a loss-sharing framework in February 2022, or one and a half years ago. Banks had also been consulted as part of the process as early as 2021, being part of the Payments Council.
Sir, given the delay in the publication of this framework, many scam victims have been left without recourse under the loss-sharing framework by no fault of their own. Accordingly, I urge the Government to ensure that these victims will be allowed to have their claims adjudicated fairly under the framework.
Next, policy suggestion two – additional safeguards for bank customers.
Mr Speaker, a further measure that can help us fight scams is the reintroduction of physical tokens as a default measure for two-factor authentication (2FA). Today, most banks only offer these on request and have a digital token or SMS verification as the default option for 2FA. This means that the mobile phone becomes the single source of vulnerability. Should the phone be infected with malware, 2FA does not, in effect, act as a second degree of authentication. As pointed out by Ms Irene Tham in her article last week, experts believe that it is time to resurrect hardware tokens, which are standalone devices apart from the phone. MAS should advise banks to promote the physical tokens as the default option.
I also asked the Government to consider implementing additional verification checks where a customer transfers money to bank accounts of entities associated with cryptocurrencies or digital payment tokens (DPTs).
To be fair, the MAS has recognised the risk involved with DPTs and has sought to regulate consumer access to DPTs. I urge them to further consider regulating transfers to bank accounts associated with DPT service providers. DPTs carry a higher risk of dissipation and are more difficult to trace, especially when transferred to wallets around the globe. Imposing mandatory delays, transfer limits and additional authentication could go a long way towards preventing customer monies from being siphoned off by fraudsters.
Sir, vulnerable customers are another category to watch out for. Added verification steps and longer mandatory waiting periods should also be implemented where the transaction involves a vulnerable client, such as an elderly or mentally impaired person. Banks should adopt closer scrutiny over transactions from such accounts, mandating lower transfer limits and longer waiting times by default.
Sir, I acknowledge that the measures I have suggested may cause inconvenience to some customers. For all these measures, banks can provide customers the option to opt out of these safeguards provided that they are sufficiently aware of the risk.
Next, policy solution three – safeguarding customers from unfair settlements.
Mr Speaker, some of us have received feedback from scam victims about how their banks try to settle their complaints. First, the sums offered as goodwill payments may be paltry in relation to the loss. Moreover, such offers are usually tied to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) which are onerous and one-sided, requiring absolute secrecy from the customer and requiring the customer to forgo all rights to recover further sums. The one-sidedness of such arrangements was also alluded to by Member Yeo Wan Ling in a Parliamentary Question filed in November last year.
Sir, the MAS has made it clear that it did not intend to regulate settlements. However, the unequal bargaining power between the banks and consumers is obvious. Will the MAS stand by if desperate customers are being bulldozed and bullied? A hands-off approach by the MAS is unacceptable. On this issue, please let me elaborate in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When bank customers complain to their banks of the amount they lost to fraud, some banks will only offer them a small amount to solve the issue. Moreover, such offers are usually tied to signing an agreement of non-disclosure (NDAs) by the customer. This means that these customers are giving up their right to recover further sums in future. The unequal bargaining power between the banks and consumers is obvious from this situation. The Government should not take a hands-off approach. Instead, the Government should roll out regulations for banks to comply with.
(In English): Sir, while I agree that the MAS cannot micromanage the banks, can it do more than issue a motherhood statement that MAS expects the banks to treat their customers fairly?
At present, banks in Singapore have published a voluntary Code of Consumer Banking Practice. Under paragraph 3B of the Code, fairness is a key principle in resolving a dispute between the consumer and the bank. However, as a voluntary code, it lacks regulatory bite.
I urge the MAS to consider adopting regulatory guidelines to enshrine fairness as a key principle in the settlement of consumer disputes, especially in relation to scams.
Some possible guidelines include banning the use of onerous practices such as blanket NDAs, which require customers to give up legitimate claims to recover monies. Customers should also be given full disclosure about their rights and forms of recourse against the bank. Perhaps the MAS could consider prescribing clauses in agreements that do not prejudice customers.
Sir, in some cases where customers have complained to the MAS about settlements being unfair, these customers have been asked to approach FIDReC instead for assistance. Sir, let me say something about the FIDReC option.
There is currently a monetary limit of $100,000 per claim for FIDReC adjudication. Such a limit discourages those who have lost more from going to FIDReC. Should this monetary limit not be raised? Since the daily transfer limit for most customers for PayNow is $200,000 per day, would this limit not be more relevant to FIDReC today?
Such a revision to FIDReC's monetary limit —
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, you have under a minute left.
Ms Sylvia Lim: — would make FIDReC a more serious option for larger claims.
Sir, let me conclude. Mr Speaker, it is time for the Government to act swiftly and decisively on scam losses. Of paramount importance is ensuring that Singaporeans have confidence in their banking system and ensuring that those who have suffered a loss are fairly compensated. The draft framework for loss-sharing is overdue.
I have also highlighted why requiring customers to bear losses when they were not grossly negligent would not be fair. The Government should consider developments in other jurisdictions such as the UK to ensure that banks bear the cost of reimbursing victims, as they are the best place to identify and prevent such scams. Other measures such as a return to physical tokens and ring-fencing funds from high-risk activities like cryptocurrencies should also be considered.
Lastly, the Government should provide a framework to protect customers from unfair settlements and look at raising the monetary limit of FIDReC.
I urge the Government to do its part to ensure that we do right by bank customers.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for tabling today’s Motion.
I share her concerns over losses suffered from scams, as do other Members in this House. Over the past year, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have raised questions on the avenues of recourse for customers who suffer losses from scams. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Dr Lim Wee Kiak also asked about the status of the Shared Responsibility Framework.
Let me touch on our broad strategy to fight scams before highlighting ongoing efforts by the Government and banks against more concerning scam typologies. I will then share the avenues that customers have for recourse and provide an update on the Shared Responsibility Framework.
Singapore adopts a three-pronged strategy to fight scams.
First, upstream measures, such as the ScamShield mobile app to filter and block scam messages and calls, and the SMS Sender ID Registry regime to label non-registered senders with the “Likely-SCAM” label.
Second, downstream measures, these include bank measures implemented last year.
And third, public education through public advisories and sharing best practices to fight scams.
Our collective efforts are showing some encouraging signs. The total amount of scam losses decreased slightly in the first half of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022.
Nevertheless, the scam situation remains serious. With more of us transacting digitally, bad actors are adopting increasingly sophisticated methods to target victims. We must constantly sharpen our approach to fight scams in this rapidly evolving landscape.
Among scam types prevalent today, digitally enabled scams involving phishing and malware are of gravest concern. This is where victims either gave away or had their banking credentials stolen, leading to unauthorised transactions. In recent months, we have seen a growing number of malware-enabled scam cases, with some victims suffering considerable losses. Left unaddressed, such scam threats and ensuing losses can undermine public confidence in payments and digital banking.
The Government is resolute in fighting malware-enabled scams, and we have augmented our efforts under the three prongs I mentioned.
First, upstream measures. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) are working with key tech players to limit mainstream access to identified malware variants and tools, such as those used in scams seen here in Singapore.
Agencies are also working with industry and international partners to raise the security standards of mobile operating systems and mobile devices.
Second, downstream measures. SPF has taken timely enforcement action, and works with banks to trace and recover funds. SPF also collaborates with overseas law enforcement agencies to take down cross-border scam syndicates.
MAS has also been working closely with our banks to strengthen anti-malware controls, fraud surveillance, and detection capabilities. Major retail banks have hence enhanced the security measures to protect customers against malware scams and will progressively introduce refinements or new measures to keep pace with changes in the threat landscape. Members might know that the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) announced this a few hours ago.
A recent example is OCBC’s move to block mobile banking access on devices that are detected to carry potentially malicious apps. Other banks are also implementing similar measures.
Banks are also exploring MoneyLock, to allow customers to set aside an amount in their bank accounts which cannot be digitally transferred out without strict authentication measures. This will further help to limit losses against scams.
Third, public education. Members of the public must take active steps to protect themselves against scams. We must foster stronger adoption of scam prevention actions and cyber hygiene practices through public engagements.
SPF, CSA, MoneySENSE and banks have used multiple platforms such as outreach events, social and print media, as well as digital display panels to broadcast simple advisories, including messages such as \"download only from official app stores\" to the public.
To the Member's point, the Government is also targeting outreach and messages to vulnerable groups, including seniors, students and migrant workers.
I will now address the matter that she raised about who should be responsible for scam losses. And I think the House understands that this is a difficult issue, since amounts lost in any single case can be substantial. We must, hence, strike a balance between fairness, accountability and compassion.
There are some views that banks can easily absorb losses arising from individual scam cases. However, full restitution without due consideration of culpability is neither fair nor desirable. Doing so can erode vigilance and personal responsibility and lull users into complacency.
Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that customers rely on banks to ensure the security and the robustness of their online banking and payment options. This is indeed so.
MAS requires banks to secure digital systems, including by implementing multi-factor authentication to verify a customer’s identity and to authorise online transactions; and also sending notification alerts to customers so they can report unauthorised transactions as soon as possible. However, we should also note that scammers can still bypass these digital security measures, by deceiving customers into inadvertently divulging their account access credentials or downloading malware, thereby granting scammers remote access to victims’ devices and their accounts.
Individual customers thus also have an important responsibility to protect access to their accounts and this includes practising good cyber hygiene and being diligent in preventing their login information and one-time passwords (OTPs) from being divulged to third parties.
MAS has issued guidance for banks to institute clear customer handling and investigation processes and to treat customers fairly in all disputes. MAS also monitors how banks handle such disputes. In scam cases, banks must consider if they have fulfilled their obligations, and whether the victim had acted responsibly. Customers who practised good cyber hygiene and were diligent in preventing their login information and OTPs from being divulged to third parties, should not have to bear losses.
Depending on the facts of each case, banks may offer goodwill payments to customers. If a customer is unsatisfied with an offer, he may decline and approach FIDReC for mediation and adjudication. A customer can further pursue his case in court if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
If the customer accepts a goodwill payment offer, he or she will be bound by the terms of the offer. Should new information come to light that is materially different from the premise upon which the customer had accepted the goodwill offer, the customer can request the bank to relook the case, or to approach FIDReC for assistance.
Finally, let me provide an update on the Shared Responsibility Framework. While this has taken longer than we would like, the Government aims to publish a consultation paper on the framework next month, focusing on phishing scams as a start. Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out that some other countries, including the United Kingdom, have either implemented or are considering mechanisms to mitigate the burden of scam losses. We are monitoring these developments, and will take them into account as we further develop this framework, including for other types of scams in the digital payments ecosystem.
Ms Sylvia Lim also talked about the physical token. Customers can request for physical tokens and MAS is also looking at her suggestion.
On the other part about the digital payment tokens or crypto currency, I wanted to say that MAS also continues to watch for developments in the digital payment tokens or crypto-currency space, and will regularly review the adequacy and appropriateness of these regulations.
On her point of FIDReC, FIDReC will also continue to monitor and regularly review its process and procedures.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to sum up. Scams are an ever-present and evolving threat. The Government will spare no effort to implement effective upstream and downstream anti-scam measures alongside industry. In doing so, as the Member suggested, we may inevitably sacrifice some convenience to achieve better security. Finally, a discerning and vigilant public remains an essential pillar in our fight against scams.
Again, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim and Members in this House for their focus on this very important and rapidly evolving issue and I welcome all of you to work with the Government, to join us in our ongoing fight against scams.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 1.30 pm. Order, order.
Adjourned accordingly at 6.52 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":"Radiation Tests on Samples of Seafood Originating from Waters within 100-kilometre Radius of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment since Japan started releasing treated wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on 24 August 2023 (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency has conducted radiation testing on samples of seafood imports originating from the waters within a 100 km radius of the plant; (b) if so, how many samples have been tested; (c) whether tests include measurements of tritium concentrations; and (d) whether any increased concentration of tritium have been found in these samples.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, my response will also address the question filed by Mr Gan Thiam Poh1, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) adopts a science-based surveillance and monitoring regime to ensure that food imported into Singapore is safe for consumption. When the Fukushima incident happened in 2011, Singapore restricted food imports from affected Japanese prefectures. In the years since, we have gradually allowed food imports from the region to resume with measures to ensure food safety. This includes a radiation testing regime that covers a range of radioactive contaminants. Results from tests conducted since the discharge of treated water have met our safety requirements, which are well within internationally established safe levels.
SFA will continue to closely monitor radiation levels in our food imports.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency conducts checks on all food imports to ensure they are free from any radioactive contamination and safe for consumption; and (b) what is the acceptable level of radioactive agent in food, if all food items under the sun naturally have such agent."],"footNoteQuestions":["66"],"questionNo":"66"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Causes and Impact of 9 August Scrambling of Two RSAF F-16 Aircraft","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Defence with reference to the scrambling of two RSAF F-16 aircraft on 9 August 2023 in response to a Malaysia-registered helicopter flying over the Singapore Strait east of Changi Airport (a) whether the safety of any aircraft has been compromised by this incident at any point; and (b) what measures will be implemented to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: On 9 August 2023, a Malaysia-registered civilian helicopter, callsign: 9MCGA flew from Senai Airport in Johor and headed towards Pengerang. During its flight, it transited Changi Control Zone and subsequently entered Singapore Territorial Airspace without prior notification. Singapore Air Traffic Control (SIN ATC) did not receive any flight plan.
As the helicopter had entered Singapore Territorial Airspace at 1237 hours unannounced, two RSAF F-16 fighters were scrambled, consistent with our Standard Operating Procedures for unidentified aircraft in our airspace which may pose potential threats. The helicopter pilot was instructed to keep clear of Singapore Territorial Airspace and to operate eastwards outside Singapore’s territorial airspace.
The helicopter exited Singapore Territorial Airspace at 1303 hours. After ensuring that there were no further security threats, the RSAF F-16s subsequently stood down at 1405 hours.
While there was no imminent impact of safety on civilian air traffic during the time that the helicopter was in the Changi Control Zone, the airspace around Changi airport had to be closed in responding to the unauthorised entry. As a result, 36 arriving flights into and eight departing flights from Changi Airport were delayed.
Our assessment is that there was no malicious intent arising from this incident. The helicopter had been contracted to take photographs of a Malaysian-registered oil rig that was being transported from Pasir Gudang to Miri, Sarawak, when it mistakenly entered Singapore’s airspace without authorisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Avenues for Home Team Officers to Raise Workplace Difficulties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs what avenues there are for Home Team officers to raise complaints about unfair discrimination and treatment against them by their superior officers without fear of recrimination against them.
69 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what avenues does an officer in the Ministry's uniformed services have to address workplace difficulties if the officer's direct supervisors are unable or unwilling to resolve them; (b) what whistle-blowing channels exist to address such issues and to protect whistle-blowers against reprisals; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed the effectiveness of these measures.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes a firm stance against workplace discrimination. All allegations of such nature are treated seriously and investigated. If we find wrongdoing, the culpable officers will be taken to task, regardless of seniority.
There are established channels for officers to raise grievances or report wrongdoing, namely, the Channel for Formal Grievance Handling and the Channel for Confidential Ethical Disclosure. All MHA officers can confidentially report grievances, workplace discrimination and any issues relating to inappropriate conduct or behaviour to any level of management directly. This includes their direct supervisor, unit Commander or Director, and senior leadership of their Home Team Department and the Ministry headquarters. This can be done in writing or in person.
There are also clear escalation guidelines and processes to ensure that all reports of workplace discrimination, unfair treatment or misconduct, are looked into objectively, professionally and expeditiously. For example, depending on the nature of the reports, the unit Commanders and Directors may inform the Deputy Head of Department or the Head of Department. An independent review of the case will then be conducted by the Department’s Human Resource Division or an internal investigation body. The review findings will be reported to the Deputy Head of Department and the Head of Department. Where substantiated, appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the Civil Service Disciplinary Framework.
If an officer is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, he or she can escalate the matter up to higher levels in the chain of command in the Ministry or to the Head of Civil Service.
All officers are informed of these reporting channels when they join MHA, during onboarding sessions for new officers, and during subsequent training programmes. There are also periodic reminders through internal communications, such as emails and at dialogues and forums with management. This information is also available on the Ministry’s intranet.
MHA also conducts six-monthly Pulse Surveys, biennial Public Service Employee Engagement Surveys and triennial 360 Degree Surveys of supervisors, during which the officers are able to also provide anonymous comments and feedback, including on workplace issues. Every piece of feedback is taken seriously and investigated where necessary.
In the last five years, the Home Team Departments and Ministry headquarters have investigated 310 cases, nine of which were reported directly to the Public Service Division and Ministry headquarters. One hundred and thirty one cases were substantiated and the offending officers were subjected to disciplinary actions.
At the same time, we encourage responsible reporting. We must not let develop a culture of spurious, poison-letter allegations, which can demoralise the wider population of officers and create a toxic environment. If a report is made in bad faith, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer who made the false report.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determining Whether Children With Special Needs Are Better Catered to in Special Education School or Mainstream School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry determine whether a child with special needs will be better catered for within a special education school rather than a mainstream school; (b) how do mainstream schools ensure that children with special needs receive the most appropriate in-school support and education options; and (c) under what circumstances will it be appropriate for parents or caregivers of such children to take an ongoing in-class role with respect to the support or education of their children.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Children with assessed delay in development receive early intervention support in their preschool years. Through their interactions with the children, preschool educators and allied health professionals that provide early intervention support help to identify a child’s developmental needs and guide parents to make informed decisions on the appropriate educational provision for their child. When providing advice to help parents decide whether to enrol their child in a mainstream primary school or Special Education (SPED) school, psychologists, medical practitioners and allied health professionals are guided by professional practice guidelines developed jointly by the Ministry of Education (MOE), hospitals and SPED schools.
MOE is committed to supporting all students with special educational needs (SEN) in quality educational settings that can best meet their needs. Students with mild SEN who can cognitively access the national curriculum and adapt to a mainstream learning environment attend mainstream schools. Students with moderate to severe SEN, who require customised support and therapy, would be better supported in SPED schools.
In mainstream schools, students with SEN are supported by teachers who implement inclusive classroom practices, as well as SEN Officers who specialise in learning and behavioural support. Depending on their needs, some of these students may require in-class support or small group intervention by SEN Officers or teachers. These include targeted interventions and programmes for literacy, numeracy and social and behavioural needs.
There is a very small number of students in mainstream schools who may require additional support beyond what the school can provide. On an exceptional basis, schools may allow parents, or additional resources engaged by the parents, such as a professional or a caregiver, to be present in the school to help transition their children to be more independent in the mainstream schools.
In cases where a student in a mainstream school has severe needs that are better supported in a SPED school, school personnel and MOE’s Educational Psychologists will work with parents to identify a more appropriate educational setting and to facilitate the transfer of a child from a mainstream to SPED school. MOE also provides Post-Diagnosis Educational Guidance to render emotional support and assistance to parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Considerations for Bringing Forward Increase in Retirement and Re-employment Ages before 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Manpower what are the key considerations of the tripartite partners to bring forward the increase in the retirement age and re-employment age for Singapore workers to 65 and 70 respectively before 2030.
Dr Tan See Leng: As our population is ageing, the tripartite partners have committed to raising the statutory retirement and re-employment ages to 65 and 70 respectively by 2030. The first increase to 63 and 68 took place on 1 July 2022.
The timing of future increases to the retirement and re-employment ages will be discussed and decided by the tripartite partners, taking into account factors, such as prevailing economic and labour market conditions, and the need to allow businesses sufficient lead time to prepare and make the necessary adjustments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Grab's Acquisition of Trans-Cab on Fares, Quality of Service and Drivers' Livelihoods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Transport in light of Grab's acquisition of Trans-Cab, what is the impact this acquisition will likely have on (i) commuters in terms of fares and quality of service, (ii) drivers with respect to their livelihoods and working conditions and (iii) the overall development of the point-to-point transport industry in Singapore.
78 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport (a) how has the growth of e-commerce, ride-hailing and car-sharing impacted the number of vehicles on the road and congestion over the past three years, especially with the recent acquisition of Trans-Cab by Grab; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to adjust the COE system to address the aforementioned growth and its effects on vehicle numbers and road congestion.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): My reply will also address a related Parliamentary Question filed by Ms Yeo Wan Ling for a previous Sitting1.
The Point-to-Point (P2P) Passenger Transport Industry Act sets out the regulatory framework for P2P operators. It aims to maintain an open and contestable P2P market. Under this regulatory framework, operators are prohibited from offering exclusive arrangements that, in effect, \"lock in\" drivers and prevent them from driving for other operators. This gives drivers more options and ensures that they are free to choose which operators to drive for. The proposed acquisition of Trans-Cab by Grab is being evaluated by the Competition and Consumer Commission Singapore (CCCS). Should the acquisition go through, Trans-Cab drivers will still be able to continue driving as they do today, taking street-hail jobs or ride-hail trips on Grab and any other platform.
With an open market, commuters are free to choose between different P2P services. These include street-hail services on metered fares and ride-hail services with flat fares. Just as drivers have the option of driving for multiple operators, commuters can compare prices and services offered by different ride-hail platforms and select the ride that best matches their needs and preferences.
Ride-hail operators are required to state fares upfront to ensure price transparency for commuters. Having an open market protects commuters, spurs platforms to innovate and improve their services, and allows smaller operators to compete with larger operators. It is also in the interest of platforms to ensure a fair allocation of jobs across drivers, so that they would continue to have a large base of drivers to serve commuters.
To ensure the safety of P2P passengers, all street-hail and ride-hail operators must also meet quality of service standards covering accident rates, offence rates and first inspection passing rates. These standards will continue to apply to Grab and Trans-Cab or any other entities granted approval to take over the licences.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the growth in e-commerce, ride-hailing and car-sharing services and its effects on our vehicle numbers and road congestion. Private hire cars (PHCs), which include rental cars and cars used to provide ride-hail and car-sharing services, complement our public transport services and provide commuters with more options for direct journeys without having to own a car. Compared to private cars, PHCs generally serve more households and users over time.
While e-commerce, ride-hailing and car-sharing services have grown, the total number of vehicles on the road is governed by our Vehicle Growth Rate, which is currently at 0% for cars. We also deploy Electronic Road Pricing to ease congestion in a targeted manner and where necessary. This applies to all cars – be it PHCs or private cars.
Following a period of decline due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall PHC population has increased to almost the same level as before the pandemic. As a proportion of the total car population, the overall PHC population has remained stable at around 10% over the last four years. There are currently no plans to adjust the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system in response to the growth in PHCs. We will continue to study the impact of PHCs on the COE market.
The P2P sector has evolved significantly since the implementation of the P2P regulatory framework in October 2020. We recognise the need to review our regulations to keep pace with changing commuter and driver needs, as well as structural changes in the industry. In consultation with the tripartite partners and other stakeholders, such as commuters, the Land Transport Authority is conducting a review of the P2P industry structure and regulatory framework over the next few months, to ensure the availability, resilience and inclusivity of P2P services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Sitting of 2 August 2023."],"footNoteQuestions":["77","78"],"questionNo":"77-78"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentives for Local Publishers to Assist Singapore Authors with Obtaining Representation by International Publishers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether any measures have been put in place to incentivise local publishers to assist authors of Singapore literature with obtaining representation from, and being published by, international publishing houses.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Local and international publishers are supported by the National Arts Council (NAC) with the Presentation and Participation (Publishing) grant. This grant supports the publication and translation of Singaporean-authored literary works both in Singapore and overseas. Between 2020 and 2022, NAC supported over 140 publishing grant applications. While most of these grants went to local publishers, approximately 3% of such grants were for works by local authors in international publications, for example, the translation of Delayed Rays of A Star by Singapore Literature Prize winner Amanda Lee Koe and the novel \"Impractical Uses of Cake\" by Epigram Books Fiction Prize winner Yeoh Jo Ann for the German markets.
Local publishers may also apply to NAC for the Market and Audience Development grant to support their participation at international arts platforms, including exhibiting at trade fairs, as well as to raise the profile of Singaporean writers and publishers in international markets and overseas readers, including international publishing houses. Between 2020 and 2022, NAC supported five such grants, of which all went into marketing Singapore Literature internationally. This includes NAC’s support for writers to participate in international literary events.
Information about NAC’s grant schemes that support the publication and internationalisation of Singapore literature is available on NAC’s website.
In addition, internationalisation is a key pillar of Our SG Arts Plan which was recently launched by NAC on 5 September 2023. In line with these efforts, NAC has commissioned the Singapore Book Publishers Association to present a country stand at the 2023 Frankfurt Book Fair, which will feature Singapore literature and writers, as well as support a delegation of local publishers to participate in the Fair. This will raise the visibility and profile of Singaporean writers among international publishing houses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Firms that Hire Seniors or Persons with Special Needs to be Given Dependency Ratio Ceiling Bonus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider introducing an \"inclusivity\" quota whereby companies that employ either seniors, individuals with special needs or Persons with Disabilities, and which individuals form a certain percentage of their total workforce, will be granted a Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) bonus, in recognition of their commitment to fostering a balanced and sustainable workforce.
Dr Tan See Leng: We do not think foreign worker quota is a suitable lever to incentivise firms to employ seniors and persons with disabilities as there could be unintended consequences.
Firstly, firms may hire these employees purely for gaining additional foreign worker quotas, without providing them with meaningful employment.
Secondly, land-scarce Singapore cannot support an unconstrained expansion of the foreign workforce. Keeping our foreign workforce size sustainable will better ensure that all Singaporeans, including senior workers and persons with disabilities, continue to be able to access good jobs and opportunities.
The Government will continue to support inclusive employment through recognising progressive employers with the Enabling Mark and through financial incentives, such as the Senior Employment Credit and the Enabling Employment Credit. However, ultimately, employers should see it in their interest, as employers of choice, to create inclusive workplaces for all workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"General Practitioner Sign-up Rate to Healthier SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what percentage of general practitioners (GPs) have signed up for Healthier SG; (b) how many individuals have been invited to and enrolled in Healthier SG; (c) whether the number of participating GPs is enough to meet the healthcare demand in their estates; and (d) how will the Ministry incentivise and encourage more GPs to join Healthier SG given that some may find treating chronic illnesses more time-consuming and less lucrative than acute illnesses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since July 2023, more than 954,000 SMS invitations have been sent and more than 310,000 residents have enrolled on to Healthier SG. About 75% of about 1,300 CHAS general practitioner (GP) clinics have signed up and they would have the capacity to manage the enrolled residents, over and above their daily workload.
Under Healthier SG, GPs will receive IT grants and annual service fees which are tiered based on the level of care and effort required to look after their enrolled patients. These incentives have been useful in incentivising GPs to join the programme. We will, nevertheless, continue to encourage more GPs to sign up through our outreach efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Broadening Use of Assistance Dogs to Empower Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what actions have been undertaken to broaden the use of assistance dogs to empower persons with disabilities (PWDs) beyond the visually impaired; (b) what future plans are in place; and (c) whether the expected timeline to broaden the use of assistance dogs can be shared.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Currently, guide dogs who assist persons with visual impairment are allowed to enter licensed food retail establishments and on public and private transport, such as MRT, LRT, buses, private hire cars and taxis.
To raise and sustain public awareness that guide dogs are allowed under the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations to enter licensed food retail establishments, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) had, in October 2021, together with Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and SG Enable, issued a joint circular with guidelines on how to identify guide dogs and to encourage licensees to allow guide dogs into their establishments. The joint circular has been published on SFA’s website since October 2021 and SFA recently re-circulated it to licensees on 31 May 2023 to reiterate that guide dogs accompanying blind or visually impaired persons are permitted in licensed food retail establishments. MSF and other Government agencies have also worked with Guide Dogs Singapore (GDS) to disseminate GDS’ posters and infographics about guide dogs.
We are working with relevant stakeholders, including Non-Government Organisations, such as GDS and K9 Assistance, to review how we can broaden the use of assistance dogs to empower persons with disabilities beyond the visually impaired. In line with our Enabling Masterplan 2030 vision for Singapore to be an inclusive society, public acceptance and awareness will be key to this effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of HDB Public Rental Scheme to Families with Large Numbers of Children and Do Not have Realistic Prospect of Purchasing Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many families are currently residing in 3-room rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme; (b) whether HDB will consider extending 3-room rental flats to families with large numbers of children who do not have a realistic prospect of purchasing their own homes so that their children will have a safer and more conducive environment to grow up in.\n\t\n
Mr Desmond Lee: There are currently about 200 public rental households living in 3-room flats.
The Housing and Development Board works closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and selected Family Service Centres (FSCs) to assist large families with children to access 3-room rental flats on a case-by-case basis. In particular, we focus on large families who do not have family support and have no alternative housing options. These families are also supported by social workers from the FSCs, who work closely with the families to holistically address the challenges they face.
For families staying in public rental, our goal is to uplift them so that they can build up their finances and buy their own flat eventually. This is why we have paired rental housing with social support via the ComLink programme, where agencies provide holistic support to rental families to address their needs and aspirations. When the families are ready for home ownership, we provide substantial grants and one-to-one guidance to help them buy a flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigation into Vehicular Accidents Upon Request Especially when Parties are Not Cooperating in Insurance Claims Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Traffic Police will investigate, upon request, vehicular accidents without injuries, in case some parties involved in the accidents deliberately choose not to cooperate in the insurance claims process.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police resources are very tight and need to be focused on investigating criminal offences and ensuring law and order. They should not be asked to deal with civil matters like insurance claim disputes where there are no injuries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Automated Ramps on Buses due for 10th Year Refurbishment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport in light of the refurbishment of over 600 public buses nearing their 10th year of operation, whether LTA will consider (i) re-evaluating automated ramps on these buses for easier boarding and alighting for commuters with mobility devices and (ii) addressing the challenges identified in the trial conducted from September 2017 to March 2018.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted a trial of automated ramps from September 2017 to March 2018. During the trial, LTA observed operational issues, such as longer stopping times at bus stops as more time was needed to safely deploy the automated ramp, and disruptions to bus service when the automated ramp failed to properly deploy. Given these issues and the high cost of retrofitting existing buses with automated ramps, LTA has no plans to do so on public buses due for midlife refurbishment. These buses will continue to be equipped with manual ramps, which can be deployed by bus captains to facilitate boarding and alighting by commuters on mobility devices.
Nevertheless, we recognise that technology will improve over time and we are open to new solutions. LTA has included an option for automated ramps in its latest electric bus tender and we will assess the proposals to see if there are feasible options that can be implemented on our new buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Grid Reliability with Increasing Electricity Demand and Retiring of Older Power Generation Plants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with increasing electricity demand from new investments in energy-intensive sectors and the retiring of older power generation plants (a) what is the plan to ensure grid reliability and to generate above the required reserve margin of 27%; (b) whether older power generation plants will be considered for continual operation if the newer plants are not ready; and (c) whether such consideration will put our transition to low- or zero-carbon power generation plans at risk and its impact to our environment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The reserve margin, which provides for planned and unplanned outages of generating units to safeguard the reliability of our power system, is currently in excess of 30% today, which is above the 27% required reserve margin (RRM). While we expect the reserve margin to decrease over the next few years due to increasing demand, there will be sufficient generation capacity to meet the RRM of 27%.
To ensure sufficient generation capacity, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has introduced a new Centralised Process to launch a Request for Proposal when additional generation capacity is needed in our power system. Only companies awarded a licence under this process may plant new generation capacity. EMA launched the first RFP in July 2023 for new generation capacity needed in 2028. This process strikes a balance between ensuring sufficient capacity for grid security and reliability while minimising the risk of overcapacity. EMA has also been working with Singapore Power to upgrade our grid. These upgrades are planned in tandem with EMA’s Centralised Process.
To mitigate potential delays to new generation capacity coming online, EMA is working with the generation companies on measures, such as the installation of temporary generation units and reviewing the retirement plans of the older generation plants.
We are also continuing with our plans to decarbonise the power sector by 2050, by maximising solar deployment, importing low-carbon electricity and exploring low-carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen. To improve plant efficiency, EMA will also be introducing emission standards by end-2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Doctor who Paid Ambulance Services to Divert Patients to Him, Resulting in Delayed Treatment and Death of a Patient","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider investigating the case of the delay of urgent treatment by a doctor who paid two ambulance services a commission for taking patients to him at his clinic resulting in the death of one of the patients; and (b) whether the practice of doctors and clinics giving such referral fees to ambulance services is a widespread practice and, if so, why is this allowed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The case of delayed urgent treatment by a doctor who paid two ambulance services a commission for taking patients to his clinic is already under investigation for professional misconduct by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) since August 2021, after complaints against the doctor were filed.
There are currently no other cases involving the making of gratuitous payments to private ambulance operators that have been reported to the Ministry of Health or the SMC. SMC’s Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines disallow such practices, and also doctors participating in fee splitting or sharing by offering gratuitous payments, gifts or other rewards in exchange for patient referrals. Doctors must always act in the best interests of patients. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines and will be subjected to the SMC disciplinary process, including being removed from the professional register.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Estates where Resale Flat Prices Exceed $1 Million","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many HDB estates have had an HDB flat obtaining a resale price exceeding $1 million; (b) where are these HDB estates located; (c) at the locations of these HDB estates, how many new HDB estates have been launched, announced or planned since 2021 under (i) the Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model and (ii) non-PLH model respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of 22 July 2023, 21 Housing and Development Board (HDB) towns and estates have resale transactions registered with a resale price of $1 million or more. They are Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Bishan, Bukit Batok, Bukit Merah, Bukit Timah, Central Area, Clementi, Geylang, Hougang, Jurong East, Kallang Whampoa, Marine Parade, Pasir Ris, Punggol, Queenstown, Serangoon, Tampines, Toa Payoh, Woodlands and Yishun.
HDB resale flats that have been sold for $1 million or more form a very small minority, at around 1% of total resale transactions in 2021 and 2022. These flats tend to be in very favourable locations or come with larger floor areas.
Among these 21 towns and estates, between 2021 and the first half of 2023, HDB offered 13 BTO projects under the Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) model in Bukit Merah, Central Area, Kallang Whampoa and Queenstown. HDB has also launched 36 non-PLH BTO projects across several of the 21 towns and estates.
Since 2021, we have launched about 50,000 flats and are on track to launch 100,000 flats by 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guarantee of Admission to Local Universities for Polytechnic Students with Required Grade Point Average","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education considering the recent changes to the Grade Point Average (GPA) requirements for progression from ITE to polytechnics (a) whether there are plans to expand this approach to polytechnic students who wish to join universities upon graduation, whereby students with a GPA of 3.5 and above will be guaranteed admission into universities; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry can elaborate on the considerations behind this decision.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: There are no plans to introduce guaranteed admission to the Autonomous Universities (AUs) for polytechnic students based on Grade Point Average (GPA). The AUs administer their own admissions exercise. Admissions criteria vary across the AUs and across courses, and the admissions process may include interviews and other forms of assessment.
Admission is based on merit, and the AUs assess all applicants fairly and objectively based on their demonstrated abilities and interests. Polytechnic graduates who gain admission to the AUs may be granted credit exemptions if they apply to related courses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Farms that Supply Eggs to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) check on all farms from which Singapore imports eggs; and (b) how does SFA strike a balance between food security and food safety.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) adopts a science-based approach to assess and manage food safety risks, including for eggs, and does so through its regulatory regimes as well as consumer education.
SFA accredits and approves all overseas farms before they can export eggs to Singapore. The farms need to meet SFA’s food safety and animal health requirements, including being free of Salmonella Enteritidis. At import, eggs are subject to SFA’s inspection and testing regime to ensure food safety. Inspected consignments that fail will not be allowed for sale in Singapore.
Food safety remains paramount even as we enhance Singapore’s food security. Even as we diversify our sources of meat and eggs, we ensure that all new sources are subjected to a robust regulatory regime.
94 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower based on the Ministry’s regular inspections of workers who are provided with catered food, whether the timings for workers’ (i) lunch and (ii) dinner breaks are within four hours from the time that the catered food was cooked at the caterer’s kitchen.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts regular inspections on licensed dormitories to ensure that dormitory operators meet with regulatory requirements, including putting in place food safety measures, such as setting up proper food storage and collection points. Dormitory operators must ensure that food is also protected from contamination until it is collected by residents.
So far, we have not received specific complaints from workers about not being able to consume food within reasonable time of preparation. Workers with food-related issues should approach MOM’s Forward Assurance and Support Team (FAST) officers or report the issues via FWMOMCare mobile application. MOM will follow up with the relevant dormitory operator or employer to rectify the issues. In serious cases, MOM will take appropriate enforcement action. If there is an issue with food safety and hygiene, we will refer the matter to Singapore Food Agency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Lower- and Middle-income Workers Facing Stagnant Wages to Cope with Inflation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what are the further sustainable measures and support that can be given to lower- and middle-income workers who face stagnant wages to cope with inflation in the long run.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The most effective way to help lower- and middle-income workers cope with inflation is to enable them to increase their real wages over time. The Government will strive to achieve this by growing the economy, creating good jobs and supporting Singaporeans to take on these jobs through continuing education and training.
We have made continuing education and training more affordable for workers through significant course fee subsidies and the SkillsFuture Credit. We are getting companies to be more involved in SkillsFuture to ensure that the training leads to industry-relevant skills. Initiatives like the Company Training Committees, led by the National Trades Union Congress, as well as the Jobs-Skills Integrators, announced in this year’s Budget, will also help to achieve more effective training, job placement and employment outcomes.
In addition, we will press on with efforts to uplift the wages of lower-income workers. We recently enhanced Workfare to cover more lower-wage workers and increase the support they receive. We have also expanded the Progressive Wage Model, and the Government co-shares the cost of wage increases with employers through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. Today, up to nine in 10 lower-wage workers are covered by Progressive Wage measures.
These moves have helped our workers increase their earnings. From 2017 to 2022, real median income grew at 1.8% per annum1. Real income for lower-wage workers grew at a higher 2.9% per annum2. We are not just supporting the broad middle, but also uplifting the lower-income groups and reducing our wage gaps.
Through the Forward Singapore exercise, the Government is considering further moves to strengthen our support for workers so that they have the skills to take on better jobs and earn higher wages over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Pertains to gross monthly income from work (including employer CPF) of full-time employed residents at the median, deflated by Consumer Price Index for all items at 2019 prices (2019=100). Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, MRSD, MOM.","2 : Pertains to gross monthly income from work (including employer CPF) of full-time employed residents at the 20th percentile, deflated by Consumer Price Index for all items at 2019 prices (2019=100). Source: Comprehensive Labour Force Survey, MRSD, MOM."],"footNoteQuestions":["96"],"questionNo":"96"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Moderating or Reversing Escalating Home Rental Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the Ministry’s outlook for the pricing level of the home rental market; and (b) what more can the Ministry do to moderate or reverse escalating rental cost to help tenants manage their cost of living.\n\n
Mr Desmond Lee: Private and public housing rents are showing signs of stabilising. In the second quarter of 2023, the increase in private and public housing rents moderated to 2.8% and 3% respectively, compared to 7.2% and 4.4% in the previous quarter. This was the third and second consecutive quarter of moderation, for private and public housing rents respectively.
In the coming quarters, we expect rental pressures to further ease, as a significant number of residential units are completed. Close to 100,000 public and private residential units are expected to be completed from 2023 to 2025, adding to the rental supply. This will also reduce the immediate rental demand, as households temporarily renting move into their new homes.
To support Singaporeans who need to rent, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) offers schemes, such as the Public Rental Scheme for low-income Singaporeans with no family support and no other housing options, and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, for eligible families who need interim housing while waiting for the completion of their BTO flat.
We are watching the rental situation closely and will adjust our policies as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Suspicious Zakat Transactions at Al-Istiqamah Mosque","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in relation to the suspicious zakat transactions detected recently at Al-Istiqamah mosque involving cash payments made by members of the public (a) how were the suspicious transactions detected; (b) what is the number of transactions and total quantum involved; and (c) what are the steps already in place or the interim measures now being put in place to ensure the proper accounting of zakat payments in the mosque and all other zakat collection centres accepting cash payments.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On 19 June 2023, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) detected several suspicious transactions involving zakat payments paid in cash at Masjid Al-Istiqamah. As Police investigations are ongoing, MUIS is unable to disclose more information.
Governance requirements and standard operating procedures for handling cash and digital zakat payments are in place and regularly reviewed. MUIS’ zakat officers and supervisors are trained on how to operate the zakat collection system and on the standard operating procedures (SOPs). Regular audits are also performed to ensure adherence to proper procedures and can surface suspicious transactions, as was the case at Masjid Al-Istiqamah.
Masjid Al-Istiqamah has temporarily suspended all zakat collections over the counter. Pending the outcome of the Police investigations, MUIS will review the current SOP and implement any necessary measures to further strengthen the zakat system and processes. MUIS encourages zakat payers to go cashless, where possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for and Barriers Leading to Lower Demand for SME Grants in FY2022/2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for the lower demand for SME grants in FY2022/2023; (b) whether there are barriers encountered by potential beneficiaries in accessing and utilising these grants; and (c) what is the impact of this under-utilisation on the intended outcomes and effectiveness of the grant schemes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The amount of support extended to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through capability-building grants like the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant and the Market Readiness Assistance Grant has doubled between 2019 and 2022. We have also seen a large number of applications in 2023 thus far. The number received in 2023 to date has already exceeded the number of applications received in 2019 over the same period of time.
We are glad that businesses are investing in capability development, innovation and internationalisation and will continue to support them in their transformation journey.
100 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister aside from redeeming the Reserves Management Government Securities, what are the other mechanisms in place for MAS to quickly avail itself of the reserves managed by GIC.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) holds Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) for the conduct of monetary policy. It has assessed that the amount of OFR needed to ensure confidence in the Singapore dollar in the event of a severe crisis in the global economy and financial markets is between 65% to 75% of gross domestic product (GDP).
MAS’ OFR has been sufficient to manage any impact on the Singapore dollar arising from past crises. These include the Asian Financial Crisis, Dot-com crash, SARS, the Global Financial Crisis, the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Separately, the foreign reserves MAS accumulates in excess of its needs have been transferred to the Government for investment by GIC for higher returns. In return, the Government issues Reserves Management Government Securities (RMGS) to MAS.
MAS’ current OFR stands at S$455.5 billion and 70% of GDP, well within the optimal range. Nonetheless, in unlikely tail-risk scenarios where MAS’ OFR buffer might prove insufficient, MAS will be able to redeem its RMGS holdings from the Government in exchange for OFR. Today, MAS’ RMGS holdings amount to S$237.6 billion, or 52% of current OFR. If MAS redeems this, it would bring the level of OFR up to 106% of GDP.
Should a crisis of unprecedented scale emerge that causes MAS’ OFR requirements to exceed what RMGS redemptions can provide, MAS can approach the Government for further support. The Government, as owner of the assets that GIC manages, will then decide how best to meet MAS’ need for additional OFR in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Responsiveness of Emergency Monitoring and Response Service at HDB's 2-room Flexi Flats for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is a system of regular audits done in relation to the responsiveness of the emergency monitoring and response service at HDB's 2-room flexi flats for seniors; (b) what steps are being taken to ensure the reliability of this service; and (c) whether the service may be upgraded to the level for that in community care apartments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We understand that the Member has encountered a case where an elderly resident sounded the alarm at night, but the response from the neighbours only came an hour later. We are reviewing the response mechanism. Proper maintenance of hardware and prompt response will likely require various parties, such as the Housing and Development Board, Town Councils, Agency for Integrated Care, Active Ageing Centres and responders, such as the Police, Singapore Civil Defence Force, CISCO and neighbours, to come together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dedicated Active Ageing Centres for Men","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has considered building dedicated active ageing centres for men, akin to Men's Sheds in the United Kingdom and Australia which have demonstrated increased participation rates in activities conducted for elderly men.\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We agree with the need to increase participation rates of male seniors. Elderly men are generally more driven by specific interests when deciding whether to take part in activities and we also observed that they prefer activities that give them agency. Thus, some AAC providers have organised programmes, such as pool table games, guitar playing, and having dedicated timeslots for \"Uncles’ Time\" or \"Men’s Club\" where they can participate in activities like breakfast and walks as a group.
While there are no plans to build dedicated Active Ageing Centres (AACs) for men, AAC providers are encouraged to conduct a range of activities that meet the interests of both elderly men and women, to ensure that AACs can remain as inclusive spaces for all seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Keeping Pets at Home to Ensure Harmonious Living among Neighbours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will review the guidelines for keeping pets at home to ensure harmonious living among neighbours.
Mr Desmond Lee: The National Parks Board (NParks) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) have put in place guidelines and regulations for the keeping of pets, which aim to safeguard animal welfare and minimise inconvenience to neighbours. For example, NParks has developed a Code of Animal Welfare for pet owners which sets out standards for pet housing, management and care, while HDB maintains a list of approved dog breeds that are suitable to be kept in HDB flats.
NParks also works with community partners, such as animal welfare groups (AWGs), to promote responsible pet ownership. For example, NParks engages the public on best practices for pet care through community events and webinars.
If a resident’s pet is causing inconvenience to neighbours, the pet owner will be advised to take the necessary measures to reduce the inconvenience. The parties concerned may also be advised to attend mediation, where necessary, to resolve the issue amicably.
NParks and HDB will continue to review pet ownership policies and guidelines regularly to balance the needs of different segments of the community. All residents have a part to play in maintaining a harmonious living environment by being responsible pet owners and exercising mutual respect and tolerance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing 60% Deemed Expense Ratio for Private Hire Car and Taxi Drivers Given Higher Operating Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether IRAS will consider increasing the 60% deemed expense ratio for private hire car and taxi drivers in light of higher operating costs, such as increased car rental and petrol prices.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since Year of Assessment 2019, private hire car and taxi drivers have the option to claim income tax deduction based on a Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio (FEDR), set at 60% of their gross driving income, in lieu of claiming the actual amount of expenses incurred. The intent of the FEDR is to ease the tax filing compliance for private hire car and taxi drivers. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) regularly reviews the FEDR to ensure it remains relevant and reflective of actual expenses of the drivers.
IRAS recently completed a review in 2023 and concluded that the current 60% FEDR remains sufficient for the vast majority of the drivers. While operating expenses for the drivers have increased, revenue, too, has grown due to increases in meter and mileage rates. For those whose actual deductible expenses exceed the 60% ratio, the option remains for them to claim deductions based on the actual expenses they incurred.
We will continue to monitor if there is a need to adjust the FEDR.
105 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider allowing the validity period of a standard first aid recertification for sports instructors to commence upon expiry of the existing certificate instead of upon renewal, which renewal may be up to three months before actual expiry; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the validity period of a standard first aid certification to three years instead of two.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Whether the renewal of existing certification starts from the expiry of the existing certification or from point of training completion depends on the training provider, as different providers have differing administrative and IT systems. The Singapore Resuscitation and First Aid Council (SRFAC) will work with providers to see if they can standardise the practice.
SRFAC has set a two-year certification validity for its accredited courses, including the Standard First Aid. Their assessment is that two years will better ensure currency of skills and the practical challenges of requiring more frequent refresher retraining.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies for Addition and Alteration Works for HDB Flats with Multi-step Entrances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will extend subsidies specifically for Addition and Alteration works to households that have multi-step entrances to their HDB flats after these households apply for ramps or access solutions under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme; and (b) how many HDB flats with multi-step entrances currently will require Addition and Alteration works to facilitate the installation of such solutions.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) offers a range of accessibility solutions under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme. Since April 2023, EASE has been expanded to offer a greater range of accessibility solutions that are heavily subsidised by the Government. These include portable ramps, customised ramps, as well as wheelchair lifters for those who face constraints with installing or using a ramp.
For certain flat designs and layouts, minor Addition and Alteration works may be needed to facilitate the installation of a ramp or wheelchair lifter at the flat’s main entrance. Such flats are usually on the ground floor and have more than three steps at the entrance.
Minor Addition and Alteration works may entail modifications to the steps or railing at the flat’s entrance. These works are akin to renovation works to be undertaken by the flat owner and are not subsidised under the EASE programme. If the flat owner is unable to afford the cost of such works, HDB may help to refer the owner to a Social Service Organisation for financial assistance.
The need for minor works to facilitate the installation of accessibility solutions under the EASE programme depends on site conditions and can only be determined after HDB conducts a site assessment at the flat.
HDB will continue to explore solutions to improve the accessibility of flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Weaker Outlook for Export-driven Manufacturing Sector on Job Market and Prospects of Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the weaker outlook for the export-driven manufacturing sector (a) what is the expected impact on the job market; (b) what are the key uncertainties faced by the export-oriented manufacturing industry; and (c) what are the short and long-term measures or policies to be implemented to support the manufacturing sector and enhance its resilience.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore’s manufacturing sector will be affected by dampened global demand and the electronics downturn. Nevertheless, there are bright spots, such as the aerospace segment, due to strong demand from air travel.
The manufacturing sector added 4,400 jobs in the first half of 2023. Retrenchments also tapered, from 1,400 in the first quarter of 2023 to 500 in the second quarter. We expect employment in the sector to remain resilient in the medium term.
Manufacturing will continue to be a key pillar of our economy in the long term, but companies must be prepared to continue to transform to stay competitive and relevant. The Government has many schemes to help manufacturing companies develop new capabilities, train their workers and undertake higher value-added activities. For example, manufacturing companies can tap on schemes, such as the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Working Capital Loan, Productivity Solutions Grant and Enterprise Development Grant, for their short-term cashflow needs or to adopt automation solutions. We encourage companies to make full use of our incentives to enhance their competitiveness.
109 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current waiting time for new case referrals from schools to Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams; (b) whether there are future plans to expand REACH to support schools better; and (c) whether REACH services are also available to full-time madrasahs and, if so, how many of such referrals have been received in the past five years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams collaborate closely with schools, including madrasahs, to provide interventions for students with mental health needs.
Waiting times for referrals to REACH vary depending on the severity of the mental health need. In 2022, the median wait time for a student to be referred to REACH for a mental health assessment was within 24 hours for urgent cases, and between 17 and 31 days for less severe cases. The REACH teams received an average of about 10 referrals from madrasahs per year over the last three years.
The Ministry of Health works closely with the public healthcare clusters to review manpower needs and ensure adequate resourcing for REACH teams to support students’ mental health needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Selected for Career Trial Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower since 2019 (a) how many companies have applied to be host companies under the Career Trial (CT) programme; (b) how many have been selected as host companies; (c) what are the main reasons for rejection; (d) how many CT invitations have been sent to jobseekers; (e) how many jobseekers have commenced the CT; (f) how many were eventually employed after the CT; and (g) how many stayed on the job for at least three months.
Dr Tan See Leng: From January 2019 to June 2023, close to 3,000 companies applied to be host companies under the Career Trial programme of which about 2,100 were selected. The main reasons for not being selected were (a) incomplete applications, (b) lack of response to clarifications, and (c) poor placement outcomes for previously hosted Career Trial participants. Host companies can decide how they advertise the Career Trial opportunities to jobseekers. Workforce Singapore does not track whether host companies invite jobseekers to apply for Career Trial.
Over the same period, about 3,800 jobseekers commenced Career Trial attachments and 2,500 were employed after their attachment. Of those employed, eight in 10 remained in employment after three months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of More than One Household in Same HDB Rental Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development whether there are cases where more than one household is housed in the same HDB rental flat and, if so, why.
Mr Desmond Lee: Public rental flats that have more than one household form only 0.1% of the occupied public rental flats.
Some may be staying together for mutual care arrangements, while others may have had a recent addition to their household, such as parents living with their child who just got married.
Households comprising two family nuclei can apply for two rental flats and request for the flats to be in the same block, subject to vacancies and the prevailing eligibility conditions for renting from the Housing and Development Board.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Foreign Healthcare Workers Facing Difficulties in Finding Affordable Housing in Current High-rent Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"113 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) in the context of the current high-rate rental market, whether the Ministry offers any assistance or support to foreign healthcare workers who encounter difficulties in finding affordable housing options in the open market; and (b) beyond studying the feasibility of facilitating hostel-type accommodation to support new foreign healthcare workers to settle in, whether the Ministry has explored the possibility of providing long-term accommodation as part of the package to attract them to work in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The public healthcare clusters provide a housing allowance for foreign healthcare staff to help defray their accommodation expenses. Private healthcare employers also do something similar.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) and MOH Holdings are setting-up hostel-like accommodation to provide greater certainty and ease the transition and onboarding of new foreign healthcare staff employed by the public healthcare clusters into Singapore.
We will continue to monitor the needs of our healthcare workers, including whether long-term accommodation is needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance to Singaporeans Buying and Selling HDB Flats in Preferred Language of Communication and To Ensure They Do Not Need to Raise More Money for Purchase of Flat before CPF Reimbursement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development whether assistance can be provided to Singaporeans who are simultaneously buying and selling HDB flats (i) in their preferred language of communication like Mandarin, Malay or Tamil and \n(ii) in such a way that they do not need to raise additional money to pay for the purchase first before getting reimbursed by CPF.
Mr Desmond Lee: For all \tHousing and Development Board (HDB) flat transactions, assistance can be sought from HDB frontline staff who are able to communicate with flat buyers and sellers in their preferred language, such as Malay, Mandarin and Tamil.
For those selling a HDB flat and purchasing another one, HDB has various financial assistance measures to ease their cash flow in completing their flat purchase, without having to wait for the completion of the sale of their existing HDB flat to receive the CPF refunds and cash proceeds to pay for the flat purchase.
For those buying a resale flat on the open market, they may apply for the Enhanced Contra Facility which allows them to use the CPF refund and cash proceeds due to them from the sale of their existing HDB flat to pay for their resale flat purchase.
For those buying a new flat from HDB, they can apply for the Contra Payment Facility, which provides them with an additional loan on top of their eligible housing loan amount from HDB. This contra facility is to help them meet the shortfall that they would otherwise need to pay using cash or CPF savings for their new flat, pending sale of their existing flat. Those whose flat purchase is not financed by a housing loan, such as seniors buying a 2-room flexi flat on short lease or Community Care Apartment, or flat buyers who wish to fully pay for their new flat, may also apply for a temporary loan from HDB. In both cases, upon the completion of the sale of their existing HDB flat, the additional loan amount for the Contra Payment Facility or the temporary loan must be redeemed with the net proceeds from the sale.
Flat buyers who require assistance can approach HDB for more information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Mitigate Supply Disruptions from Recent Indian Rice Export Ban due to El Nino Wave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in view of the recent Indian rice export ban due to the current El Nino wave which has affected food production, what measures are being taken to address this potential loss of rice supply to Singapore; (b) whether there are expectations of more export bans by other countries on food supplies in the near future given the escalating climate disasters attributed to El Nino; and (c) what assurances can be provided to ensure food security for Singaporeans.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: El Niño is a large-scale climate phenomenon over the tropical Pacific Ocean. It typically brings drier and warmer weather to much of Southeast Asia, but may also cause heavy rains or extreme weather events in other parts of the world. El Niño conditions are now here. While we are unable to ascertain the impact of El Niño specifically on food production, extreme weather events are known to cause crop loss and adversely affect food security.
Singapore imports more than 90% of our food and we are not able to isolate ourselves from global food supply disruptions. Such disruptions could arise from a variety of causes, including extreme weather events, geopolitical tensions or decisions by foreign governments. Our multi-pronged approach to food security through diversifying our import sources, producing locally and stockpiling essential food items remains relevant and effective in mitigating the impact of a wide range of disruptions.
With regard to Mr Alex Yam’s question on what the Government has done to address the impact of India’s export ban on non-Basmati white rice, we had made a request to the Indian Government for a waiver from the ban for our domestic food security requirements and the Indian Government has acceded to our request.
This being said, industry and consumers also have a part to play for our food security. Businesses should have Business Continuity Plans in place and diversify their food supplies. Consumers can be flexible and consider other food options when any supply disruption occurs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Policies to Increase Leave for Parents of Multiple or Pre-term Babies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government has undertaken any review of parental leave policies to increase leave for parents of multiple or pre-term babies; (b) if so, when was it conducted and what were the findings from the review; and (c) if no review was conducted, whether the Government will consider conducting such a review.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): We regularly review our parental leave policies and other measures to better support the caregiving needs of parents of young children.
In 2017, Mr Ng had raised this issue of increasing leave for parents with multiple or pre-term births. We recognise that these parents may have greater caregiving needs. As such, the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs was introduced in 2018. Employers who adopt this Standard commit to provide additional unpaid leave of up to four weeks per year for parents with a child below the age of two who is (a) born preterm, with congenital conditions or as part of multiple births, or (b) has any other medical conditions, subject to mutual agreement with the employer.
As announced at Budget earlier this year, we will double the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks for eligible working fathers from 1 January 2024. Unpaid Infant Care Leave will also be doubled from six to 12 days per year per parent, in the child’s first two years. Parents with multiple or pre-term births can tap on these enhanced leave provisions to have more time to care for and bond with their newborns, or to settle caregiving arrangements.
Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment and show understanding towards parents who may require more time to care for their children after birth. The Government will continue to work closely with the Tripartite Partners to promote family-friendly workplace practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Passes for Those who can Work in Singapore during Non-peak Hours and Return to Homes in Johor Bahru or Batam in the Day","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"118 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider an increase in the number of work passes for some specific job types like production line operators, packers and truck drivers, which can be performed during non-peak night hours and will allow such workers to return to their homes in Johor Bahru and Batam in the day.
Dr Tan See Leng: The suggestion to grant additional foreign worker quota for firms to hire non-peak night hour workers is effectively a loosening of the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs). The DRCs help to regulate the size of our foreign workforce and ensure that businesses do not become over-reliant on foreign workers, which could leave businesses vulnerable to various disruptions, as seen during COVID-19. At the same time, introducing concessions for this category of workers would entail ensuring that they do, indeed, return home on a daily basis instead of staying in Singapore so as to avoid straining Singapore’s infrastructure. Enforcing such a rule would be impractical and resource-intensive.
Nonetheless, we understand that some businesses may require additional foreign manpower on a transitional basis for reasons, such as business expansion. For such employers, they can tap on existing schemes, such as the Manpower for Strategic Economic Priorities (M-SEP) scheme. The M-SEP scheme provides temporary flexibilities for businesses that contribute to Singapore’s strategic economic priorities. Businesses that participate in specified programmes or activities relating to investments, innovation or internationalisation, and commit to hiring or training locals, can hire S Pass and Work Permit holders above the prevailing DRC for two years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Requiring Homeschooled Children to Meet 33rd Percentile Benchmark for Taking PSLE","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for requiring homeschooled children to meet the 33rd percentile benchmark for taking PSLE; (b) what is the rationale for requiring children to take PSLE at Primary 6 when they are typically at the age of 12 as they may have different learning paces; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the PSLE policy to provide some latitude in timeline and autonomy for children to learn at their respective paces in their formative years.\n
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) serves as a checkpoint in a child’s education journey to assess their mastery of core concepts and skills and to guide them to take subjects at appropriate levels at the next stage of learning. It also provides an objective and educationally meaningful measure for posting students to secondary schools in a fair and transparent manner.
Children exempted from Compulsory Education, including those who are homeschooled, are required to sit for the PSLE and meet the PSLE benchmark. This is to ensure that they have a baseline foundation in their academic education that allows them to access further learning and training.
We recognise that students learn at different paces. There is flexibility in our system for students to customise their education based on their learning needs. Students in our primary schools who need more time to master the fundamentals may offer Foundation subjects at the PSLE. With the changes to the PSLE scoring system since 2021, students’ results are no longer as finely differentiated and reflect their objective performance. This allows students to focus on their own progress instead of how well they perform relative to their peers. Under Full Subject-Based Banding, students can also customise their learning when they move on to secondary school, by taking subjects at an appropriate level based on their strengths, interests and learning needs.
We will continue to refine our policies and provide flexible education pathways so as to support all students in achieving their full potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring No Supply Chain Disruptions for Commonly Used Medicines for Paediatric or General Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"121 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health what measures are in place to ensure that there are no supply chain disruptions or shortages to commonly used medicines or supplies for paediatric or general care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To ensure supply chain resiliency, healthcare institutions, drug and medical supplies companies, local distributors and retailers keep close track of their supplies and will bring in more stock or alternative brands when the situation requires.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) also maintains stockpiles of key medicines and medical supplies and has diversified its procurement sources.
In extreme situations, MOH will impose sales limits to prevent hoarding and to ensure that the medicines and medical supplies are fairly distributed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Selection Criteria for Main Contractors of HDB BTO Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"123 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the selection criteria for main contractors of HDB BTO projects; (b) how does HDB ensure that the selected contractors are able to (i) deliver quality workmanship and (ii) complete the BTO projects within the stipulated timeframe; and (c) where a contractor’s services are terminated mid-project, how does HDB mitigate the delays and rectification works of the BTO projects affected.
Mr Desmond Lee: All BTO project tenderers must be registered with the Building and Construction Authority under the required financial grade, meet the minimum credit rating and have prior experience with high-rise building projects.
To ensure that contractors do not overstretch their resources, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) manages the allocation of tender opportunities to building contractors, based on their past performance scores and non-compliance records. Contractors with better performance will be allowed to undertake more projects, subject to a yearly value cap. Conversely, contractors with less satisfactory performance will be restricted from tendering for more projects.
Contractors who do not perform well in their current projects, such as repeated slow progress of work or safety infringements, will be temporarily suspended from tendering for new HDB BTO projects until they improve. This is to enable contractors to focus their resources on improving their performance in current HDB projects.
During tender evaluation, HDB employs a Price Quality Method (PQM) to score tender bids according to price and quality attributes. This approach takes into account a contractor’s current and past project performance, safety records, financial health assessments, CONQUAS assessment and safety scores.
To ensure that selected contractors deliver quality workmanship, HDB adopts a comprehensive quality management system. This includes:
(a) requiring contractors to source all building materials and equipment from an approved list of suppliers, to ensure construction materials are of good quality;
(b) conducting consistent in-process checks and audits; and
(c) inspecting finishes and fittings for proper installation and compliance with HDB’s required standards.
HDB monitors the construction progress of all BTO projects closely. To ensure timely completion of BTO projects without compromising on project quality and safety standards, HDB works with contractors and consultants to meet critical construction milestones, including obtaining timely clearance and approvals from authorities and agencies.
In the unfortunate event where a contractor’s services are terminated mid-project, HDB leans forward to connect the replacement contractor with existing sub-contractors involved, to facilitate a smooth transition and timely progress on remaining construction work. HDB also works closely with the replacement contractor to ensure critical milestones are met to deliver the flats on time and flat buyers can move into their new homes in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Structural Barriers that Make it Difficult for Private Hire Car Drivers to Leave Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"124 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are structural barriers that make it difficult for private hire car drivers to leave the sector; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider taking additional steps to address a possible power imbalance between platform operators and private hire car drivers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Private hire car drivers may face different challenges that make it less easy for them to leave the sector. Some may not possess the right skills to switch to another job. These drivers can tap on Career Conversion Programmes which provide salary and training support to employers to reskill new workers, and the Jobs and Skills Centres, which provide career coaching and advice.
In July this year, the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation for Platform Workers released its recommendations on a framework that would enable representative bodies to represent platform workers, including private hire car drivers, in negotiations with platform operators. The framework will help address possible power imbalance between platform operators and the private hire car drivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting HDB Flat Balloting System to Accord Weightage to Unsuccessful Attempts in Sale of Balance Flat Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"125 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider adjustments to the HDB flat balloting system to accord some weightage to the number of prior unsuccessful attempts made by the applicant for a HDB BTO flat or a flat under a Sale of Balance Flats exercise.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government is committed to helping Singaporeans own their first homes. That is why we prioritise the allocation of new flats to first-timers, especially first-timer families. Today, at least 95% of 4-room and larger flats in Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats exercises are set aside for first-timer families, who are also given two ballot chances, compared to one for second-timer families.
During Our Housing Conversations conducted under the Forward Singapore exercise, we had reached out to over 16,000 Singaporeans. Many of them were of the view that Singaporeans looking to buy their very first home to set up their families have the most urgent housing needs and should be given more priority. Therefore, from this upcoming BTO launch onwards, families with a child aged 18 and below, or married couples aged 40 and below buying their first home will qualify for the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples) category, in which they will receive three ballot chances for their flat applications right from the start. They will also enjoy priority under the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme.
Additional support to applicants based on the number of prior unsuccessful attempts in non-mature estates has been in place since 2008. An additional ballot chance is provided to first-timer families who have had two or more previous unsuccessful BTO applications in the non-mature estates. They continue to receive an additional ballot chance for every subsequent unsuccessful BTO application in the non-mature estates. These additional ballots provide them with a higher chance of securing a flat.
We are committed to keep public housing affordable and accessible and will continually review our balloting and flat allocation system to support those with greater housing needs get their flats in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Bed Bug Issues at Migrant Worker Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"127 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider addressing the issue of bed bugs at migrant worker dormitories other than advising workers not to use infected mattresses.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA), dormitory operators are required to maintain tidiness, cleanliness, sanitation and good housekeeping of the dormitories. In addition, dormitory operators must implement adequate measures to ensure that dormitories are free from all vectors, including bed bugs.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts regular inspections of migrant worker dormitories and has avenues for migrant workers (MWs) and other stakeholders to provide feedback about dormitory living conditions. If bed bugs are found at dormitories during our inspections, dormitory operators are required to immediately remove the infected mattress from the dormitory and engage the services of a vector control operator to detect and eradicate the problem. MOM will take the appropriate enforcement action against the dormitory operator or employer for serious infestation or recalcitrant cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications Received under HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors (Direct Application) Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"128 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year from 2020 to 2022, how many applications has HDB received under the EASE (Direct Application) scheme; (b) how many applications are from households with persons with disabilities who do not meet the age requirement in each year; (c) what is the average waiting time for such applications to receive an approval from HDB in each year; and (d) whether a dedicated EASE scheme can be considered to prioritise these applications.
Mr Desmond Lee: In each year from 2020 to 2022, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received 9,400, 8,800 and 10,300 applications respectively under the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) (Direct Application) scheme. HDB generally approves an application within seven working days after receiving it, if the applicant has submitted all the required information and supporting documents.
The EASE programme generally targets older Singaporeans aged 60 and older. Applicants who do not meet the age eligibility criteria, including those with mobility issues, are in the minority and HDB assesses them on a case-by-case basis. HDB does not differentiate between applicants with disabilities and seniors with medical health conditions and does not track the number of such applications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential of Buying Renewable Energy from India","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"129 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government is exploring plans to sign an agreement with India to buy renewable energy; and (b) if so, what percentage of Singapore’s 2030 projected electricity demand target can be met from this agreement.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore and India enjoy a strong bilateral relationship. The energy transition is an emerging and potentially important area of collaboration. Both countries can study ways to support our respective net-zero goals, while ensuring energy security and resilience.
Under the Energy Market Authority’s (EMA) Request for Proposal to import up to four Gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity by 2035, we have received proposals for import from several countries in the region, including India. EMA has awarded Conditional Approvals (CAs) to import three GW of low-carbon electricity thus far. We continue to evaluate the proposals and will award CAs to those that meet our requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engaging More Stakeholders in Suicide Prevention at Earliest Possible Stages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"130 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Health what are the immediate ongoing actions to engage more stakeholders in suicide prevention at the earliest possible stages.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Suicide prevention requires coordinated whole-of-Government and whole-of-society efforts targeted at multiple sectors and involves a full spectrum of measures from upstream prevention, such as building mental resilience, early risk detection and addressing suicide triggers to downstream interventions, such as crisis support and treatment of associated mental health conditions.
Current preventive efforts include the Health Promotion Board’s public education and campaigns to raise mental health awareness, build mental resilience and reduce stigma. These aim to normalise help-seeking by mentally distressed individuals and equip the community with effective skills to support one another. These efforts are sustained through on-ground programmes, social media outreach and the online portal MindSG, which offers mental health resources curated by professionals.
In addition, the SG Mental Well-Being Network was launched in 2022 to bring together partners and citizens to strengthen mental health and well-being outcomes for our society. Well-Being Circles have been set up under this initiative in different neighbourhoods to strengthen community and peer support by equipping citizens with the skills to care for their own mental well-being and that of others around them. Today, there are six Well-Being Circles in different neighbourhoods and over 500 citizens have been trained as peer supporters. We will continue to support community stakeholders to initiate more of such Well-Being Circles.
To support at-risk individuals in the community, the Agency for Integrated Care has collaborated with social service agencies to set up and expand the network of community mental health teams that offer mental health assessments and psychosocial interventions, with linkages to other ancillary support services.
The Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being, comprising representatives from over 30 Government agencies, public and private sectors, has put together a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the mental resilience and well-being of the population, including suicide prevention. The strategy is targeted to be released by the end of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Security and Privacy for Installation of CCTVs and Monitoring Devices at Workplaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"131 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current policy or guidelines for employers installing CCTVs or other monitoring devices at workplaces; and (b) how are issues of safety and security balanced with workers' privacy.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations are required to comply with obligations if they undertake activities relating to the collection, use or disclosure of personal data. These obligations apply to the use of surveillance cameras as well as other monitoring devices at the workplace, where personal data is collected.
Surveillance cameras and monitoring devices are useful tools in addressing safety and security concerns at the workplace, such as helping companies monitor high-risk work activities and deterring unsafe work behaviour. As organisations strive towards better workplace safety and health outcomes, they must also ensure that they comply with their PDPA obligations to protect their workers’ personal data.
For example, organisations should set out clear rules on how and where these devices will be used; devices should be deployed only at locations with safety and security concerns and not at private areas, such as restrooms. Organisations must inform workers of the purpose of the device, such as through the employee handbook or easily accessible human resource policies. Organisations must also implement data protection safeguards and controls on the storage and use of recordings, including the duration to retain such personal data. These details are in the Advisory Guidelines on Key Concepts in PDPA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for HDB Flats at Kampong Arang and Jalan Batu to be Considered for Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"132 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme for the HDB flats at Kampong Arang and Jalan Batu due to the age of the flats and the increasing costs of maintaining these older flats.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) was introduced in 1995 as part of our estate renewal strategy for older HDB estates. It is a highly selective programme which allows us to optimise land through the redevelopment of selected HDB precincts which have high development value. We have explained the criteria for selection of SERS sites in a previous reply in May 2022.
The flats at Kampong Arang and Jalan Batu have been upgraded under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) in 2002. There are many programmes for estate renewal in addition to SERS, such as the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Home Improvement Programme (HIP). We have also announced HIP II, which will provide a second round of upgrading for all flats when they are about 60 to 70 years old. These programmes will keep our HDB estates vibrant and the flats in good condition.
1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister in the light of Singapore’s ambition to be the regional philanthropy hub (a) what are the building blocks that need to be in place to realise the ambition; and (b) how will the Government support such developments.
Mr Lawrence Wong (for the Prime Minister): Singapore has the potential to be Asia’s centre for philanthropy. We have a vibrant wealth management sector and growing philanthropy ecosystem. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the relevant Government agencies have been working with the industry on several building blocks to shepherd wealth to purposeful causes locally and in the region.
First, we are building up philanthropy advisory talent and resources. MAS, together with the Institute of Banking and Finance, published in 2021 a set of technical skills and competencies that financial sector and family office professionals should possess in order to provide philanthropy advisory services. These include, for example, the capability to evaluate and identify appropriate philanthropic structures to help potential donors achieve their wealth and legacy planning goals. Locals who attend training courses benchmarked against these skills and competencies can obtain co-funding support for their course fees. MAS is also working with the industry to develop an online portal for donors to carry out the necessary due diligence on local and overseas charities and measure the impact of their contributions.
Second, we facilitate partnerships across various philanthropic ecosystem players. The Economic Development Board has been engaging private foundations to undertake purposeful and effective philanthropy through Singapore, as well as international non-profit organisations who can be ready partners for philanthropists keen to make an impact here and across the region. The Wealth Management Institute and the private banking industry, with support from MAS, launched the Impact Philanthropy Partnership (IPP) to bring together high net worth individuals and families. The IPP conducts forums, events and research to raise awareness of philanthropic causes and practices, galvanise giving and encourage philanthropic partnerships.
Third, we encourage giving through our tax and regulatory frameworks. Recent enhancements by MAS and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to the tax incentive schemes for single family offices include recognising donations to qualifying local charities as eligible spend as well as the launch of the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme (PTIS) for qualifying donors to claim tax deduction for overseas donations. These enhancements complement the 250% tax deduction rate for qualifying donations made to Institutions of a Public Character and eligible institutions, which MOF recently extended by another three years till end-2026.
Fourth, we maintain strong public trust in the Singapore charity sector. This will provide donors confidence to give to local charities and help attract entities to conduct philanthropic activities out of Singapore. The Commissioner of Charities’ Office works with partners and stakeholders to strengthen local charities’ capabilities and governance through the implementation of the Code of Governance for Charities, learning programmes, shared services and funding support through the Charities Capability Fund.
As Singapore attracts more wealth from around the world to be managed here, there is both opportunity and purpose in putting some of this wealth to philanthropic use both locally and in the region. MAS and the relevant Government agencies will continue to work with industry players to help achieve this objective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Random Audit Checks of Registers of Electors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Prime Minister whether the Elections Department will consider (i) conducting random audit checks to ensure that the names in the Registers of Electors are correctly updated and (ii) informing voters earlier if their names have been expunged from the Registers of Electors for confirmation as to whether they have voted at the previous election prior to the update of the Registers and to apply for reinstatement as necessary.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Let me first set out the Elections Department (ELD)’s key executional objectives at every election – which is to ensure, firstly, that only bona fide voters are issued with ballot papers; secondly, that no extra ones were put in; and thirdly, that all votes cast are counted, so that the election result is determined by the eligible voters for that election.
To achieve this, we have put in place a set of procedures that need to be complied with.
Upon the voter’s arrival at the polling station, the election official will verify his identity and eligibility to vote at the polling station and then register the voter’s attendance via a hardcopy polling station register or the electronic registration system. Thereafter, the voter is directed to the ballot paper issuance counter. The election official issuing the ballot paper is required, by law, to read out the name and voter serial number of a voter before the voter is issued a ballot paper. This allows the polling agents to mark their copy of the register and provide an additional check to ensure that only eligible voters in the register for that polling station are individually issued with a ballot paper. As a result, when the votes are tallied for an election, we can be confident that the outcome is the one decided by the eligible voters for that election.
After the end of each election, ELD compiles the list of voters registered to have voted on Polling Day and compares it against the list of voters in the certified Registers of Electors for the election. Those who were not registered as having voted on Polling Day are included in the list of non-voters, which is published after each election for inspection. The non-voter list contains the names of people who have not turned up to vote. The vast majority of them did not vote either because they were not in Singapore or were ill on Polling Day. For these cases, their names were not crossed out in the hardcopy polling registers as they did not turn up at the polling stations. After each election, there would be a few voters who claimed that they had voted even though, upon checking, their names were not crossed out in the hardcopy polling registers. Thus, in reply to Mr Pritam Singh’s question, prior to the introduction of electronic registration at GE2020, ELD encountered only a few cases of voters who were on the non-voter list who claimed that they had voted.
For GE2020, GE2015 and GE2011, ELD recorded about 111,000, 155,000 and 147,000 non-voters respectively. As can be seen, the non-voter list for GE2020 was much smaller, rather than bigger than the two previous GEs.
As per every election, ELD published the non-voter list for voters to verify, about three months after GE2020. This was publicised via a press release on 5 October 2020 which was covered by mainstream media.
Ms He asked why a tally of the number of NRICs scanned and the number of votes cast after the last general election was not conducted as a first instance check. Given the much lower number of non-voters for GE2020 compared to the two general elections before, ELD did not suspect that an unusual number of voters had not been recorded as registered. Checking the registration figures at the end of Polling Day may also not be instructive – because the process to ensure voting secrecy means that we will not be able to identify individual voters, including those who had not been registered accurately and would, therefore, be listed as non-voters in due course. Furthermore, every voter receives only one ballot paper and the ballot boxes which contain all cast ballot papers are always in the custody of election officials, properly sealed with polling and counting agents able to witness this process and secured while in transit.
Ahead of Presidential Election (PE) 2023, ELD publicised that the revised Registers were available for inspection from 15 June 2023 and that the certified Registers which contain updated information from the inspection period were available for inspection from 21 July 2023. These exercises were carried out to enable Singaporeans to check their details and restore their names to the Registers ahead of the election.
From October 2020 to the day of the Writ in August this year, some 32,000 voters checked and restored their names. Similar to previous exercises, there were very few who requested ELD to restore their names due to inaccuracy in the recording of their voting status in GE2020. As such, ELD did not suspect that there were significant inaccuracies in the recording.
The list of non-voters had been opened for inspection shortly after the GE2020, and the public were reminded that the registers were available for inspection in June and July 2023 before the Writ for PE was issued. Voters need not wait for these periods, but are able to check their status in the registers all year round either through Voter Services on ELD’s website, at any of the over 100 community centres/clubs or by calling ELD. However, there remained some voters who did not check that their names were on the registers. After the Writ was issued for PE2023 and up to Polling Day, 1,093 Singaporeans informed ELD that they did not receive their poll card even though they said that they had voted in GE2020. For context, this number averages one voter per polling station which had on average 2,400 registered voters in GE2020. Further, ELD’s analysis of the distribution of the affected voters showed that there is no pattern across the polling stations and that the 1,093 cases were distributed across more than 500 polling stations.
ELD has investigated this and concluded that the most probable cause of error was that the NRIC details of these affected voters had not been captured properly by the electronic registration system, which was only introduced from GE2020. This is because the proper registration procedure may not have been followed for the affected voters.
Let me explain. A voter’s NRIC and poll card are first checked by election officials at the registration counter before the NRIC is scanned to register the voter. When the NRIC of a voter is scanned by the barcode reader, an alert or “beep” sound will be emitted, and a digital screen will flash an “Ok” button, indicating that the voter data has been successfully captured in the system. At this point, the election official should tap the “Ok” button to return to the registration screen so that the NRIC of the next voter can be scanned.
If the NRIC of the next voter is scanned when the screen has not returned to the registration screen, the alert sound will still be emitted, as this indicates that the NRIC had been scanned. However, the record of this voter would not have been captured. It is likely that in their effort to clear the queues at some polling stations, some election officials might have missed out this step. As a result, the registration of the affected voters was not captured.
For Presidential Election 2023, we implemented a new electronic registration system with a simplified process. Election officials need not press any button to return to the registration screen to register the next voter. Therefore, the issue of non-captured registrations as a result of not pressing a button would not arise.
Dr Tan Wu Meng asked what is being done to ensure that all who voted were registered and Dr Tan, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked what will be done to prevent a recurrence where those who had voted were inadvertently removed from the Registers. Going forward, besides making a public call for voters to check their status when the non-voter list is published for verification, ELD will institute an additional measure to individually inform Singaporeans on the non-voter list via mail and through SG Notify in Singpass to verify their status, and to restore their names to the Registers. We thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for her suggestion.
Dr Tan asked about the number of polling stations that experienced technical issues with the electronic registration system during the recent Presidential Election 2023. Based on ELD’s preliminary investigations, there was a 30% average loss in device connectivity in the first hour of polling and this reduced to 16% by 10.00 am. There was no evidence that this was caused by cyberattacks. Instead, this could have been partly contributed by the surge in the volume of transactions during the morning peak, when about 52% of the total number of voters had already voted in the first four hours, compared to 32% in GE2020.
For Presidential Election 2023, ELD had endeavoured to reduce queues and waiting times for the convenience of voters. The number of polling stations was increased by 15% to 1,264 stations, from the 1,097 in GE2020. This reduced the average number of voters assigned to a polling station from about 2,400 voters in GE2020 to 2,150 voters in PE2023. Each polling station also had more e-Registration devices than before, from between two to four devices each, proportionate to the number of voters in the polling stations, with an additional spare device each for contingency. For reference, a polling station with only two e-Registration devices can process six voters per minute on average, which is a 50% higher throughput, compared to the manual registration rate which does so at an average of four voters per minute.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank our election officials who adapted quickly and kicked in the contingency measure as planned to register voters using the hardcopy registers, which they had been trained to do. As a result, by about 9.55 am, ELD had reported that queues had improved at most polling stations. I thank voters who had to queue longer during the morning of Polling Day for their patience and understanding.
The electronic Registration system seeks to reduce waiting times and automate attendance taking for the benefit of voters. ELD will continue to enhance the system so that the registration data are captured swiftly and accurately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale in Determining Polling Stations Based on Voters' Addresses at Last Revision Date of Registers of Electors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the rationale for the Elections Department to determine polling stations based on voters’ addresses based on the last revision date of the Registers of Electors; and (b) whether more time can be given to voters, beyond the two weeks of public inspection, to update their particulars so as to be allocated a nearer polling station due to a change of address after the last revision date of the Registers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): To update on changes to the electorate, the Elections Department (ELD) prepares new Registers of Electors based on a prescribed date as set out under the law. The prescribed date was revised to 1 June 2023 earlier this year. This means that for Presidential Election 2023, the particulars of voters, including their residential addresses, were updated based on latest records kept by the Commissioner of National Registration as of 1 June 2023. As the Registers prepared based on the prescribed date of 1 June 2023 are the latest copies of the Registers, ELD assigns voters to polling stations based on the residential addresses in these Registers.
For Presidential Election 2023, the exercise to revise the Registers was completed on 14 June 2023. The two-week period for the public to inspect the Registers is prescribed by law. ELD issued a press release to inform the public that the Registers were available for inspection for the two-week period from 15 June 2023 to 28 June 2023. In the same press release, ELD advised Singaporeans that they may submit a claim to update their particulars, including their addresses, if these are different from what is reflected in their NRICs. This information was covered by the media and shared via Digital Display Panels in the lift landings of HDB flats, ServiceSG centres and at over 100 community centres/clubs. Singaporeans can check their particulars using Voter Services on ELD’s website, “My Profile” on Singpass Mobile App and “Home” on LifeSG App. Those who are unable to check their particulars in the registers electronically may do so at ServiceSG centres and community centres/clubs near their homes or at the ELD office.
Under the law, after the two-week inspection period, ELD is required to put up a Claimant List, setting out the various claims by voters, for public inspection. This is to allow eligible individuals to raise any objections to the claims. For this exercise, the inspection period of the Claimant List took place from 12 July 2023 to 19 July 2023. ELD can only certify the Registers at the end of this period after all claims have been dealt with. The Registers of Electors were certified on 20 July 2023, which was a few weeks before the Writ was issued for the Presidential Election.
Once the Registers are certified, no changes to the particulars of the voters, including their addresses, may be made until the Registers are next revised. This is to provide certainty to the candidates on the voters that would be participating in the election. The current two-week period is a reasonable amount of time for the public to inspect the Registers and to make changes to their particulars. We encourage voters to promptly update changes to their particulars on their NRICs, so that the revised Registers also reflect these particulars.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Law Enforcement Officers Found Guilty of Corruption or Bribery-related Misconduct","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) in each of the past 10 years, how many law enforcement officers have been found guilty of corruption or bribery-related misconduct; and (b) of these, how many are from the (i) Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, (ii) Central Narcotics Bureau, (iii) Singapore Police Force and (iv) Land Transport Authority, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022, a total of 18 law enforcement officers were convicted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Of these, seven were from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, seven from the Singapore Police Force, and one from the Land Transport Authority. None of the officers convicted during this period was from the Central Narcotics Bureau.
5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the breakdown of the assets managed (i) directly by in-house investment teams and (ii) third party asset managers for the Dynamic, Balanced and Stable funds respectively under the SAVER-Premium Fund; and (b) what is their current asset class composition compared with their target composition.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Investments from the SAVER-Premium Fund are guided by its Board of Trustees and appointees, which include professionals from the finance sector. The Board of Trustees has entrusted cash and cash equivalents1 to be managed by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF)’s in-house SAVER-Premium Fund Department, and for equities and bonds by external fund managers.
The current and target asset allocations are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below respectively.
6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the breakdown of assets managed (i) directly by in-house investment teams and (ii) third party asset managers, for the Dynamic, Balanced, Stable and Lifecycle funds respectively under the Home Affairs Uniformed Services INVEST Fund; and (b) what is their current asset-class composition compared with their target composition.\n\n\n
Mr K Shanmugam: The investments of the Dynamic, Balanced, Stable and Lifecycle Funds are fully managed by external fund managers under our Outsourced Chief Investment Officer model.
The current asset-class composition and their reference portfolio are shown in the tables below.
7 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the current measures to track and prevent money-laundering activities through the purchase of high-end, high-value retail and auction items; and (b) in view of the recent money-laundering crackdown by the Singapore Police Force, what additional measures will be set in place to stem future money-laundering activities in these sectors.
8 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are plans to extend the upcoming Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing (ML/TF) Information and Cases (COSMIC) digital platform to include major banks in the region in order to facilitate sharing of information on suspicious transactions and customers across neighbouring regional countries after Singapore’s network has been set up.
9 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the Ministry work with the Ministry of Home Affairs to deter and identify fraudulent applications for employment passes and Work Permits; and (b) how does the Ministry work with foreign governments and institutions to verify the information provided by applicants.
10 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are in place to detect money laundering through movements of illegal funds using high value items, such as luxury goods, jewellery, art and vehicles.
11 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is currently being done to stop the use of landed homes in Sentosa Cove and non-traditional assets like golf club memberships and yachts from being used to further money laundering.
12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether real estate agents licensed by the Council for Estate Agencies are trained to identify and report suspicious property transactions; (b) what checks are in place to ensure that Singapore's property market is not being targeted or misused for money laundering activities; and (c) how does the Ministry include other industry professionals like lawyers and accountants in preventing money laundering through property transactions.
13 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) since 1 January 2016, how many applications from foreigners have been received by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to purchase landed properties in Sentosa Cove; (b) how many of these applications have not been approved; and (c) what additional steps can be taken by SLA to prevent foreign citizens with criminal intent to conduct cross-border organised crimes from purchasing landed properties in Sentosa Cove. \n
14 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are plans to set up a multi-Ministry anti-money laundering task force to coordinate and strengthen the monitoring and detection of suspicious activities related to money laundering.
15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs in each of the last three years (a) how many suspicious transaction reports (STRs) were filed with regard to property transactions; (b) how many of such property transactions were later found to be involved in money laundering (ML) or terrorism financing (TF) activities; and (c) how many individuals were prosecuted for failure to file an STR when they knew or had reason to suspect that any property may have been connected to ML or TF activities.
16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the tools and databases which the Council for Estate Agencies provides to estate agents (EAs) and real estate salespersons (RESs) to aid them in conducting Customer Due Diligence on their clients; (b) how does CEA make EAs and RESs aware of these tools and databases, if any; and (c) whether EAs and RESs actively use them.
17 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether individuals entering Singapore are checked against a list of suspicious individuals at their time of entry; and (b) how are individuals using passports from multiple countries or false identities being prevented from entering Singapore.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Many Members have filed queries on the recent anti-money laundering operations conducted by the Police and Singapore’s anti-money laundering framework. The queries cover a wide range of issues across several Ministries. The Ministry of Home Affairs, together with various other Ministries, will respond to the queries comprehensively in a Ministerial Statement in October 2023. [Please refer to \"Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Motorcycle Casualties from January 2022 to June 2023 Involving Young Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many motorcycle casualties for the periods from January to December 2022 and January to June 2023 are younger riders from the age of (i) 18 to 24 years and (ii) 25 to 29 years respectively; and (b) what is the proportion of these against the total number of motorcycle casualties for the same period.
Mr K Shanmugam: The figures requested by the Member are as shown in the table below.
19 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of the two Police Officers charged in Court on 11 August 2023 for criminal breach of trust-related offences (a) what are the dates on which the investigations of these two officers commenced; and (b) what are the dates on which their salaries were cut and by how much.
Mr K Shanmugam: Two Police Officers, Mohamed Bin Mohamed Jalil and Mohamad Danial Bin Mohamad Nazali were charged on 11 August 2023 for criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
Investigations had commenced on 13 July 2020 for Mohamed Bin Mohamed Jalil and 17 October 2020 for Mohamad Danial Bin Mohamad Nazali.
Mohamed Bin Mohamed Jalil has been interdicted since 16 July 2020 and Mohamad Danial Bin Mohamad Nazali since 22 October 2020. They were interdicted on half-pay, consistent with how other Police Officers in a similar situation have been dealt with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence and Causes of Heavy Vehicle Fires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many heavy vehicles caught fire annually over the past five years; (b) what are the typical causes for such heavy vehicle fires; and (c) whether the causes of the recent heavy vehicle fires in September 2023 have similarities.
Mr K Shanmugam: The table below shows the annual number of fires involving heavy vehicles, defined as trucks, trailer trucks, prime movers and construction vehicles over the past five years. The lower number of fires involving heavy vehicles in 2020 and 2021 could be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Heavy vehicle fires are typically caused by excessive frictional heat from wheel assemblies, for example, due to worn brake pads, overheating of vehicle components or issues of electrical origin.
In early September 2023, there were three unrelated fires involving heavy vehicles that took place at West Coast Highway, Killiney Road and Kranji Expressway. As investigations are ongoing, we are unable to share the cause of these fires at this point in time.
21 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how does the Government intend to manage significant investments in critical entities to protect national assets and critical industries.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To strengthen Singapore’s position as a trusted hub for businesses to invest with confidence, we must ensure that investments into critical entities do not affect Singapore’s economic resilience and national security interests.
Today, there are ownership and control safeguards in sectoral legislation covering critical sectors, such as electricity, telecommunications, and banking and finance. For example, investors have to seek specific approvals from the relevant regulatory bodies.
Globally, many countries have introduced or tightened their regulatory regimes to screen investments for national security reasons, with more countries, including traditionally open economies, such as Ireland and Switzerland, planning to do so as well.
As part of our regular review of the efficacy and adequacy of our national security safeguards, the Ministry is now exploring new tools to manage significant investments into critical entities. We will be seeking feedback from industry representatives to better understand their perspectives and minimise the impact on businesses and investors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Anticipated Energy Savings from Each LTA Green Initiative and Cost-benefit Evaluation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the anticipated energy savings from each LTA green initiative, including but not limited to (i) turning off escalators in MRT stations at night and (ii) turning off lights on covered walkways between 1.00 am and 5.00 am; (b) for each initiative, whether there has been any cost-benefit evaluation, taking into account the inconvenience and safety issues caused to commuters or pedestrians, in particular the elderly and other vulnerable groups; and (c) if so, what are the results.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is committed to reducing carbon emissions from land transport significantly and contribute towards our national target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. LTA has implemented a number of energy-saving green initiatives at public transport premises in support of this.
When implementing energy-saving measures, LTA strives to minimise the impact on commuter experience and to ensure safety of commuters, especially vulnerable groups.
For example, SMRT’s trials to switch off escalators at selected stations during non-peak hours are only being carried out at locations where there is another escalator or lift nearby serving the same purpose. LTA’s initiative to turn off lights at selected covered linkways between 1.00 am and 5.00 am when pedestrian footfall is generally low is also only implemented at covered linkways with sufficient lighting from nearby streetlights.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of On-board Units for Next Generation ERP System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether an update can be provided on when installation of the on-board units for the next generation ERP system will be rolled out.
Mr Chee Hong Tat (for the Minister for Transport): As announced previously, the on-board unit installation will commence this year and take place progressively over the next few years. The Land Transport Authority will share more details in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Hawkers Paying Market and Subsidised Rents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment for each year since 2010 (a) what are the number and percentage of hawkers who are paying market and subsidised rents respectively; and (b) what is their respective median monthly rent.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Currently, there are over 6,000 cooked food stalls in the 114 hawker centres owned by the Government. Over the last 10 years, the percentage of stallholders paying subsidised rent has decreased, from about 40% to about 30%, as the pioneer group of hawkers gradually retired and new hawkers joined the trade.
Cooked food stallholders on the subsidised rental scheme typically pay either $192, $320 or $384 per month, depending on the scope of upgrading works that were carried out during the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme at the respective hawker centres where they are located. The median rent for non-subsidised cooked food stallholders has remained relatively stable at around $1,250 per month over the last 10 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment of Land Costs for New Hawker Centres Built","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether land costs are paid into past reserves when new hawker centres are built; (b) if so, how much land cost has been paid for hawker centres constructed in the last 10 years; and (c) whether land cost is a factor in determining how frequently new hawker centres are built and their locations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance explained in the House in November last year, land that is owned by the state and used by a Government Ministry, such as for Government schools and hospitals, remains as state land. New standalone hawker centres are built on land owned by the state and used by the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Since there is no disposal, such land remains as part of the Past Reserves and the issue of payment into the Past Reserves does not arise. For hawker centres located within integrated developments, MSE would pay rent accordingly to the land and/or building owner.
MSE plans and builds hawker centres based on factors, such as residential catchment and the availability of comparable dining options in the vicinity. Land cost is not a consideration in determining how many and where new hawker centres will be built.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sexual Offences Committed against Students in Schools and Penalties and Support Efforts in Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, what is the number of sexual offences committed against students in schools; (b) whether schools are mandated to make a Police report in cases where the perpetrator is a minor; (c) what are the penalties and support efforts implemented by schools to address such incidents and prevent the perpetrator from re-offending; and (d) how are schools collaborating with stakeholders to provide intervention and support for victims of sexual offences who are minors.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Between 2018 and 2022, the number of cases of sexual offences committed against mainstream school students on school premises remained low. Schools are obligated by law to make a Police report if they are aware that a sexual offence had been committed or that a person intends to commit a sexual offence, whether the perpetrator is a minor or not.
Through the Ministry of Education’s Sexuality Education curriculum, students are taught about personal safety, sexual abuse and harassment and the laws that protect them in Singapore. They also learn to look out for one another and seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors. Teachers are trained to look out for signs of distress in students.
Correctional measures are taken by schools for all student offenders, including reporting to Police and suspension from school. Schools also engage the family and provide counselling to the student to prevent the student offender from re-offending.
For victims of sexual offences, schools ensure that the victims receive timely counselling support. School counsellors are equipped with skills to assess the psycho-emotional state of the victims and provide the appropriate interventions or referrals required. Schools also work with parents and other relevant partners, such as Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH), to monitor and support the victims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Incorporation of Overseas Art-related Study Trips into School Curriculums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the extent to which overseas art-related study trips are incorporated into school curriculums for students in primary, secondary and post-secondary levels; (b) how is the effectiveness of such trips measured; (c) what is the number of such trips that have taken place over the last 10 years; (d) how are such trips funded; and (e) whether there are plans to increase the frequency of such trips.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Art syllabuses in schools encompass a wide range of art forms and media, themes and topics, exposing students to a range of artworks by Singapore, Asian and international artists. Schools organise learning journeys to local art museums and arts organisations to enable students to learn about art in context and to deepen their cultural appreciation.
While schools, polytechnics, the Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and autonomous universities are not required to organise overseas art-related study trips for students, some have done so as part of their broader offering of learning opportunities. Over the last 10 years (2013-2022), schools have organised about 50 overseas art-related study trips. At LASALLE College of the Arts and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, which are part of the University of the Arts Singapore, students have opportunities to take part in overseas programmes and exchanges. Both schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning tap on various sources of funding to support overseas programmes, including those that support needy Singaporean students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"ITE Students Attaining Grade Point Average between 2.0 and 2.5 and Proceeding to Polytechnic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years (a) how many ITE students attained a Grade Point Average of between 2.0 and 2.5; (b) how many of these students proceeded to enrol into polytechnics; and (c) what percentage of these students successfully completed their polytechnic courses.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In the past five years, around 300 Higher Nitec students with a net Grade Point Average (GPA) of between 2.0 and 2.5 progressed to the polytechnics yearly. The performance and completion rates of ITE graduates in our polytechnics generally correlate with their GPA obtained, with students obtaining a GPA above 2.5 doing better than those below.
29 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education for students who have performed well in their mother tongue languages and wanting to take higher mother tongue languages in secondary schools, what is the justification for requiring the student to attain an overall PSLE score of 14 or below.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Higher Mother Tongue Language (HMTL) curriculum is designed to stretch students who have a strong interest and aptitude in the language. Students offering HMTL will bear a heavier curriculum and learning load, as the subject covers additional content knowledge and skills compared to Mother Tongue Language (MTL) as a second language taken at the Express level, or G3 under Full Subject-Based Banding. The eligibility criteria ensure that students possess the necessary academic ability to cope with the heavier learning load, so that the learning of HMTL will not come at the expense of other subjects.
Nevertheless, students who do not meet the eligibility criteria still have the opportunity to take HMTL. Secondary schools have the flexibility to offer HMTL to students who are assessed to have strong ability and interest in MTL and are able to handle the additional workload without affecting their performance in other subjects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Direct Funding for Engaging Full-time School Counsellors Including to Madrasahs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry provides direct funding to schools for engaging full-time school counsellors; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider providing the same support to madrasahs or working with MUIS to do so.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) hires and deploys full-time school counsellors to support students’ socio-emotional or mental well-being in Government and Government-Aided schools.
As madrasahs are private schools, they do not receive funding from MOE to hire staff, including school counsellors. That said, the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) works with madrasahs to support the socio-emotional and mental well-being of madrasah students. For example, MUIS partners community organisations with expertise in mental health to provide counselling services to support madrasah students. Madrasahs have also been equipping more teachers with basic counselling skills and sharing more information with students and parents on mental health issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Job Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities in Tech, Logistics and Healthcare Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry tracks how SG Enable is working together with employers to increase the job opportunities for persons with disabilities within the tech, logistics and healthcare sectors.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As the focal agency for disability and inclusion in Singapore, SG Enable engages employers from various sectors to create job opportunities for persons with disabilities by providing one-to-one advisory and consultancy services on topics, such as hiring practices, job accommodations and workplace accessibility. In addition, SG Enable works with trade associations and business chambers and networks to reach out to employers on disability-inclusive hiring.
We have been reaching out to companies this year in Celebrating Social Services Partners. Specifically, for the tech, logistics and healthcare sectors, SG Enable has worked with employers to create close to 800 job opportunities for persons with disabilities from January 2021 to August 2023. We encourage more employers, whether from these or other sectors, to come forward to offer hiring opportunities for persons with disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Infrastructure to Create Structured Work Environments and Work Processes to Support Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry tracks how SG Enable is working together with employers to provide the necessary infrastructure to create structured work environments and clear work processes to support persons with disabilities.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: SG Enable administers the Open Door Programme (ODP) which provides support to employers to hire persons with disabilities through grants and employment support services. The ODP provides customised job placement and job support from trained job coaches, who advise employers on how they can create accessible work environments and make reasonable job accommodations to enable employees with disabilities to perform their roles effectively and work well with co-workers. Between 2020 and 2022, SG Enable and its partners placed an average of 500 persons with disabilities into jobs each year.
Employers can also tap on the Job Redesign Grant under ODP to modify workplaces and provide the infrastructure needed, such as the inclusion of calm rooms and assistive technology. ODP also provides subsidies for employers and their employees without disabilities to attend workshops that prepare them to interact with, hire, integrate and retain employees with disabilities. For example, SG Enable offers a range of courses under its High Impact Retention and Employment (HIRE) Workshop Series that help employers learn how to create safe work environments and modify work processes to suit the unique needs of their employees with disabilities. Over the past five years, on average, 65 organisations have sent over 1,420 employees without disabilities to attend these courses each year, to learn how to recruit and integrate persons with disabilities at their workplaces.
Later this year, SG Enable will also launch the first Enabling Business Hub (EBH) in Jurong to showcase inclusive hiring practices and support employers, starting with the logistics industry, to implement such practices at their workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Infant Care and Childcare Assistance on Weekends for Parents on Shift Work and Little Family Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry can provide support for more infant care and childcare assistance on the weekends to cater to parents with little family support and who are on shift work or who may need to deal with family emergencies; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting up a scheme for part-time nannies, such as homemakers, to provide such care services.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are currently paid and community-based options available to parents who require caregiving support for their infants and children on weekends. These include babysitting services and playgroup and enrichment classes conducted at Community Clubs/Centres on Saturday mornings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Childcare Subsidy for Working Mothers Undergoing Skills Training, Upgrading or Studying to Obtain Certification Pre-employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider extending the childcare subsidy for working mothers to include mothers who are undergoing skills training, upgrading or studying at Institutes of Higher Learning, to obtain certification and qualifications before entering employment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mothers who are studying or undergoing training or skills upgrading are already eligible for preschool subsidy support equivalent to what a working mother applicant would receive. They can apply for Special Approval as part of the childcare subsidy application process when enrolling their children in preschool or approach their childcare centre for assistance to put in the application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Manpower Resources in Early Childhood Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Early Childhood Development Agency will provide guidelines on the use of personal mobile devices by educators at childcare centres and require photo and video updates of a child’s progress to be recorded via company-issued devices only.
36 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the checks and balances in place for (i) teachers and principals to safely report incidents of alleged ill-treatment in their centres and (ii) the mental well-being and stress levels of early childhood educators to be monitored, in order for timely support to be provided.
37 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there is a shortage of qualified early childhood educators and staff; and (b) what measures are being considered to increase manpower resources in the early childhood sector.
38 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether a code of conduct for preschool teachers can be implemented in the preschool sector.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: These questions were addressed in the reply to Question Nos 33 to 52 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 18 September 2023. [Please refer to \"Update on Investigations into Alleged Mistreatment of Children at Centres of Preschool Chain\", Official Report, 18 September 2023, Vol 95, Issue 111, 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":"Mandatory Installation of Close-circuit Television Cameras in Institutions Involving Children and Vulnerable Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the mandatory installation of closed-circuit television cameras in all preschools and Government-funded early intervention centres will be expanded to other educational and care institutions involving children and the vulnerable.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: All residential facilities run, funded or licensed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, where applicable, have installed closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in common or high-risk areas, such as corridors and activity rooms. This includes institutions that house children, persons with disabilities, vulnerable adults and crisis accommodation.
For Day Activity Centres and Sheltered Workshops, all but two have CCTV cameras installed in common areas. The remaining two facilities have plans to install CCTV cameras in the coming months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Self-Employed Persons Qualified for Government-paid Care Leave Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the past five years (a) how many self-employed persons qualified for (i) Government-paid childcare leave and (ii) enhanced childcare leave; and (b) what is the proportion who claimed the (i) Government-paid childcare leave and (ii) enhanced childcare leave.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Between 2017 and 2021, an average of 33,000 self-employed persons per year qualified for the Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL), out of which around 20% have claimed GPCL. An average of 26,000 of them per year qualified for the Extended Childcare Leave (ECL), of which around 5% have claimed ECL.
The Government-paid portion of GPCL only covers the fourth to sixth days. The first three days of childcare leave are not covered. Hence, the GPCL claims data does not reflect the utilisation of childcare leave by self-employed persons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Pilgrims Requiring Wheelchair Assistance or Medical Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) based on the recent haj season, what is the number of Singapore pilgrims requiring wheelchair assistance or medical support; (b) how does this number compare with previous seasons; and (c) what additional medical and mobility support services are being planned for future haj seasons to cater to such needs.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: During the Haj 2023 season, about 180 Singapore pilgrims required wheelchair assistance to perform the Haj.
The Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) does not keep records of Singapore pilgrims requiring wheelchair assistance in previous seasons. The number of pilgrims requiring wheelchair assistance during the Haj 2022 season would likely have been lower, as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Hajj and Umrah only allowed individuals under 65 years of age to perform the Haj due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
MUIS will engage the Association of Muslim Travel Agents Singapore and MUIS-appointed Haj travel agents on measures to address medical and mobility support requirements in preparation for the Haj 2024 season.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Sufficient Assistance Provided to Elderly Haj Pilgrims during Haj","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what measures are being taken to ensure that sufficient support and assistance are provided to elderly haj pilgrims during the haj; (b) how are the costs being managed to ensure affordability for elderly pilgrims; and (c) what are the implications for manpower and resources on MUIS.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Singapore Pilgrims’ Affairs Office (SPAO) under the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) provides medical services and facilities to Singapore pilgrims in Medina, Mecca and Shisha.
For the Haj 2023 season, about 60% of the Singapore pilgrims were 60 years old and above. SPAO appointed 19 medical personnel to operate on-site medical facilities and be on standby to attend to pilgrims off-site during the Haj pilgrimage period in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). SPAO also worked closely with the Haj travel agents to assist pilgrims, especially the elderly, to book medical clinic appointments via the PilgrimSG app to minimise waiting time. For emergency medical services, SPAO worked with the KSA’s medical service provider on the provision of medical supplies and ambulance services for the prompt transportation of pilgrims to hospitals.
A total of 30 Haj packages were offered by the MUIS-appointed Haj travel agents this year, costing approximately between S$8,400 and S$22,600, depending on the duration of stay and type of accommodation. The cost of Haj packages is also dependent on various services provided and charged by the KSA Haj service providers. MUIS will continue to monitor the costs of Haj packages and engage the KSA Haj service providers, as well as the Association of Muslim Travel Agents Singapore (AMTAS), on feasible measures to manage the cost of the Haj.
The Haj travel agents are also responsible for managing the safety and welfare of Singapore pilgrims, including the elderly, during Haj under the Deed of Appointment (Haj Packages). MUIS will work with the appointed Haj travel agents, AMTAS and the KSA Ministry of Hajj and Umrah to ensure there are sufficient manpower and resources to support elderly pilgrims.
Prospective pilgrims are also advised to make early preparations to perform their Haj, such as participating in health programmes. An example is the “Get Fit for Haj” programme, which is a series of activities specially curated to help prospective pilgrims improve their fitness level and learn more about leading a healthy lifestyle to prepare them for Haj. A total of 500 pilgrims have benefited from this joint effort by MUIS, AMTAS, the Health Promotion Board and the Muslim Healthcare Professionals Association.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Art Therapy in Health Promotion Board's Initiative to Help Communities Achieve Better Mental Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the extent to which art therapy is included as part of the Health Promotion Board’s initiative towards helping communities achieve better mental health; (b) what is the scope of these art therapy initiatives; and (c) whether there are plans to raise awareness about using art therapy as a tool in achieving better mental wellness.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) focuses on preventive health and upstream efforts to promote mental health and well-being among Singaporeans. HPB incorporates art-related activities, for example, mindful colouring, in mental well-being workshops, which have been shown in research to bring benefits, such as reducing stress levels. Individuals may include art-related activities in their daily lives to better cope with stress.
For art therapy which incorporates elements, such as painting, drawing and craft, evidence on effectiveness is still evolving. The appropriate inclusion of art, music, exercise and social interactions into our daily routine will be good for all of us. The use of these techniques as interventions for health and mental health should be guided by professional recommendations and family doctors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Influenza A and B Types and Measures Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there has been an increase in cases of Influenza A and B types in Singapore from January to July this year compared with the same period last year; (b) if so, what are the reasons for this increase; and (c) what preventive measures are being taken to address this increase.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: According to the Ministry of Health’s community surveillance data, the number of influenza cases in January to July 2023 had increased compared to the same period in 2022. This was likely due to COVID-19’s dominance and the effective Safe Management Measures that were in place in 2022.
Individuals at a higher risk of developing severe influenza infection are recommended to get vaccinated against influenza annually. These include young children aged between six months and below five years old, all persons aged 65 and above, and other vulnerable persons with underlying medical conditions that predispose them to severe influenza.
Persons experiencing respiratory symptoms should limit social interactions, see a doctor if symptoms persist or worsen, and wear a mask if leaving home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help to Prompt Caregivers of Persons with Disabilities to Apply for Activation of Payouts under CareShield Life and ElderShield Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures are in place to prompt the caregivers of persons with disabilities (PWDs) covered by CareShield Life and ElderShield to apply for activation of payouts upon diagnosis or upon qualifying based on age; and (b) what checks are in place to ensure that PWDs do not fall through the cracks in the implementation of the CareShield Life and ElderShield schemes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The response will also cover the matters raised in the oral question by Mr Yip Hon Weng1 scheduled for a subsequent sitting.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) partners the Silver Generation Office to do extensive outreach to eligible seniors to apply for severe disability claims under CareShield Life and ElderShield. Our outreach also includes working with nursing homes, public healthcare institutions, home care providers and disability-focused social service agencies, which may more regularly interact with persons with disabilities and their caregivers. MOH also reaches out to eligible claimants under other severe disability schemes, such as MediSave Care.
On the suggestion of making automatic payout disbursements to individuals based on their health conditions, this may result in payouts going to some who do not satisfy the severe disability criterion for CareShield Life and ElderShield claims. Over time, it will cause premiums to rise for all and, hence, will be a matter to be considered carefully.
Another reason for individuals to fall through the cracks is that we have made joining CareShield Life optional for individuals born before 1980. This is unlike those born from 1980 who are universally included. Nevertheless, these individuals can still join CareShield Life as long as they do not have severe disability and there are participation incentives of up to $4,000 available if they join by 31 December 2023. MOH is also reaching out to them to explain the benefits of CareShield Life and encourage them to enrol onto CareShield Life. We hope community organisations will also support us in this effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) how will the Ministry enhance awareness of the CareShield Life scheme to reduce the probability of eligible beneficiaries falling through the cracks; (b) how will the Ministry help Residents’ Committees, Community Centres, Social Service Agencies, SG Enable as well as other disability-focused community touchpoints to be equipped to help eligible residents and members benefit from CareShield Life; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider implementing auto-inclusion for individuals with specific health conditions into the CareShield Life scheme."],"footNoteQuestions":["45"],"questionNo":"45"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Facilitate Training and Recruitment of Manpower to Ensure Good Care and Service Standards in New Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in view of new nursing homes with at least 2,000 beds coming onstream in the next five years, what are the Ministry’s plans to facilitate the training and recruitment of manpower to ensure that good care and service standards are upheld.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) works with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to provide training programmes and training subsidies for the community care sector, including nursing homes. This includes the Community Care Traineeship Programme provided by the AIC Learning Network. There are also training subsidies for in-service staff and fresh entrants to pursue a range of clinical and non-clinical skills training through the Community Care Manpower Development Awards.
Since 2020, MOH and AIC have embarked on efforts to redesign support care job functions within the community care sector. This aims to equip our support care workforce, being the majority of the workforce in nursing homes, with a broad range of skills to enable them to deliver better and more holistic care, as well as provide opportunities for good performers to progress to managerial roles.
Additionally, AIC regularly partners the sector on job fairs and has rolled out various initiatives to enhance sector recruitment, such as publicity campaigns to elevate the sector, an online careers portal, as well as scholarships for students and mid-career jobseekers. It also conducts overseas recruitment of foreign nurses and support care staff to supplement the local core in the community care sector. Through the ongoing community care salary enhancement exercise, we have also boosted salaries for the sector in the last three years, including those of local and foreign nurses and support care staff. Most recently, we introduced a sign-on bonus for eligible fresh nursing graduates who join publicly-funded residential community care organisations within this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of MediSave Withdrawal Limit for Outpatient Care for Patients with Complex Chronic Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the current MediSave withdrawal limit remains adequate for outpatient care, especially for patients with complex chronic conditions; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider raising the withdrawal limit.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The response will also cover the matters raised in the oral question by Mr Sharael Taha1 scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
Under the MediSave500/700 scheme, Singaporeans can withdraw up to $500 or $700 annually, depending on the complexity of their conditions, from their own or family members' MediSave. The scheme covers the treatment of 23 approved conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). In addition, patients who are 60 and above can withdraw a further $300 from their own or spouse's Flexi-MediSave every year. The current limits are adequate to meet the needs of nine in 10 patients.
From early 2024, Singaporeans who enroll in Healthier SG no longer need to co-pay 15% of their bill in cash. They can use their MediSave to fully pay for the treatment of their CDMP conditions at their Healthier SG clinics up to the prevailing MediSave limit. Patients who face difficulties with their medical bills may apply for financial assistance at public healthcare institutions.
MOH regularly reviews the list of CDMP conditions and the MediSave500/700 limits to ensure these strike a balance between keeping immediate treatments affordable for Singaporeans and preserving MediSave for their future healthcare needs. Should the member come across cases that need additional assistance, do let us know and we will see how best to help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Health (a) how often will the MediSave 500/700 scheme be reviewed; (b) how does the Ministry decide on the $500 and $700 limit for simple and complex chronic conditions respectively; (c) what is the percentage of patients with chronic conditions who have used up all the allocation for each year in the last three years; and (d) whether the Ministry can consider the removal of the 15% co-payment requirement for patients using the MediSave 500/700 scheme."],"footNoteQuestions":["47"],"questionNo":"47"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption of Technological Solutions to Improve Operational Efficiency and Patient Care in Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Health (a) what support is provided to nursing homes to implement usage of self-guiding robots to deliver linen and meals to wards; (b) how many nursing homes have successfully adopted this technology; (c) what quantifiable improvements in operational efficiency and patient care have been observed; and (d) how will the wider adoption of such technological solutions be facilitated across nursing homes nationwide.
49 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Health (a) what support is provided to nursing homes to adopt the usage of hands-free smart glasses by nurses to facilitate real-time transmission of what they see to medical professionals and receive medical advice from them; (b) how have these smart glasses streamlined communication between nurses and senior medical professionals; and (c) how will the wider adoption of such technological solutions be facilitated across nursing homes nationwide.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) support nursing homes (NHs) in the adoption of technology and digital solutions through schemes, such as the Productivity and Digitalisation Uplift Grant (PDU).
Thus far, the PDU has supported 16 NHs in the implementation of Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) for delivery of items, such as food, linen and other consumables. The use of AMRs has led to at least 10% savings in staff time, allowing them to dedicate more time to direct care provision. AIC has also developed implementation guidelines and streamlined application processes to support more NHs to adopt AMRs.
NHs that would like to use other technologies, such as hands-free smart glasses to enhance productivity and service delivery can apply for funding support under PDU. Thus far, AIC has not received any requests from NHs to support the use of this technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study to Gain Deeper Understanding of Intersectionality of Profile Factors on Suicide Rates Among Residents for Better Outreach Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider conducting a study to gain a deeper understanding of the intersectionality of factors, such as socio-economic status, age, geography, ethnicity and gender, on suicide rates among Singapore residents so that the Government and society can conduct better outreach to such individuals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are ongoing studies conducted by the Institute of Mental Health, with funding support from the Ministry of Health, to understand the risk factors for suicide and self-harm, as well as the mitigating factors for prevention and/or reduction of self-harm. These studies will inform future measures to provide outreach and holistic support for persons in crisis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Ophthalmology Appointments at Singapore National Eye Centre and Alternative Arrangements for Earlier Dates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current waiting time for ophthalmology appointments at the Singapore National Eye Centre; and (b) what arrangements exist to facilitate patients to secure earlier ophthalmology appointment dates at other public healthcare institutions.\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In the second quarter of 2023, the median wait time for a new subsidised appointment at Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC) is about three months. Waiting time at SNEC has been rising, due to the surge in demand of new subsidised cases following the COVID-19 pandemic and coupled with the attrition of eye specialists.
When a referral is made from primary care providers, the central appointment centres of each Healthcare Cluster will assist patients to make an earliest appointment slot at a public hospital under the Cluster. Patients can also call the central appointment centre hotlines to check for earlier available slots. Most importantly, cases that are assessed to be urgent will be prioritised and given earlier appointments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ways to Allow Increase in MediSave Withdrawal Limits Per Day for Hospitalisation Expenses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider ways to allow an increase in the MediSave withdrawal limits per day for hospitalisation expenses, such as by increasing the daily limit after the first two days.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The MediShield Life and MediSave withdrawal limits for hospitalisation expenses are periodically reviewed to ensure subsidised healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans. Currently, seven in 10 Singaporeans in subsidised wards do not have to pay any out-of-pocket expenses, while eight in 10 pay less than $100 cash. Limit adjustments to improve affordability will be considered at our next review in 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Offices and Business Parks with Gross Floor Areas of Less Than 5,000 Square Metres to above 15,000 Square Metres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development how many offices and business parks have a gross floor area of (i) less than 5,000 square metres, (ii) between 5,000 and 7,999 square metres, (iii) between 8,000 and 9,999 square metres, (iv) between 10,000 and 14,999 square metres and (v) above 15,000 square metres.
Mr Desmond Lee: Based on available data, the estimated number of developments with office and business park space by gross floor area (GFA) is shown in Table 1 below.
54 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for National Development what are NParks’ plans to ensure that the emergence of non-native species of birds like the red-breasted parakeets in Choa Chu Kang do not adversely affect our native biodiversity and habitats in the long term.
Mr Desmond Lee: The red-breasted parakeet is a non-native species that established a population in Singapore following the release or escape of such birds from captivity. When present in large numbers, non-native species can negatively impact native species through competition for food and nesting sites. They can also increase the chances of transmission of exotic diseases and parasites.
The National Parks Board (NParks) adopts a science- and community-based approach to manage the populations of non-native bird species, so as to minimise their impact on native biodiversity and habitats.
For example, to manage the population of red-breasted parakeets in Chua Chu Kang, NParks is working with the Chua Chu Kang Town Council to carry out tree pruning to disrupt the birds’ roosting and nesting sites. NParks undertakes direct population control where necessary, such as by trapping and removing congregations of these birds.
NParks also raises awareness on the ecological impact of non-native species through public education and outreach and takes enforcement action against the illegal release of animals into the wild. Under the Parks and Trees Act, offenders caught releasing an animal in a national park or nature reserve can be fined up to $50,000. Under the Wildlife Act, offenders caught releasing wildlife in any place may be fined up to $5,000.
NParks will continue to monitor and carefully manage the populations of non-native species, as well as deter the further introduction of such species into the wild. This will help to safeguard native biodiversity and preserve the resilience of our ecosystem in the long term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of HDB-approved Renovation Contractors Breaching Approval Conditions on Work Duration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development for each year from 2021, how many reports of HDB-approved renovation contractors breaching their approval conditions by conducting renovation works outside of the approved hours have been received.
56 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year from 2021, how many HDB-approved renovation projects underwent extension of the renovation permit beyond the initial approved duration; and (b) whether HDB tracks such extensions for purposes of ensuring that renovation contractors provide homeowners with accurately quoted estimates of work duration.
Mr Desmond Lee: Flat owners are required to engage a renovation contractor listed in HDB’s Directory of Renovation Contractors (DRC) and to apply for a renovation permit to carry out renovation works that may affect the structural integrity of the HDB block, for example, demolition of walls, removal of floor/wall finishes. Upon approval, HDB will issue a renovation permit and a Notice of Renovation to the owners/DRC-listed contractor.
Since 2021, there has been a decline in the number of cases of feedback on renovation works being carried out beyond the permitted renovation timing. In 2021, 2022 and 2023 (as at 30 June), the number of such cases was 7,888, 5,166 and 2,437 respectively. For some of these cases, the source of the reported noise may be from minor DIY works carried out by flat owners, or works that are not regulated by HDB, for example, carpentry, installation of fixtures and electrical works. HDB strongly urges flat owners to comply with the permitted renovation timings and be considerate to their neighbours.
In 2021 and 2022, an average of 51,477 households applied for renovation permits per year. In 2023, as at 30 June, 29,321 households have done so. Less than 10% of these households were given extension of the renovation period. HDB does not track such extensions as it is the responsibility of the renovation contractors to assess and communicate with their clients on the estimated duration of works.
DRC contractors found to have infringed HDB’s terms of registration and renovation guidelines may be penalised with a financial penalty ranging from $500 to $5,000 and incur demerit points ranging from six to 12, depending on the nature and severity of the infringements. Contractors who have accumulated 24 demerit points within a 24-month period may be suspended or debarred from conducting any new renovation work in HDB flats for the next 12 months.
On average, HDB took action against 61 DRC-listed contractors each year in 2021 and 2022 for flouting HDB’s renovation conditions/guidelines, such as failure to comply with conditions of the permit, failure to display the notice of renovation works, and conducting works beyond the permitted timing. In 2023, as at 30 June, there were 33 such cases. So far, none of the renovation contractors has accumulated 24 demerit points within a 24-month period, which would warrant a 12-month suspension.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System Implemented in Bidadari Estate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is HDB’s assessment of the pneumatic waste conveyance system that has been implemented in Bidadari estate; (b) whether there are plans to address the issues arising from waste choking as well as putrid odours emanating from the bin centres; and (c) whether HDB will consider taking action against its vendors to seek reimbursement on behalf of the Town Council for the costs incurred in taking additional extraordinary measures to mitigate these disamenties.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System (PWCS) is an automated waste collection system that uses high-speed suction via an underground pipe network to collect household waste. With the implementation of PWCS in Bidadari, the waste collection process has become cleaner and more efficient compared to conventional waste collection methods.
Between 2020 and 2021, as many residents moved into Bidadari estate and carried out renovation works, a high volume of bulky refuse from renovation works was improperly disposed of in the PWCS, resulting in blockage. The bulky refuse has then to be cleared manually, generating odour in the process.
To avoid such improper disposals, HDB and Jalan Besar Town Council (JBTC) have been actively engaging and educating residents on the proper use of the PWCS. In addition, JBTC has conducted regular washing of the Bin Centre to minimise odour generated from the Bin Centre. The PWCS vendor engaged by JBTC has also increased the frequency of the filter replacement to address the odour feedback from the exhaust system. With these measures, the situation has improved.
Town Councils manage and maintain the common areas in HDB estates, including the PWCS. The PWCS is maintained by the appointed PWCS vendor under an agreement signed between Town Councils and the PWCS vendors, and Town Councils should seek reimbursement directly from their appointed PWCS vendor.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singles Aged 50 and Above Living in HDB's 2-Room Flexi Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development how many of those who currently live in HDB’s 2-room flexi flats are single and aged (i) 50 to 60 and (ii) 61 and above respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: As at end-July 2023, 8,597 residents, that is, flat owners and occupiers, living in HDB’s 2-room sold flats were single, that is, unmarried, divorced or widowed, and aged 50 to 60. The number for those aged 61 and above is 15,243.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nationalities of Foreigners Who Purchased Non-landed Residential Properties in Past Eight Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development what are the nationalities of foreigners who have purchased non-landed residential properties in the past eight years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Foreigners are not allowed to buy HDB flats. The top nationalities of foreigners who have purchased non-landed private residential properties from 2015 to the first half of 2023 are American, Chinese, Indian, Indonesian and Malaysian.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age of Buyers of Million-dollar HDB Resale Flats in Past Eight Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the age of buyers of million-dollar HDB resale flats in the past eight years; and (b) what percentage of such buyers are Permanent Residents.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between July 2015 and June 2023, less than 1% of the HDB resale flat transactions registered were sold for $1 million or more. Among the buyers of these flats, the median age was 40. About 94% of buyers were Singapore Citizens, and about 6% were Singapore Permanent Residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Ensure Growth of Real Estate Tokenisation Industry Does Not Distort Prices of Property in Local Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for National Development what steps are being taken to ensure that the growth of the real estate tokenisation industry in Singapore does not distort the prices of property in the local market.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, the real estate tokenisation industry in Singapore is still nascent and unlikely to impact property prices. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation closely and will adjust our policies as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Harmonised Approach to Addressing Concerns on Well-being and Safety of Community Cats and Dogs Reported as Missing by Caregivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development whether there is room to strengthen inter-agency cooperation towards nurturing a harmonised approach in addressing concerns pertinent to the well-being and safety of community cats and dogs which seemingly go missing as reported by their neighbourhood caregivers.
Mr Desmond Lee: Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a community animal has been abused or mistreated, the National Parks Board (NParks) will investigate and take the appropriate enforcement action. To facilitate investigations, NParks works closely with other agencies, including the Singapore Police Force, Housing and Development Board and others.
That said, not all cases of missing community animals are linked to abuse by humans. Community cats and free-roaming dogs live in the open and move about freely, making it challenging to trace their exact whereabouts. An animal may have succumbed to other health and safety risks from its environment, such as exposure to the elements, road traffic accidents and diseases. It could also have been adopted.
NParks will continue to work with stakeholders, including community caregivers and animal welfare groups, to promote the welfare of community animals. This includes encouraging responsible community caregiving and the rehoming of suitable animals. Members of the public can also play their part by reporting suspected cases of animal abuse to NParks and providing information to facilitate investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of Self-employed Applicants for HDB Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of self-employed applicants who have successfully obtained HDB loans within the last three years versus the total number of self-employed applicants who have been rejected; and (b) whether HDB can consider some other factors besides CPF contributions for the application of HDB loans, such as a record of consistency in their work, or dedicated savings which have been amassed.
Mr Desmond Lee: About 18,000 self-employed applicants applied for the HDB Loan Eligibility or HDB Flat Eligibility letter between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2023, of whom about 13,000 were successful and 5,000 were unsuccessful.
In assessing applications for HDB housing loans, HDB considers factors besides CPF contributions, such as job stability and monthly cash savings. Other factors that are considered include the applicant’s age, monthly income, current loans and financial commitments and past repayment records. The prevailing mortgage financing rules, such as a maximum loan tenure of 25 years, Loan-To-Value limit of 80%, mortgage servicing ratio of 30% and interest rate floor of 3% per annum to compute the eligible loan amount, will also apply.
We encourage all flat buyers to be prudent in borrowing, as purchasing a flat is a long-term financial commitment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Integrate Flats under Public Rental Scheme into HDB BTO Projects with Plus and Prime Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the Government's plans to integrate flats under the Public Rental Scheme into HDB BTO projects with Plus and Prime flats, so as to promote social mixing and inclusive neighbourhoods even in choicer and the choicest locations.
65 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government is minded to introduce a price cap on Plus and Prime flats in HDB BTO projects, as an additional measure to ensure the affordability of such flats.
66 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development whether the income ceiling of the buyer of HDB Prime and Plus resale flats is based on the income ceiling at the time when these flats were launched as BTO or tied to prevailing income ceiling at the point of resale.
Mr Desmond Lee: These questions have been addressed in the oral reply to the Parliamentary Questions on the new HDB framework for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, which was delivered on 18 September 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Build More Senior-Friendly Features in Mature HDB Estates and Access to Additional Benefits under EASE 2.0","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally 2023 that the Government will make precincts more senior-friendly, what are the details of the plans to build more senior-friendly features in mature HDB estates.
68 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB flat owners who had already installed senior-friendly fittings under the original Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme will be allowed to access the additional benefits under EASE 2.0.
Mr Desmond Lee: We thank the Members for their interest in Age Well SG initiatives. Under Age Well SG, the Ministry of National Development, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Transport will work together to make our HDB homes and precincts more senior-friendly to support ageing-in-place. This includes upgrading precincts to include more senior-friendly features and making homes more senior-friendly by expanding the suite of fittings that seniors can opt for under EASE 2.0. Details for both initiatives will be announced when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replacement of Hard Copy Application for Newspaper Permits with Digitally-enabled Forms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Infocomm Media Development Authority intends to replace its hard copy application forms for newspaper permits with digitally-enabled forms; and (b) if so, when.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Communications and Information has been reviewing the process for the application of political party newspaper permits to enable applicants to submit their forms digitally while safeguarding the confidentiality of information submitted. The review is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Expenditure on Advertising Costs for Content Featuring Political Officeholders for Social and Mainstream Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information between 2020 and 2023 to date (a) how much was spent annually on advertising costs, including consultancy and production fees, to produce content featuring political officeholders for (i) social media and (ii) mainstream media respectively; and (b) what is the annual breakdown of these figures by Ministries.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The vast majority of the Government’s paid communications materials do not feature political officeholders. We also do not track spending according to whether they are featured.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limit of 12 Hours a Day for Workers Driving Lorries with Workers in Rear Deck","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower how does the Ministry decide on the limit of 12 hours of work a day for a worker who is a driver of lorries with workers in the rear deck.\t
Dr Tan See Leng: Dual-role drivers are typically covered under Part 4 of the Employment Act (EA) which provides basic employment terms and standards on rest days, hours of work and other conditions of service for workmen. Dual-role drivers are, therefore, subjected to this limit on 12 hours of work hours each day, which includes their time spent driving for work, and are not required to work more than six continuous hours without a break.
Beyond the EA, our Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act also requires employers of dual-role drivers to provide them with at least 30 minutes of rest immediately before driving workers in the lorry's rear decks. The WSH Council’s Guidelines on Fatigue Management and Guidelines on Traffic Safety also include recommendations on how employers can prevent fatigue. For example, in addition to limiting shifts to no more than 12 hours, including overtime, employers are advised to allow their drivers scheduled rest breaks of 15 minutes for every two hours of driving. As with any work activity, employers are required under the WSH Act to carry out a risk assessment and should adjust work hours and rest time if required, considering the nature and intensity of work carried out by the driver prior to driving the lorry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Accommodation and Employers' Commitment to Productivity Targets Before Approval of Work Passes for Foreign Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry makes available more accommodation ahead of time before approving more work passes for foreign workers; (b) whether the Ministry will work with employers who have committed to productivity measures in automation and technology and help them meet their targets before approving work passes for their foreign workers; and (c) how effective are the existing schemes to reduce reliance on foreign workers in the past three years.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers of Work Permit Holders (WPHs) are required to ensure that their WPHs have acceptable accommodation in Singapore, which may include dormitories, hostels and public or private residential housing. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issues a Work Permit only after the employer registers a valid address with MOM. MOM has been working with relevant Ministries to expand the dormitory bed supply and 17,000 dormitory beds have been added since December 2022.
Businesses know that to thrive in the long run, they need to transform, increase their productivity and reduce their reliance on WPHs. To this end, sector agencies have launched 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) to uplift productivity across the economy. Businesses can tap on various enterprise grants offered by sector agencies to adopt automation and technology and transform their businesses.
It is not practical for MOM to require each firm to commit to productivity measures and ascertain if targets have been met before approving work pass applications. Instead, MOM, in consultation with sector agencies, calibrates our foreign workforce policies, including the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) which limit the number of WPHs that employers can hire, to support the push towards higher productivity. For example, the upcoming reduction of DRCs for the Construction and Process sectors from 1 January 20241 goes hand in hand with sector agencies’ plans to incentivise businesses to adopt more productive technologies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Announced in February 2022, the DRC will be reduced from 1:7 (that is, one local employee to seven WPH or S Pass holders) to 1:5 (that is, one local employee to five WPH or S Pass holders) in the Construction and Process sectors."],"footNoteQuestions":["72"],"questionNo":"72"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Workplace Discrimination to Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"73 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower out of the about 315 complaints about workplace discrimination made to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices and the Ministry each year for the last five years, for each year respectively, how many of these complaints were made by individuals working for companies that had a headcount of less than 25.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL) will work in concert with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) to provide strong protection against all forms of workplace discrimination. Although employees in small firms with fewer than 25 employees will not be covered by the WFL for a start, they will continue to be covered by TGFEP.
Between 2018 and 2022, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) and the Ministry of Manpower received an average of around 35% of workplace discrimination complaints each year from employees working in firms with fewer than 25 employees. Employees of such small firms can continue to file their complaints with TAFEP for advice and help. Where there are breaches of TGFEP, TAFEP will require the errant firms to address the complaints and correct their employment practices. In egregious cases, employers could also have their work pass privileges suspended. In addition to enforcement action, TAFEP will continue to educate and build the capability of these small firms to comply with TGFEP.
74 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what efforts are being made to encourage more companies to adopt formal procedures to manage workplace discrimination; (b) how is the effectiveness of such procedures being monitored; and (c) what incentives or guidelines are being provided to companies to encourage the implementation of these formal procedures.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices require employers to put in place proper grievance handling processes to manage all types of employment grievances, including workplace discrimination. It is in the employers’ interest to have such processes as it helps them manage grievances amicably at the company level and maintain a harmonious workplace. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will go a step further to legislate this requirement for companies with more than 25 employees.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices will continue to work closely with tripartite partners, as well as industry partners like the human resources community and trade associations and chambers, to help employers put in place proper grievance handling processes. This includes providing companies with implementation guides, conducting briefings, training and workshops to build understanding of the requirements and share best practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Invocation of Sections 59(2) and 59(4) of CPF Act 1953 by Employers to Obtain Past Employment Information of Job Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2018 to 2022, how many times have sections 59(2) and 59(4) of the CPF Act 1953 been invoked by employers who were then prospective employers in the public and private sectors to obtain past employment information of job applicants.\n\n
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2018 to 2022, sections 59(2) and 59(4) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 have not been invoked by prospective employers in the public and private sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policies to Allow and Enable Persons with Disabilities to Work from Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"76 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider initiating policies to (i) allow persons with disabilities (PWDs) the right to work from home (WFH), (ii) provide PWDs with both software and hardware support to WFH and (iii) provide training to PWDs to equip them with the digital literacy to be able to WFH.
Dr Tan See Leng: For flexible work arrangements (FWAs) to be effective and sustainable, employers must be able to consider both their employees’ needs, the requirements of the job and the businesses’ needs before deciding on the appropriate work arrangements. Hence, we encourage but do not require employers to offer FWAs. Requiring employers to offer FWAs to a certain group of employees, such as persons with disabilities, could also affect their employability.
Nevertheless, to support the employment of persons with disabilities, the tripartite partners will be developing a Tripartite Advisory to guide employers in providing reasonable accommodations at the workplace for their employees with disabilities. Persons with disabilities and their employers who are keen to set up telecommuting arrangements can approach SG Enable for assistance. Employers can tap on the Open Door Programme Job Redesign Grant to cover up to 90% of the related costs. Persons with disabilities can also enrol in subsidised programmes by SG Enable’s Enabling Academy to learn digital literacy skills for remote work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications to Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit Providing Employment-related Support to Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"77 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the Open Door Programme and Enabling Employment Credit which provide employment-related support to persons with disabilities (a) whether the Ministry has data on the percentage of successful applications that are granted under each of the schemes in 2022 and 2023 respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry is aware of any improvements to be made to the scheme to ensure better outcomes.
Dr Tan See Leng: SG Enable works with interested persons with disabilities and employers to apply for relevant grants and services under the Open Door Programme (ODP). With this customised approach, all ODP applications made from January 2022 to August 2023 were successful. The number of persons with disabilities placed into jobs with support from ODP each year has remained stable at around 500 over the last three years from 2020 to 2022.
The Enabling Employment Credit (EEC), on the other hand, is automatically disbursed to eligible employers without the need for application. The number of persons with disabilities supported by EEC increased to about 10,300 in 2022, up from about 9,700 in 2021 when EEC was introduced.
Both the ODP and EEC have been enhanced in recent years. ODP was enhanced in 2020 to strengthen training support through higher course fee subsidies and training allowances while EEC was enhanced in 2023 to strengthen wage support for employment of persons with disabilities, particularly those who have not been working for at least six months prior to being hired.
The average resident employment rate for persons with disabilities aged 15 to 64 has increased from 29% in the period 2020-2021, to 31.4% in 2021-2022. As part of our joint efforts under the Enabling Masterplan 2030, we will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and SG Enable to review the suite of employment support schemes for persons with disabilities to ensure that they remain effective.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Related to Safe Transportation of Workers on Back of Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"78 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether data related to the safe transportation of workers on the back of lorries, such as the number of accidents, worker fatalities and injuries, form part of Workplace Safety and Health assessment; and (b) if not, why not and whether such criteria can be incorporated as part of the Workplace Safety and Health assessment and a company’s renewal of its bizSAFE status.
Dr Tan See Leng: Data related to past accidents, fatalities and injuries can be helpful when employers conduct a risk assessment (RA) on the safety and health risks posed to their workers, including when transporting them. However, such data alone is insufficient in ensuring a comprehensive RA. When developing their RA plans, employers should take guidance from the Risk Management Code of Practice, which covers areas, such as identifying safety and health hazards, evaluating the risk level of each hazard and taking reasonable steps to eliminate or minimise the risks.
BizSAFE renewal entails an audit of companies’ risk management, such as whether the companies have considered any relevant data, including safe transport data, if relevant, as part of their RA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers Reaching Current Retirement Age of 63 in Next Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"79 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of workers expected to reach the current retirement age of 63 in the next three years; and (b) for each of the next three years, what is the estimated number of such workers seeking re-employment.
Dr Tan See Leng: One hundred and three thousand resident employees will reach the statutory retirement age of 63 in the next three years. Employers are required to offer them re-employment if they have worked with their current employers for at least two years before turning 63. Among these, based on our surveys of workers reaching retirement age, about 98% have indicated that they wish to continue working and also meet the other eligibility criteria of being medically fit and having satisfactory work performance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Earn and Save Bonus Component of Majulah Package to Self-employed Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"80 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Earn and Save Bonus component of the Majulah Package will be extended to self-employed seniors in addition to those in full-time and part-time employment; and (b) if so, what steps will be taken to guard against persons making false claims of self-employment for the purpose of getting the bonus.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower and Ministry of Finance are finalising the details on the Majulah Package, including the eligibility criteria for Earn and Save Bonus and the Retirement Savings Bonus. More information will be announced in Budget 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Wage Level of Workers at Tenth Percentile in Last 10 Years and Their Profile","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"81 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how has the wage level for workers at the 10th percentile changed over the last 10 years; (b) what are the occupations that these workers are in; and (c) what is their age and education profile.
Dr Tan See Leng: The real gross monthly income of workers at the 10th percentile has increased by 47.9% (annualised 4%) from 2012 to 2022. Occupation, age and education profiles of these workers are provided in Tables 1 to 3 below.
82 Mr Keith Chua asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the next three years from 2023, what is the number of workers who will reach the re-employment age limit of 68 and are likely to exit the workforce.
Dr Tan See Leng: Seventy-three thousand resident employees will reach the statutory re-employment age of 68 in the next three years. However, not all of them will exit the workforce upon turning 68. The employment rate of residents nearing or past the re-employment age has increased in recent years. In 2022, the employment rate of residents aged 70 and above was 21.1%, up from 15.8% in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2508,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2509,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5792,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yip Hon Weng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/vernacular-Yip Hon Weng Immigration18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yip Hon Weng Immigration18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5793,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yip Hon Weng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/vernacular-Yip Hon Weng CDCA18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Yip Hon Weng CDCA18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5794,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mark Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/vernacular-Mark Lee CDCA 18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Mark Lee CDCA 18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5795,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sylvia Lim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20230918/vernacular-Sylvia Lim Adj 18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sylvia Lim Adj 18Sep2023-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}