1 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the factors that the Ministry considers before deciding to outsource the hawker centre management from NEA to private companies; and (b) whether the Ministry has oversight of the general contract framework or pricing models that the private management companies impose on their tenants.
2 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the different types of new hawker centre models available today; (b) of all the current hawker centres, how many of them are under these new models of management; and (c) whether there is a timeline for measuring the effectiveness of each model when the new hawker centre models are being tested.
3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the total number of vacant stalls at NEA-run hawker centres and markets as at 30 September 2018; and (b) what has been the take-up rate of vacant stalls since NEA removed the floor price.
4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many hawkers have taken part in the Incubation Stall Programme; (b) how many will be continuing beyond the incubation period; and (c) for those who will not continue, what are the reasons and how will the Ministry address them.
5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what challenges do hawkers face under the social enterprise hawker centres initiative; (b) what kind of pricing model should hawkers and patrons expect under this initiative; and (c) how is the Ministry addressing the unhappiness resulting from this initiative.
6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the total cost of running a hawker stall under the new social enterprise-run hawker centres model has been significantly higher than that of the NEA-run model; (b) whether the new model has helped serve the policy intent of providing affordable food and sustaining hawker culinary skills and trade; and (c) whether the contractual terms and requirements imposed by the operators of the new model on the hawkers are reasonable and fair.
7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can stop further outsourcing of hawker centres to private operators; (b) whether the Ministry conducts an oversight of the contract terms between the management and tenants of outsourced hawker centres; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to resolve the many issues arising from its decision to outsource hawker centres.
8 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the key success factors that can be attributed to NEA-managed hawker centres in bringing affordable and good food to the public; and (b) what are the challenges in replicating the successful NEA-managed hawker centres to new hawker centres operated by social enterprises.
9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the cost components of running the existing hawker centres and markets; (b) whether there is a subsidy or grant given to each hawker or market stall and, if so, what is the subsidy; and (c) whether the same subsidy or grant is extended to social enterprise operators.
10 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what has been the success rate of tray returns since the programme was launched; and (b) whether there is a need to redesign the tray return collection points through enhancement of the washing area for patrons to return direct to the washing area-cum-collection point for better efficiency and reduce bird-related hygiene issues.
11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many hawker stalls are paying a rental of $10,000 or more per month; (b) what is the current highest rental that a hawker stall is paying; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a cap on the rental to better manage food prices.
12 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether hawker centre stall rental rates can be delinked from private market rental rates, including privately-owned HDB coffee shops, and free market bidding rates.
13 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures are in place for the Ministry to take action against private operators of hawker centres who do not abide by the terms of the operating contract; and (b) what action can be taken against private operators of hawker centres whose actions or lack thereof lead to reputational damage for the Ministry, other Government agencies, hawkers and other community stakeholders.
14 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry has considered working with NHB's Our Hawker Culture travelling exhibition to better grasp public opinion and tap new ideas on what Singaporeans expect of our hawker centres beyond providing affordable food.
15 Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources where food supply is required at complexes that are open 24 hours, whether the Ministry has considered more strategic use of vending machines that provide hot food in place of mandating that hawker stalls remain open.
16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether rent and all ancillary charges payable by hawkers in hawker centres operated by not-for-profit social enterprises, such as dishwashing charges, are lower than those in NEA-managed hawker centres; and (b) if not, whether the Government intends to take any corrective action to reduce any additional business costs for the hawkers accordingly.
17 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the relative cost structure of hawker stalls under NEA management, social enterprise management, and for-profit coffee shops respectively; (b) what are the nature and extent of implicit subsidies provided in NEA-managed hawker centres; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans for subsidising the operating costs of hawkers when hawkers experience difficulties in providing affordable food while earning a reasonable income.
18 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how does NEA intend to help mitigate the cost increase in rental for the social enterprise-run hawker centres over time; and (b) whether NEA has any plans to run the hawker centres currently operated by social enterprises.
19 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how long will NEA take to complete the stock-take of the social enterprise model of hawker centres; (b) whether the findings will be published for public consultation; and (c) whether the ongoing debate on social enterprise-run hawker centres will affect Singapore's bid for hawker culture to be listed under the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for raising many thoughtful questions.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you want to cover the rest of the questions.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Yes, I will cover Question Nos 1 to 8 and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will cover the rest.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Certainly.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. I thank the 13 Members for raising many thoughtful questions on the socially-conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs). I will speak on why we embarked on the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, how we select operators, and share our views on how the SEHCs are performing. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will elaborate further on our efforts to refine the SEHC model and better support our hawkers.
Hawker centres are an integral part of Singapore. They are our community dining rooms – well-loved by Singaporeans from all walks of life. They serve three key social objectives by providing: one, affordable food in a hygienic environment; two, a decent living for our local hawkers; and three, vibrant social spaces to bond our communities. These are good objectives to achieve individually; but together, they compete against one another. So, tradeoffs need to be made for an optimal outcome.
Let me start by recalling that the Government restarted building hawker centres in 2011, after a hiatus of almost 30 years. We were concerned about the lack of affordable dining-out options for Singaporeans at a time when there was a boom in coffee shops and food courts. Natural market forces were pushing up rents at those private food and beverage (F&B) outlets and, consequently, food prices. The public was concerned about the rising cost of living. In response to widespread appeals by Singaporeans, we resumed building hawker centres to serve as a ballast to stabilise cooked food prices against the emerging dominance of coffee shops and food courts.
The Government has committed to building 20 new hawker centres by 2027 in new estates or existing ones that are relatively underserved. These will provide about 800 new hawker stalls at significant investments. Each hawker centre costs $15 million to build. The Government absorbs the building costs and subsidises their ongoing maintenance but does not recover such costs from stall rental.
We recognise, however, that just by building new hawker centres, we cannot automatically expect them to be viable and sustainable. In the early 1970s, the Government started building hawker centres to resettle street hawkers, so as to improve hygiene and food safety standards. Over time, they became our signature community dining rooms. To this day, they enable us to preserve the important culture of eating out together, regardless of our status, rich or poor, young and old.
Over time, too, a good number of these first- and second-generation hawkers, who receive cheap subsidised rentals, only work short hours. Residents, in turn, feedback that some existing centres do not fully cater to their dining needs. I was at Shunfu Mart Food Centre during a recent Ministerial Community Visit in Bishan East-Thomson Constituency. The hawkers only open for breakfast and lunch; some even just for breakfast. Residents do not have access to affordable food in the evening. This situation reflects a need for the careful balancing act to look after the interests of both hawkers and the community. Ultimately, hawker centres exist to serve Singaporeans. But we also have to be fair to hawkers and safeguard their well-being.
Our social and demographic landscape has changed significantly. Today, the median age of our hawkers is about 60. We have about 6,000 cooked food stalls at our 114 hawker centres. More than one third of our hawkers and their assistants will retire in the next 10 years. Being a hawker is physically demanding. Many successful hawkers tell us that they hope their children will not follow in their footsteps. The challenges of the trade deter many young Singaporeans. We have to transform and find ways to make the hawker trade sustainable, or we may end up with hawker centres without hawkers.
The demographic profiles and needs of residents have also evolved, particularly in newer estates. Patrons are more well-travelled and demand fresh concepts and wider food variety. Hawker centres have to compete with coffee shops, food courts and other food outlets in the community. Even the traditional model of dine-in meals has been disrupted by central kitchens and food delivery services. We must help our hawkers meet these challenges, just like how we try to help our taxi drivers face the wave of challenges from disruptive competition like Uber and Grab.
To adapt to changing needs and circumstances, it is critical to find new operating models to sustain the hawker trade. This is similar to the role which the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Fairprice has played in the supermarket landscape. Over the years, NTUC Fairprice has been innovating and moderating prices of essential groceries, which has catalysed the transformation of the mom-and-pop grocery shops. Over time, as customer profiles change, NTUC Fairprice continues to meet the needs of a wide spectrum of customers, by providing diverse product lines from affordable house brand options to premium brands. Even NTUC Fairprice would not have been sustainable if they only provided affordable alternatives without the attraction of choice for their customers.
This is why we are trialling the SEHC model for our new hawker centres. We have started at seven new hawker centres, out of more than 100 managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA). These SEHC operators bring new ideas and inject innovation that hawkers individually or the Government cannot. We are giving an opportunity to those with expertise and networks in the F&B industry to apply themselves to socially oriented purposes. For example, they are able to curate food stalls for quality and variety. They are also able to bring in famous food recipes and are better placed to run hawker incubation programmes to help sustain the hawker trade.
They also innovate to improve footfall and enhance vibrancy of the centres through better marketing and place-making programmes, and not just leave it to chance. As the single operator of each hawker centre, with F&B and management competencies, these SEHC operators can help our hawkers weather the competition from other F&B alternatives and adapt to technological disruptions better than the hawkers can individually. In time to come, the better SEHCs will develop capabilities to support and sustain the hawker trade that we will appreciate.
To ensure that we select the right operators who do not profiteer, NEA has put in place safeguards through the tender and evaluation processes. First, NEA favours operators with lower overall charges to stallholders. Operators are required to propose rentals and operating costs upfront and cannot change these over the term of the tenancy. Second, operators must be transparent about costs. All new charges, including optional charges for value-added services, must be approved by NEA. Third, a large part of the hawkers’ operating costs, like the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and table cleaning fees, are “pass-through” charges, which the operators do not benefit from. As a reality check, we compare some of these costs with the alternatives like hiring additional hawker assistants, or the consequences of cheap sourcing low-quality workers. Fourth, operators are required to reinvest at least 50% of any operating surplus into social benefits for the hawker centres and stallholders.
I am heartened by the recent public discussion on how existing NEA centres are run better than the SEHCs. It is testimony that existing hawker centres under NEA management have done well over the years to meet the needs of their communities and the hawkers. But it is not enough to keep doing things the same way. This is why we have to continue with the SEHC model.
Several Members asked what makes a successful hawker centre. I believe most of us have patronised our favourite stalls at popular hawker centres, such as at Tiong Bahru or Adam Road. Many such existing centres are well-established in their communities. They have anchor hawkers who draw customers from all over the island. The new hawker centres do not enjoy this advantage and need time to build up a clientele. Location and connectivity are important factors. New hawker centres at Kampung Admiralty and Our Tampines Hub (OTH), situated at transport nodes and co-located with other public services or amenities, have enjoyed good business. Higher business volume will help stallholders cope with costs.
On the whole, SEHCs have achieved good outcomes despite the short time they have started operations. Foremost, food prices at SEHCs are affordable and comparable to existing centres. These are generally lower than prices at surrounding coffee shops and food courts. We cannot force hawkers to sell at cheap prices for all dishes at each stall. Instead, the operators have made available at least one affordable meal option at $3 and below for each stall and allowed hawkers to determine prices for other dishes. This means that prices are not kept artificially low. Instead, operators work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points, so that there are both attractive options that residents are willing to pay for and, at the same time, affordable options when residents want that. Some hawkers have also chosen to price their dishes low to attract more customers. For example, \"Old Times\" at the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre prices all dishes below $3. Indeed, at each SEHC, there are close to 40 affordable options of various kinds of meals from 40 different stalls.
\t
Secondly, SEHC operators have curated food stalls for quality and variety. They have tapped on their networks of hawkers and have the expertise to conduct food tasting when letting out stalls. They have also introduced interesting food options, such as prawn paste chicken rice and halal zi char, and new dining concepts. This ensures a good variety of food options, which is not always a given in existing hawker centres. Even in popular hawker centres like Tekka, we can find rows of stalls offering similar food because NEA is required to award one vacant stall at a time based on tendered rentals to the highest bidder. NEA does not have a mechanism to curate an attractive collection of food options at each hawker centre, like in the case of the SEHC model. Such an allocation system run by NEA would be complex to execute and be subject to potential audit issues.
SEHCs are establishing themselves within their communities and serving the residents well. Ci Yuan Hawker Centre recently passed its three-year mark. The hawkers are doing well and 97% of them chose to renew their contracts in July this year. At Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, the renewal rate is similarly high at 96%. SEHCs at Kampung Admiralty and OTH are also doing well with hardly any vacant stalls and a long waiting list of potential hawkers. This is similar to NEA-managed hawker centres, where only 3% of cooked food stalls are vacant.
SEHC operators have also kept their centres open during breakfast, lunch and dinner – a major request made by the public. In contrast, some existing hawker centres focus on only one or two main meals a day, and some hawkers only work three to four days a week. To ensure vibrancy, SEHC operators have also introduced creative initiatives to increase footfall, such as complimentary parking, lucky draw programmes and shuttle bus services for office workers.
The SEHCs are leading a new model of clean and productive hawker centres, applying the best practices they have learnt in the private sector to overcome the constraints of labour shortage. All the SEHCs come with productivity initiatives, such as automated tray return systems (ATRS) and centralised dishwashing (CDW). Providing trained and properly supervised cleaners and a more hygienic environment have increased table turnover rates, benefiting both patrons and hawkers. The average tray return rates at SEHCs are much higher than those at our existing hawker centres because of the operators' efforts in implementing the ATRS. It makes the jobs of our cleaners easier and alleviates manpower shortages that our hawkers face in looking for workers to wash dishes. During my walkabout at Shunfu Mart Food Centre, I had noticed an economy bee hoon and nasi lemak stall which had a faded sign advertising to hire a stall assistant. The hawker shared that her children were not interested in helping out at the stall and she had been unable to hire an assistant despite advertising for a long time.
SEHCs have also managed to attract new entrants to sustain the hawker trade. The median age of hawkers at the seven SEHCs is 43, significantly lower than the median 60 at our existing centres. This is an encouraging sign and can be attributed to various initiatives introduced by SEHC operators, for example, Timbre's Incubator Programme and OTMH's Train and Place Entrepreneurship Scheme nurture new hawkers. Collectively, the five SEHC operators have trained a total of 38 aspiring hawkers since they started operations. These efforts complement NEA's ongoing incubation stall programme (ISP), which has supported 12 aspiring hawkers to date. Eight of them are still on the programme, while the rest had decided that they were either not suitable for the hawker trade or withdrew due to personal reasons. In addition, the operators have introduced productivity measures, such as centralised dishwashing, which allow hawkers to focus on their cooking and reduce the amount of menial tasks they need to do. Taken together, these initiatives reduce the physical burden of being a hawker and can go a long way to help sustain our hawker trade.
Nonetheless, the SEHCs will take time to establish themselves. Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, the first SEHC, only started operating three years ago, with the latest at Pasir Ris opening in January. Hawkers at these new centres need time to build up a clientele. Overall, the average monthly stall vacancy at SEHCs, at about 10%, is not exceptionally high and is not a bad result, considering that most stalls are new. Many of the hawkers are also new to the trade and need time to experiment with their recipes and decide if this is the career for them. The centres also need time to build up footfall.
The market mechanism is working, and the Government should not intervene unnecessarily in mandating low or no rental, which could otherwise affect fair competition. Hawkers are entrepreneurs after all. We want to reward successful hawkers to sustain the trade and preserve our beloved hawker heritage. It is natural to have some level of churn as better hawkers replace those who are less suited for the trade. Market forces would lead to a fair distribution of hawker stalls, which ultimately benefits residents. It is inappropriate for the Government to subsidise a hawker on the basis that business is poor. This would be unfair to a better performing hawker who thrives on healthy competition. It would also be unfair to other private sector food shop operators located in close vicinity to the centres. The model must, therefore, ensure that rentals and costs are transparent and fair to hawkers, but cannot subsidise hawkers to the extent that it distorts the workings of the market.
In summary, despite implementation challenges, the SEHC model is generally sound. Food prices are kept affordable with a good variety of high-quality options, and the majority of hawkers are doing well at the SEHCs. We should not undo these achievements. As with any trials and experiments, we cannot always get it right the first time. We have heard the feedback and will adjust the model to better serve Singaporeans. We will continue with the SEHC model and improve it so as to serve patrons well and look after the well-being of our hawkers.
I ask Members to give the model time to adapt, adjust and optimise the outcomes we seek to achieve: first, the availability of affordable food options that do not deny respectable earnings for our hawkers and, at the same time, moderate the free market F&B alternatives; second, a decent living for our local hawkers that is sustainable even while providing affordable options; and third, to preserve our hawker centres, where we are proud of our unique vibrant social spaces as community dining rooms where everyone goes to, where affordable food is also good food.
Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will take the rest of the questions and then we will take the supplementary questions. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. Please let us know which questions you are taking.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 9 to 19, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Let me first thank Members for their questions and concerns for our hawker centres. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the public for the many views, discussions and suggestions that they have put forward. We appreciate such views and feedback to help us to improve to better serve our hawkers and Singaporeans.
I will speak on our efforts to better support our hawkers and look after their well-being.
As a regulator, NEA must strike a balance between serving the public well, and ensuring the well-being of hawkers, while working to achieve the social objectives of our hawker centres. Residents should have access to affordable food in a clean setting for all three meals. At the same time, hawkers must be able to make a decent living, under fair tenancy terms and conditions.
As with any trial, it is difficult to get the SEHC model right from the start, especially since we have not built new hawker centres for almost 30 years. So, we set some key parameters. Let the market work; and when we get feedback, or issues are raised, we will move to address them swiftly and decisively, as we have done in the past month or so. We are not done with the stock-take of the model and will continue to refine it to better serve Singaporeans. I will outline three areas of improvements which we have made and will continue to focus on.
First, we will better support stallholders to manage costs. My Ministry, together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), conducted a study on the drivers of hawker centre food prices in 2014. We found that the costs of raw materials and manpower made up the bulk of the hawkers' costs at 76%, not stall rentals, which only comprised 12%. It is also shown through studies by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) that hawkers generally price food according to what the market can bear.
This is influenced by competition in the vicinity and the demographic profile of customers. Hence, rentals do not directly affect food prices. Nonetheless, for both our existing hawker centres and our new SEHCs or new centres, we have put in place measures to ensure that rentals are fair and not speculative. For existing centres, we have removed the reserve rent and disallowed subletting and assignment. For new centres, we have, in our tender evaluation, favoured tenderers who offer lower total rental and operating costs, and prohibit any increases in rentals or operating costs for the duration of the tenancy, as one of our priorities is to safeguard the interests of our hawkers.
The median rental of stalls in SEHCs is about $2,000 per month, not $4,000 per month as some media reports have claimed. The median rental of stalls in comparable existing hawker centres is $1,700 per month, which is comparable to those of the new centres after accounting for the larger stall size, better-designed stalls and amenities at the new centres and, in some cases, the co-location of the new centres with residential properties as well as other amenities.
Stall sizes at our new centres of between 10 square metres (sqm) and 21 sqm are much larger than existing centres, which are between five sqm and 13 sqm. Additionally, the actual stall rentals at our new centres range from $750 to $3,700 a month. This is in line with rentals of non-subsidised stalls at our comparable existing centres, which range from $640 to $3,900 a month.
Our hawker centre rentals, specifically those at SEHCs, are not linked to the rentals of surrounding coffee shops and food courts. In fact, they are nowhere near the rentals at these private F&B outlets, which can range from $4,000 to $13,000 a month, before other operating costs. We will continue to monitor and ensure that stall rentals in our new centres are reasonable to enable hawkers to make a decent living.
As for existing hawker centres, no stallholders are paying astronomical rentals. The recent $10,000 bid was an outlier, and the bidder did not even commence operations. Besides rentals, the operating costs at the SEHCs and existing centres are comparable, too. For example, S&CC at the new centres are between $110 and $350 a month, within the range of $130 to $450 a month at our existing centres. Similarly, table-cleaning fees at the SEHCs are between $300 and $550 a month, again, within the range of $200 to $830 a month at our existing centres. Operating costs payable by hawkers at existing centres also frequently do not take into account the costs for dishwashing. At the majority of our existing centres, without centralised dishwashing (CDW), stallholders may have to hire dishwashers which could cost up to $1,500 a month, which is much higher than the average CDW charges. Moreover, these hawkers often have difficulties hiring and retaining such hawker assistants, as my Minister has said earlier, too.
\t
Nonetheless, to further help SEHC stallholders manage costs, we announced last week that we will extend the PHC grants to these hawkers for two years, effective from 1 January next year.
With the grant extension, stallholders at our new centres will enjoy 50% reduction in their CDW costs for the first year and 30% for the second year. Currently, these grants are only available to hawkers at our existing centres under the PHC format. However, after a few years of operations with the new centres, we recognise that hawkers at the new centres may also need some support in transition as they need time to build up their clientele. These productivity solutions, such as CDW and automated tray return systems (ATRS), are necessary to alleviate our tight manpower situation and help hawkers solve problems like staff shortage. The average tray return rates of our SEHCs are far higher, at about 58%, than those at our existing hawker centres which are at about 25%. But we can do better. First and foremost, patrons should form the habit of returning their trays with the crockery after eating.
A high tray return rate will directly benefit both patrons as well as hawkers as it will lead to a faster turnover of tables, keep the birds away and lead to a cleaner environment that helps attract patrons.
It will also ease the workload of our cleaners so that the cleaning companies do not have to keep increasing the number of cleaners, which will eventually lead to higher cleaning costs for the hawkers. Even if they want to increase the number of cleaners, they consistently face manpower shortage and issues with hiring.
Greater public education and close partnership between operators, hawkers and patrons are key. Everyone must play their part towards ensuring a clean environment in our hawker centres to benefit both patrons and hawkers. In fact, most hawkers have welcomed the productivity initiatives implemented at our new hawker centres. Toh Swee Han, a 39-year-old hawker operating the \"Mang Cheng Xiang Curry Rice\" stall at OTH Hawker Centre, said that he was satisfied with CDW as it helped him reduce his cleaning costs significantly. He highlighted that CDW fees at OTH added up to only $700, before the productivity subsidy, while it would cost him about $3,000 to hire two assistants to cover the same workload.
CDW also saves stallholders from paying additional water charges or managing an inventory of crockery and cutlery that has to be replaced due to wear and tear or loss. Hygiene is better as they do not have to carry out dishwashing within the stall area. We hope that this will alleviate the workload of our hawkers, especially the older hawkers, and make the trade more attractive to our younger hawkers by reducing menial work.
Following a Call-for-Collaboration (CFC) led by Enterprise Singapore (ESG), on behalf of NEA, HDB and JTC, NEA is partnering Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) to provide interoperable e-payment solutions to our hawkers. Stallholders in SEHCs can take up the CFC e-payment solution for three years without paying transaction costs or terminal rental. This will provide an additional option to SEHC operators to encourage stallholders to opt for e-payment.
The above subsidies will help to reduce the operating costs of our hawkers at the new centres in their initial years. These will support them as they build up their customer base.
There may be some other fees from value-added services that the SEHC operators provide, such as coin changing services, but these are optional.
Second, NEA will rebalance the soft touch regulatory approach towards SEHC operators and exercise greater oversight to safeguard hawkers' well-being. NEA has reviewed some of the key contractual terms between the SEHC operators and stallholders. Some of the terms were replicated from contracts the operators use in the other food establishments that they run. In practice, operators have actually exercised flexibility with these terms. NEA has taken in the feedback of hawkers and worked with the operators to make four key changes as an immediate priority.
Operators will be more flexible on stallholders' operating hours. Stallholders will not be required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day, although they could if they wish to.
Operators will also engage stallholders who intend to open more than eight hours a day on how they intend to do so and whether they would have sufficient manpower, for example, through engaging stall assistants or joint operators. As asked by a Member, operators can also decide if it is feasible to install food vending machines to meet meal requirements beyond operating hours, especially for small meals or snacks.
Operators will not require a notice period of more than two months for stallholders to terminate their tenancies or require security deposits exceeding two months’ rental. This would address concerns of some stallholders being locked into their tenancies.
Operators who impose liquidated damages on stallholders for regulatory or other breaches will limit these payments to no more than $50 per day for minor ones and $100 per day for major breaches. They will also bear all legal fees related to the tenancy.
NEA will continue to engage both hawkers and operators to address concerns in other areas. For instance, at OTH, the community had initially asked for a 24-hour hawker centre. But as the demand from patrons has not materialised, both hawkers and the operator will recalibrate the arrangement. With the changes made to operating hours, hawkers who do not wish to continue with the 24-hour operations which they had previously signed up for, can do so now. NEA will also ask operators to communicate stall tenancy agreement terms in simple language to ensure that potential stallholders can understand them clearly before they commit to run the hawker stalls.
In our contractual review, we found that the operators, indeed, have shown flexibility. For example, we have not observed any operators charging stallholders rentals for the remaining of their tenancy terms, in the case of premature termination. The operators have also agreed to make changes to the terms I have just described, and to waive any legal fees for new tenancy contracts and renewals.
Whilst there is a need to rebalance our soft touch regulatory approach towards our SEHC operators, we recognise, as I have said, that they have shown flexibility through the contract review process, and are making changes to some of their terms and practices. They have also shown innovation and creativity in implementing measures to drive footfall to the centres. These include family carnivals and loyalty programmes, which offer discounts and other promotions to build up a pool of repeat patrons.
In fact, many of these operators have been bearing the cost of various initiatives to improve footfall at the centres, such as free shuttle bus services and free parking not long after the centres began operations. They are required under the terms of our tender to plough back at least 50% of any operating surplus for the social benefits of the hawker centres. This, plus our tender process which favours operators who charge lower total rental and operating costs and our prohibition on SEHC operators to increase any rental or operating costs over the tenancy period, limits the extent of any operating surplus.
These safeguards are part of our efforts to manage and reduce the risks of profiteering. We stand ready to act decisively should there be any mismanagement by the SEHC operators. Potential measures include imposing liquidated damages, or even termination of their contracts.
As part of our ongoing stocktake, NEA will look at the selection criteria for operators, what to leave to market forces and whether any other safeguards should be prescribed.
Third, all SEHC operators have set up structured feedback channels for their hawkers and have had at least one meeting. They will continue to engage their hawkers regularly and address concerns together and quickly. NEA officers will be present at these meetings. I am hopeful that such structured and regular meetings will help encourage communication, resolve day-to-day issues and also reduce misunderstandings.
I attended one of these meetings at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre. The atmosphere was constructive and stallholders had positive experiences to share. For example, Zhang Li Jun, a 29-year-old hawker who has been operating the \"Teochew Satay Bee Hoon\" stall since 2015, said that with the Hawkers' Feedback Group, operators could proactively seek hawkers’ views on various matters relating to the hawker centre and stalls, and also work together on ideas to help the centre do better.
I had a fruitful dialogue recently with HC3.0 committee members, hawkers and food advocates passionate about preserving our hawker culture. The participants contributed many ideas and we have agreed to set up a ground-up workgroup, comprising hawkers and other experts, to look at how to support new entrants to the hawker trade and sustain our hawker culture. We shall share details when ready.
Many of the new centres are doing well. When I visited Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre recently, the place was crowded and many patrons shared with me that they were happy with the wide selection of hawker food at affordable prices. One patron even told me about the $2.60 mee siam sold by \"The House 22\". Similarly, I met a group of ladies who frequent the OTH Hawker Centre. They excitedly told me how happy they were with the many tasty hawker fare offered there, such as laksa by \"Social Bite\", and \"Chicken Rice @ OTH\". In fact, the father of Mr Kiang, who runs \"Chicken Rice @ OTH\", was among the pioneer batch of chefs who developed the famous Chatterbox chicken rice at Mandarin Hotel. So, I share with you this little secret, which means that the next time I go, it will be a longer queue.
But for those centres which are not doing so well, we are working with the operators and stallholders to increase footfall, improve business and serve their patrons better. What they need now is our support, not speculation and negative publicity that will keep patrons away and cause stallholders more hardship. The latest efforts to discuss and resolve issues through regular dialogue is the right way to go.
In summary, we will continue to make adjustments and recalibrate the SEHC model to ensure that it continues to achieve the key social outcomes of our hawker centres, which are: to provide affordable food in a clean environment, allow our hawkers to make a decent living and build communities. We will seek and listen to feedback from hawkers and patrons and continue with our stocktake to further improve the model.
Next year, we are nominating hawker culture for inscription on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. It is a community-based effort involving many stakeholders, including our hawkers, to sustain the hawker trade. The UNESCO nomination will be an important recognition of our hawkers, as we let the world know about our local food and multicultural heritage. As of 18 November, we have received 133,000 pledges online. I urge Members and all Singaporeans who have yet to pledge to do so on the Our SG Heritage website.
I am heartened by the passionate discussions and support for hawker food and our hawkers. To sustain the hawker trade and preserve our hawker culture, I urge everyone to patronise our hawker stalls and support them. I wonder if all Members in this House have visited our new hawker centres. If you have not, I urge you to show your support by visiting and patronising them with your families and friends.
\t
Let me share that there are many interesting and tasty hawker fare at these centres. So, a few more secrets, including some of my favourites, such as delicious min jiang kueh by “Munchi” at Yishun Park Hawker Centre, chendol from the dessert stall at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre run by a young hawkerpreneur, and zi char from “Jian Fa BBQ Seafood” at OTH Hawker Centre, just to name a few. Parents should bring their children to our hawker centres to appreciate our hawker culture and heritage food. Our hawker centres should not be treated as nice-to-have dining options, but an important part of our living and evolving culture as, after all, we started building new hawker centres again because of the many appeals from the community for the hawker centres.
I am confident that our hawker centres will continue to thrive as community dining rooms, bringing together Singaporeans from all walks of life and strengthening our bonds as a country.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their very elaborate response. I think many Singaporeans and myself really enjoy all the hawker food and we are supportive of the idea, including the need to try new models for what is relevant for our time. But for the fact that because the term is called \"social enterprise\", it needs to clearly demonstrate that there is this element of social benefits, whether it is for the hawkers themselves or even for the consumers. I have two clarifications that I would like to ask the Minister or the Senior Minister of State.
Firstly, for the grant that is given, for example, on the productivity initiatives, are these operators actually mandated to pass through all these benefits to the hawkers or are the hawkers paying extra for the e-payment system, the tray return system and so on?
Secondly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about the need for 50% of the surplus to be translated back to social benefits. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate more on what are these social benefits?\t
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: For the PHC Grant of 50% and 30% for first and second year respectively, these would directly benefit the hawkers, because 50% of the cost of the CDW will be deducted from the payment they have to make for the CDW. So, it would be a direct benefit to the hawkers.
Regarding the sharing of any operating surplus, it is in the terms of the tender agreement with the operator that, firstly, if they are not a social enterprise, they would have to set up a separate entity to tender for the hawker centre because we require them to submit an annual set of audited accounts to us. And if there are any operating surplus, the condition is that they have to plough at least 50% of this operating surplus back to benefit the hawker centre, the hawkers or the community. Some of the proposals that have been made by the successful tenderers are, for instance, providing meal vouchers for needy residents or the elderly within the community, or sharing some of this operating surplus with the hawkers in terms of providing discounted meal vouchers or one-for-one meal vouchers, for instance, like Yishun Timbre+ does, to give to the residents so that they can purchase and part of the meal would be funded from the operating surplus.
So, there are various programmes. Or it could be the training of hawkers or helping the low-income, for instance, to set up a hawker stall there. But if there is an operating surplus, they will have to propose how they want to plough this benefit back into the community or the hawker centre, and it would be subject to NEA's approval.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to applaud NEA for resuming the building of hawker centres. It is a welcome move. In fact, I was one of those who lobbied very hard to have a hawker centre in Yishun. But many of us would like to see the hawker centres that are run by NEA that provide good and cheap food. I have three supplementary questions.
I know that the Minister and Senior Minister of State have explained about the social enterprise hawker centres. But a lot of residents are asking what is the definition of \"social enterprise\". We do not see voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) who come in, but we see those social enterprises that are set up by big companies. So, what is their motivation?
The second question: does this translate into lower cooked food prices? Is there any study done? How do you ensure that economic meals that are available at the hawker centres are available all the time? Because residents have told me that they were very often told \"卖 完 了\", or sold out. If they want to buy the economic meals, the answer is, \"卖 完 了\". I would like to know whether there is any checking?
The third question: what I understand is that hawkers are managed by social enterprise hawker centre companies. Then, NEA staff oversee the social enterprise company. What my residents have been asking is: why can we not take away all these layers? Why can NEA itself not run the hawker centre, build up its own internal capability? This is something that many residents hope to see; they would like to see the old type of the hawker centres that offer good food at cheap prices, rather than giving us a hawker centre that is very beautiful but then, most of the time, the food is more expensive than at the coffee shops.
Lastly, I think the Minister did not answer my Question No 4 on the Incubation Stall Programme. I think there is such a programme and I would like to know how many have been under this programme and whether they continued beyond the incubation period and, if they do not continue, what are the reasons?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Could Members who are asking supplementary questions direct them to a specific Minister?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I would like to answer even the last question on behalf of the Minister as the Minister is actually very sick, with a bad flu. Let me answer the various questions that the Members have raised.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Senior Minister of State.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The Member has raised five questions in total, I think.
Firstly, about the motivation of SEHCs. First of all, this SEHC that the media has been using is a bit of a misnomer. We actually started by saying \"socially-conscious operators\". So, what we are saying is, operators who tender for these hawker centres and run them, there must be a social mission. So, a social enterprise could be one of the operators or interested party to tender for the hawker centres, but not necessarily must be a social enterprise. What we have done is that within the tender conditions, we have ensured that there is a social mission. As I have said earlier, the Minister had also said, there are various safeguards that we have put in place in the tender conditions to ensure that we need the social objectives of the hawker centres that we started building again in the first place. And that is to ensure that we have affordable food options of a good variety in a clean environment, ensure that our hawkers can make a decent living and, of course, preserve our hawker culture and ensure the vibrancy of our hawker centres.
We have said a number of times what these are. For instance, we favour operators who offer lower rentals and total operating costs. They cannot raise these rentals and operating costs through the term of the tenancy agreement. As I have said, there is also the requirement to plough back any operating surplus for social benefits to the hawker centres, the hawkers and the community. A good example of a socially-conscious operator would be NTUC First Campus (NFC), which is part of NTUC and is a cooperative. In selecting SEHCs, we also look out for how we can harness their expertise, which is actually the recommendation from the Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel that we try and leverage the experience of these operators in F&B and in business management, in order to be able to put in place various initiatives and ideas to ensure and enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres.
In relation to that, the Member had a question about why not let NEA continue to run hawker centres. The Minister had elaborated in detail some of the reasons why we need to look at new management model for our new hawker centres. The reasons are because there are inherent challenges in the hawker trade: ageing profile of our hawkers, where our existing hawkers' age profile is 60 years, which means that within 10 years' time, one third would retire if we do not attract new hawkers into the trade. So, it is renewal, manpower constraints, as well as the evolving needs and tastes of patrons; how do you ensure that what you offer meets the needs and demands of patrons? Also, in existing hawker centres, as the Minister had elaborated, our existing hawker centres have been around for years; they are already established. Many of them have anchor hawkers who are able to pull in the crowds. But on the other hand, you would also note that many existing hawker centres, when you go, you are sometimes not sure whether the stall is open. Only 35% of our hawkers in existing hawker centres open for three meals. Most of them for one or two meals; some only work three to four days. So, does this then meet the needs of our community, especially the newer communities where there are many dual-income families and they need to access food through the day and through the week for three meals?
These are some of the challenges and, therefore, we looked at how we can try out and pilot new management models in order to overcome these challenges and to meet our social objectives. Indeed, SEHCs have resulted in positive outcomes. There are, of course, teething issues, and we are committed to looking at how we can recalibrate, make adjustments and improve the model, even as we look to implementing it for our new hawker centres.
Economical meals – how come they are not available? It depends on which point in time of the day you go to the stalls. Basically, the majority of the SEHC stalls do offer at least one affordable option. But let me say that we only ask that they offer at least one affordable option and we are not asking them to artificially suppress the prices of all their food options. In fact, they can sell all the other food options at different price points, and that is really the concept of a community dining room, where people from all walks of life can come together, share a table and enjoy a meal at different price points. And that will ensure that they will be able to make a decent livelihood. Whichever hawker centre does not have enough of those economical meals, we can talk about it and we can talk to the operators. I have been to many of them and they do offer affordable options, and these are good options.
Regarding the question on incubation stalls, we have launched an Incubation Stall Programme last year, just about over a year ago. When we started, we identified 13 stalls that we pre-fitted and we offered these to aspiring new hawkers who are not sure if they are interested to join the trade; they are passionate but they are not sure if they can make it. So, we offered these stalls to them, subject to certain conditions, of course. They can rent these pre-fitted stalls for six months at 50% of the assessed market rent, and that is to allow them to try out. It is pre-fitted, so we reduce the initial capital cost.
So far, we have received some 40 applications. We have increased the number of incubation stalls to 15. Ten stalls have been taken up and we have a list of applicants now which we are processing to lease out the remaining incubation stalls. This actually complements the Entrepreneurship Programme and the Place and Train Programmes offered by the SEHC operators because many of the operators also offer training and entrepreneurship programmes for new hawkers. In fact, they have actually been relatively successful. Ci Yuan, for instance, trained 16 aspiring hawkers and 10 are still in Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, and they have converted to permanent hawkers and are doing well. One of them just got married.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, while I can appreciate the merits of the social enterprise model and, indeed, we should continue to let the model evolve, I want to ask the Minister or Senior Minister of State whether the social enterprise model is the only way to go for new hawker centres. Is NEA open to other models as well, such as, for example, Management Corporation Stata Title (MCST)-type, where the hawkers can come together to self-manage, or for NEA to still run the new hawker centres at least for a while and then transiting to the non-NEA-run model?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think we are open to any model as long as it is able to achieve the social objectives that we have set up for our new hawker centres, which is about providing affordable food options, moderating food prices, ensuring that the hawkers make a decent living and building communities.
So, clearly, we are open. But we also need to note that whatever model that we may adopt, there will always be challenges even as there may be benefits and, therefore, we need to give it time to settle down. Our SEHC model is a good example. We implemented it only about three years ago. In fact, the last one, Pasir Ris Hawker Centre, was just opened this year. So, it is really in its infancy; it is still evolving. We had set it up with the intention that we will continue to monitor, evaluate, refine and improve the model.
But having said that, the SEHCs, at the present moment, have actually resulted in many positive outcomes for both patrons as well as hawkers and we do not want to undo those achievements. Therefore, we will see how we can better calibrate and make adjustments to the model. But as I have said, we are open to any model because the idea really is to benefit patrons, Singaporeans and hawkers.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: We are one hour into this topic. I am going to ask Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, then Gan Thiam Poh and Melvin Yong.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister and Senior Minister of State for their patience in addressing our questions. My question is: if hawkers are self-employed, then how can they be compelled by social enterprises or by the Government to work certain hours or to meet other conditions of work? The problem seems to be that we are expecting the hawkers to bear some of the burdens of being an employee, but without the benefits of a guaranteed and stable income, for example.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First of all, let me say that we have actually worked with our operators. So, now, one of the key changes we have made to the contracts is that they need not open more than five days. They are required to open only five days, eight hours a day. The hawkers are small businesses, entrepreneurs. They enter into an agreement with the operators to operate a hawker stall subject to, of course, various conditions that they are agreeable to, and these are some of the conditions.
The reason why you have to implement some minimum operating hours as well as minimum number of days, really, is because we want to make sure that the hawker centres are able to provide three meals – breakfast, lunch and dinner, throughout the day, and throughout the week – in order to ensure the vibrancy of the hawker centres. The hawker centres are built to serve the community, and one of the needs of the community, as I have said, especially in newer housing estates, is to have access to these food options for the three key meals. If you do not agree to such operating hours, then it would come back to the same thing that in some existing hawker centres, when you go there, they are closed or they are open for only half a day and it does not serve the needs of the community. So, we are not compelling them. They actually enter into the agreement voluntarily and knowingly.
\t
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Senior Minister of State, I think my question has yet to get an answer, that is, cost structure between the subsidised and non-subsidised stalls, one by NEA and one by another model. I would like to know, generally, what are the operating costs, what are the similar ones and what are not the subsidised ones.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me explain that for both our existing hawker centres and our new centres, the construction costs of the hawker centres, as well as the cost of upgrading and maintaining the hawker centres are not recovered through the rentals. So, there is already an implicit Government subsidy for both.
The cost structure for both existing centres' non-subsidised stalls and new centres, really, is quite similar. Earlier on in my reply, I already gave a comparison in terms of rentals, that, basically, they are quite comparable and in line, taking into account the differences in age, stall size and so on of the hawker centres. In terms of operating costs, it is also quite similar, and I have also given Members a comparison. There will be costs in terms of service and conservancy charges, table cleaning. These are the key ones. For dishwashing, what you see, for instance, when you compare, some people will say, \"How come it is much lower in the existing hawker centres?\" That is because of the cost element of dishwashing is often not taken into account in the existing hawker centres since most of the existing centres do not have CDWs. But if you were to take that in, you have to employ somebody for say, $1,500, just to wash dishes, or if the existing hawker centre has a CDW system, then the essential costs are actually quite similar.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State on hawker stall rentals. I believe that the Senior Minister of State said that the higher end of the hawker stall rental range is around $13,000. At about $3.00 or $3.50 a plate, the hawker will need to sell at least 3,000 plates just to cover the rent. If our hawker stalls are to serve the objective of keeping our food prices affordable, will the Ministry consider implementing a cap on the rental to better manage food prices? Even at half that rental, at $5,000, you will still need sell at least 1,500 to 2,000 plates a month just to cover the rental.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me correct the Member. I did not say that the top-end rental at our hawker centres is $13,000. The range of $4,000 to $13,000 is, based on our survey, the rentals for coffee shops and food courts, not hawker centres. That is very important. What I said was that the rental of our hawker centres, new hawker centres, is nowhere near to where the rentals are for food courts and coffee shops which range, based on our survey, from $4,000 to $13,000, net of operating cost. The rentals for our new hawker centres, median rental, is about $2,000, net of operating cost.
As I have said earlier, what we are asking is that, to achieve our social objectives of offering affordable food prices as well as moderating food prices in the vicinity, at least one food option which is affordable, and most of these new centres have put that at about $3.00 or $2.80. Just one food option. We are not asking them to sell everything at budget prices. Therefore, they have a range of options. In fact, if you go to the hawker centres, there is a soup stall that I saw in Kampung Admiralty, the prices range from $2.80 to $14.00 because it is premium; maybe there are scallops and all that.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, would you ask the next question? Next question, please? Question No 10.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Can I ask one more supplementary question, please?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Okay, I will allow one last supplementary question.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that 50% of the surplus from the social enterprise must be ploughed back to the hawker centres or hawkers. I would like to find out what will happen to the remaining 50%. Does it go back to the company?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Actually, to Member Melvin's question about rental cap which I have forgotten to comment on, our existing hawker centres, the non-subsidised stalls, are actually let out by tender. So, there is already a range of rental indications, and, in fact, we have removed the reserve rent. Therefore, even for our new hawker centres, when we evaluate the tenders, there are two things that we do. First, we get the professional valuers to assess what a reasonable market rent will be, and they actually make reference to the tendered rents of the existing hawker centres, and we also use that as a guide. So, we will continue to monitor rentals to ensure that they are fair and reasonable to our hawkers so that they can make a decent livelihood.
With regard to the 50% surplus, at least 50% must go back to social benefits, the other 50%, of course, they can keep. But so far, for our new hawker centres, those that have already submitted their audited accounts, none of them had accumulated any operating surplus. It has only been one to three years. It just goes to show that just as new hawker centres need time to build up, to establish themselves, so do the operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordable Cooked Food Prices Despite Merging of Two Food Court Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the impending takeover of Kopitiam by NTUC Enterprise (a) how will the Government ensure that cooked food prices remain low and affordable; and (b) whether this takeover violates the anti-competition rules.
21 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the proposed acquisition of the Kopitiam food operator chain by NTUC Enterprise will result in a substantial lessening of competition; and (b) whether the acquisition will be suspended pending the approval of the Competition Commission of Singapore, so as to avoid a repeat of the situation with Grab's acquisition of Uber's Southeast Asian operations where its impact on ride-hailing platform services in Singapore could not be reversed.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan Wu Meng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 20 and 21 together, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
Dr Tan Wu Meng: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has been notified of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Enterprise's proposed acquisition of Kopitiam and its subsidiaries on 28 September 2018 and is currently assessing the transaction. NTUC Enterprise has committed not to proceed with the merger until CCCS has issued its decision.
There are many factors influencing food prices, such as cost of raw materials and manpower costs. The Government does not set food prices. Instead, we focus our efforts on helping Singaporeans to have access to affordable food options. For example, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has reviewed tender mechanisms to consider factors, such as affordability, when tendering eating houses. The Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) have also announced plans to build more HDB eating houses and hawker centres in future. Such measures will allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions across a range of cooked food choices.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. His answer is very short. My questions should be very short.
First question: I read from the report that Kopitiam management will continue to manage those coffee shops. I would like to ask: is there a bottom line report requirement? If yes, how to achieve a social mission?
Second question: yesterday, I was at Block 504 Kopitiam. Out of six stalls, only one stall was open and one drinks stall. So, why did Kopitiam bid for that coffee shop and leave it empty for the last two, three years? Is it to build up the volume, preparing for this transaction? Is it fair to my residents? I would like to tell the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to please do not tell me it is not under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and ask me to file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ).
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, the precise inner workings of a private enterprise are not immediately within the purview of MTI. [Laughter.] However, if the Member wishes to file a separate PQ to the relevant agency or agencies, I am sure my colleagues will be happy to oblige as best as they can.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is he aware that there is such a thing as \"no wrong door\" policy? Perhaps, he would like to check with his colleague in MND or HDB and get back to me.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, there is a \"no wrong door\" policy. As part of the \"no wrong door\" policy, it is also incumbent on us to advise Members if the question may best be answered by a department with the appropriate knowledge, competency, understanding and jurisdiction. I seek the Member's understanding on this, please.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Foreign Domestic Workers Borrowing and Defaulting on Loans from Licensed and Unlicensed Moneylenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the past three years, how many cases are there of domestic helpers who have defaulted on loans from licensed moneylenders; (b) whether the Ministry intends to implement any restrictions on domestic helpers taking such loans; (c) what are the consequences for such repeat defaulters; and (d) what are the consequences for their employers.
23 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Manpower (a) over the past three years, how many domestic helpers have taken loans from unlicensed moneylenders; (b) what are the consequences for such domestic helpers; and (c) what recourse do the employers of these domestic helpers have should they be harassed by the unlicensed moneylenders.
24 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the number of foreign domestic workers who have procured loans from licensed moneylenders in 2017 and 2018; (b) what are the liabilities for employers of foreign domestic workers who default on repayment of such loans; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to place any restrictions on foreign domestic workers procuring such loans.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, Question Nos 22, 23 and 24 that relate to the portfolios of both the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Manpower. May I seek your permission to provide a combined reply to parts (c) and (d) of Question No 22, parts (b) and (c) of Question No 23 and part (b) of Question No 24. The Senior Minister of State for Law Mr Edwin Tong will address the remaining parts of the questions. With your permission, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Darryl David and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked about the consequences for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) and employers, and the recourse for employers when FDWs borrow from licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. I will address these questions together.
Where licensed moneylending is concerned, FDWs who do not repay their loans may be subject to civil action by licensed moneylenders, as with any other borrowers. Employers of FDWs are not liable to repay any of their FDWs' loans. It is an offence for licensed moneylenders to harass the FDWs or their employers for repayment or employ an agent to do so. FDW employers who are harassed should report to the Police.
We do not condone any borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders by foreign workers. To send a clear signal of our strong stand, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had earlier announced that if a work pass holder is found to have borrowed from unlicensed moneylenders, the employer will be informed and the employee's work pass revoked. The foreign worker will then be repatriated and debarred from further employment in Singapore.
The rule against borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders will be implemented in 2019, following a period of education and communication with work pass holders and their employers. We will intensify efforts to help them learn about money management and the risks of borrowing from moneylenders.
Any person who is harassed by unlicensed moneylenders should report such activities to the Police. From 2008 to September 2018, the Police registered about 460 reports of harassment by unlicensed moneylenders arising from FDWs borrowing or acting as guarantors. The Police and Attorney-General’s Chambers have prosecuted errant debt collectors who have violated the law and will continue to take strong enforcement action against such conduct.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Darryl David and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked for statistics on FDWs who have taken loans from licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. Mr David and Mr Sitoh also asked if the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) intends to place any restrictions on FDWs taking such loans. Let me deal with both questions together.
The number of FDWs who took loans from licensed moneylenders was approximately 1,500 in 2016, 12,000 in 2017 and 28,000 in the first half of 2018.
Moneylending regulations do not formally define a \"loan default\". However, estimates based on Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) data from 2016 to the first half of 2018 show that the majority of FDWs have repaid their loans from licensed moneylenders.
The Police have also observed more foreigners residing in Singapore, including FDWs, borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders.
There are currently several measures to protect all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. For example, the Moneylenders Rules permit a licensed moneylender to charge only the following for each loan:
(a) an upfront administrative fee of up to 10%;
(b) interest of up to 4% per month;
(c) late interest of up to 4% per month; and
(d) late fees of up to $60 per month.
The Registrar of Moneylenders had issued Directions to regulate moneylenders' activities. In particular, moneylenders are prohibited from advertising their loans to members of the public via mobile text messages or emails. Moneylenders are also prohibited from conducting abusive practices, such as repeatedly \"rolling over\" existing loans to charge the administrative fee multiple times even though no new credit is issued; or offering split loans so that late fees can be charged multiple times, per loan, each month.
In view of the recent increase in foreigners borrowing from moneylenders, on 4 October 2018, MinLaw announced two measures to strengthen protections for FDWs and other foreigners residing in Singapore from the effects of over-borrowing.
First, the Ministry will impose aggregate loan caps to limit the total amount that any foreigner residing in Singapore can borrow from licensed moneylenders. The caps were first announced for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents under the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill in January this year, and the caps are:
(a) individuals earning up to $20,000 a year may borrow up to $3,000; and
(b) individuals earning $20,000 or more a year may borrow up to six times of their monthly income.
Both caps will be extended to all foreigners residing in Singapore. In addition, there will also be a lower cap of $1,500 for all foreigners residing in Singapore who earn less than $10,000 annually.
Second, the Ministry will also introduce a self-exclusion framework for all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. Both Singapore residents and foreigners may apply for self-exclusion. Licensed moneylenders will be prohibited from lending to self-excluded individuals.
This framework will help individuals to control their borrowing habits and to participate in debt assistance schemes administered by voluntary welfare organisations which typically also require self-exclusion.
MinLaw, together with MOM and the Singapore Police Force, will continue to monitor the situation following the implementation of these measures and will assess if more stringent measures are necessary.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their replies. Two supplementary questions to ask. It is heartening to hear that there are measures that are being taken with regard to self-exclusion and the caps. This is pertaining to licensed moneylenders. Would it be useful for the Government to consider, perhaps in light of the fact that the employers are usually the ones who have to suffer the consequences should FDWs default on their licensed moneylending loans, to have a practice where the employer's consent needs to be sought before FDWs approach licensed moneylenders for loans? So, in a way, if you look at the self-exclusion for the casinos, for example, I understand that family members can also choose to exclude certain family members. That is the practice. So, my question is, can the authorities consider with the case of licensed moneylenders, for the employer's consent to be sought before the FDW makes that loan with the licensed moneylender?
The second supplementary question is relating to the issue of unlicensed moneylenders. As far as I understand it right now, it is not an offence to take a loan from an unlicensed moneylender. Am I correct, Senior Minister of State?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: That is correct from a borrower's perspective. It is not legal for a moneylender to carry out a business without a licence.
\tMr Darryl David: I thank the Senior Minister of State. With that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, what usually happens then is that perhaps if the FDW makes that loan and she then has her employment terminated by the employer – understandably, when the employer finds out – she returns. As she has committed no crime, the FDW is technically able to return to the country again and perhaps, this entire cycle is repeated by which the FDW then perpetuates further inconvenience and stress on her new employer. Would the authorities consider perhaps in such cases some measure – I understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty – whereby such FDWs are either placed on a watchlist or even barred from returning until this matter can be clarified, to avoid further inconveniences down the road?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Would MinLaw or MOM be answering?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: MOM is answering. I want to thank Mr Darryl David for the supplementary questions. Let me assure Mr David and Members that while the number of FDWs borrowing from licensed moneylenders has increased, the majority of them repaid their loans and the default rate remains low. His first supplementary question is that if the FDW goes to a licensed moneylender, whether the moneylender can seek the consent of the employer. We have considered that – the pros and the cons. At present, MOM has not made it mandatory for the FDW to seek consent or for the moneylender to do so. We have also not made it mandatory for the FDWs to disclose their borrowings from licensed moneylenders to their employers, simply because if and when we do so, it may well trigger the FDWs towards taking more drastic actions, such as gravitating towards borrowing from the unlicensed moneylenders, just so as to avoid telling the employers. So, it is a very delicate balance.
The second question on if the FDW goes to unlicensed moneylenders and the employer sends her back, whether we can put her on a watchlist. This is where MOM has said that in support of MinLaw's new measures, we will deter FDWs from borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders. Come next year, we will effect the debarment measure after a period of education and communication with FDWs and also with employers as well as other stakeholders who could be affected. We will announce the effective date at a later time.
When the debarment measure comes into effect, what will happen is, the debarment period set is based on the facts of the case. Allow me to also add that MOM will step up our education efforts to the new FDWs through our settling in programme to share with them the importance of money management and also the risks and implications of borrowing, over-borrowing and borrowing from moneylenders, in particular, unlicensed moneylenders.
Here, we would like to appeal to all employers of FDWs to also share the importance of money management and the risks and implications of borrowing.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MOM is studying why the FDWs are borrowing money during their employment in Singapore? What are the main reasons? If we are not studying it, can I ask whether MOM is willing to conduct this study so that we understand what the root of the problem is, and then we can really address it?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Member Mr Louis Ng for his question. Yes, we have been looking into all the possible reasons. Anecdotal evidence tells us that, in certain cases, FDWs borrow from the licensed moneylenders to tide through certain requests from home, such as unforeseen medical bills, college fees for their children and so on. They need to borrow this amount of money for a month before they receive their next pay cheque from the employers. We are thinking through and we will certainly consider mounting a study to understand this a little more.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
\tMr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to highlight that there are a lot of unlicensed moneylenders that pass off as licensed moneylenders. And not to mention FDWs, but even my residents would receive short message service (SMS) from unlicensed moneylenders and they just go ahead to borrow money from them. These turn out to be unlicensed. The measure of sending the FDWs back seems very drastic because the FDW may not know. Can we exercise some flexibility so that, with the consent of the employer, they can actually continue to stay in Singapore?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Two parts to the question. First, we will intensify the education efforts to help FDW understand who are the licensed vis-à-vis the unlicensed moneylenders. For employers who wish to continue hiring their FDWs who are debarred for various reasons – maybe because they are pending the arrival of a new FDW – they can certainly put in a request to MOM, and we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Foreign Affairs.
[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":"Review of Foreign Policy 2018","subTitle":"Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address Parliament. This has been a very busy year for Singapore on the foreign and global stage. Prime Minister Lee, who by the way has just returned from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, suggested that I address Parliament because after all, foreign policy begins at home. It is essential that all of us are privy to all the activities that we have been conducting, and I will be happy to take questions from Parliamentarians after this Statement.
We have witnessed – in fact, we are witnessing – a global order in very rapid transition. It is marked by big superpower rivalry, rising protectionist sentiment, xenophobia and, in the midst of all this, an ongoing technological digital revolution. As a small country, we have to respond, and we have to respond nimbly in a very volatile global environment, we have to make ourselves relevant to all powers big and small, and we have to enlarge, to the maximum extent, the political and economic space for all Singaporeans. To this end, Singapore has worked very hard to make progress on several diplomatic and economic initiatives, and we have redoubled our efforts to support a rules-based world order and also to buttress the international trading system. This year also happened to be the year that Singapore chaired ASEAN, and we had, therefore, to host a large number of regional and international events. I want to thank all those who have been working so tirelessly over the past year, and especially our staff from the Civil Service, entire Government as well as the private sector and, of course, our fellow Singaporeans. Without this whole-of-Nation effort, we could not have achieved all that we have achieved this year.
Let me start with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Chairmanship which we just concluded last week with a series of Leaders' Summits, including all the ASEAN Leaders, that is, 10 of them. As well as them, we also had Leaders from the United States (US), Russia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Chile. Twenty Leaders present in Singapore last week. In addition to that, we also had Ms Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We sought to strengthen ASEAN's Unity and Centrality and, in particular, to turn challenges, existential challenges into opportunities. And that is why, during this year, when we were ASEAN Chair, we focused especially on enhancing ASEAN Centrality, unity and coherence; second, to accelerate ASEAN's economic integration; and third, on equipping people throughout ASEAN with the skills needed for new jobs in the digital revolution.
Members can see that actually we have focused very much obviously within Singapore on SkillsFuture. But in fact, this is a need in all countries – skills for new jobs in the digital revolution. Furthermore, we have also sought to enhance interoperability of digital and trading systems within ASEAN. I have also asked the Clerk to distribute an infographic which summarises the variety of initiatives that we launched this year. Whilst it is circulating, let me continue to address all Members.
Strengthening a rules-based world order has been key to regional security and peace. In fact, it is this post-World War II liberal economic global environment and adherence to a rules-based multilateral system that have given us peace for 70 years. And, in particular, created enormous opportunities for a tiny \"red dot\" like Singapore. So, this remains a constant focus for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). More specifically, this year, under ASEAN, we finalised the Model ASEAN Extradition Treaty, and work will soon begin on an ASEAN Extradition Treaty. In addition, the ASEAN Defence Ministers adopted the Guidelines for Air Military Encounters. These are the world’s first multilateral guidelines to manage unintended encounters between military aircraft. This will make for a safer and more secure aviation environment in our region.
Terrorism and cyberattacks are, unfortunately, a clear and present danger. We enhanced regional counter-terrorism cooperation through the \"Resilience, Response and Recovery\" Framework and we also held a Symposium on a Collective Approach to Counter-Terrorism. ASEAN, for the first time, adopted a Leaders’ Statement on Cybersecurity Cooperation at the 32nd ASEAN Summit in April this year, and Singapore announced the ASEAN-Singapore Cybersecurity Centre for Excellence in September this year.
In August, we completed our three-year term as the ASEAN-China Country Coordinator. A key milestone of these three years was the formulation of a Single Draft Negotiating Text for the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. Members will appreciate that this is, in fact, a very sensitive and very difficult issue that we have been grappling with for many years. And not just us because, in fact, we are not a claimant state, but four ASEAN members are claimant states that have overlapping claims with China. Fortunately, we have witnessed patient, meticulous diplomacy and all the parties involved – China and ASEAN – have been able to lower temperatures, and we have been able to work constructively. We also brokered an ASEAN consensus on an ASEAN-China Maritime Exercise after nearly three years of discussions, and we co-directed this exercise with China last month.
On the economic front, ASEAN has stood against the tide of protectionism. We made substantial progress on the negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). RCEP includes the 10 ASEAN countries and includes the other six which are China, Japan, ROK, India, Australia and New Zealand. ASEAN Leaders committed to conclude the RCEP in 2019, next year. We emphasised closer economic integration through agreements on the ASEAN Single Window, the ASEAN-wide Self-Certification scheme and the ASEAN E-Commerce scheme. Without getting into the details, the point is that these initiatives will facilitate cross-border flows of goods and services within ASEAN, especially as businesses increasingly go digital, and this will ultimately enhance intra-ASEAN trade and opportunities for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to service the expanding consumer market in ASEAN.
We established our flagship project, the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. This network will create a common framework for smart city development and the mutual exchange of action plans. The network will also connect cities with external private sector partners which will enable us to co-develop solutions for sustainable urbanisation, and members will appreciate that sustainable urbanisation is another mega-trend of our time. Collectively, these efforts will ensure that ASEAN remains vibrant, dynamic, relevant and will create bountiful opportunities for our businesses and our citizens.
We have also contributed to regional humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts. And perhaps at this juncture, I should say a few words about the humanitarian situation in Rakhine State.
I visited both Bangladesh and Myanmar earlier this month, and I also made a trip to the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar. This was shortly after both countries had announced their intention to commence the process of repatriating a first wave of refugees. I must say that, based on my own observations at the camp, the Bangladesh government has actually done a really admirable job of providing humanitarian assistance for a very large number of refugees in a very short order of time. But having said that, having also visited the camps, the current situation is unsustainable. As long as the refugees remain in the camps, and have no jobs and means of livelihood, they will have no future prospects. Therefore, we have to welcome the fact that both Myanmar and Bangladesh are engaged in direct, detailed discussions on making preparations for the commencement of repatriations. This is a critical first step. It is not a complete solution and there are many, many details that still need to be sorted out. Nevertheless, we do need to witness the commencement of a process and to make sure it is done in a way that provides for the refugees to return in a safe, secure and dignified way.
The situation in Rakhine State is of concern to all ASEAN member states. At the 33rd ASEAN Summit last week, all ASEAN Leaders discussed how ASEAN can support the efforts of both Myanmar and Bangladesh for the safe, voluntary return of refugees. We welcomed Myanmar’s commitment to ensure the safety and security of all communities in Rakhine State. Myanmar has invited the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management to despatch a needs assessment team to Rakhine State in order to facilitate the repatriation, and ASEAN has agreed to do so. ASEAN stands ready to support efforts by all parties to address the root causes of the situation in the Rakhine State. Fundamentally, race, language, religion continue to remain live issues in our region and, indeed, across the world. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Myanmar government and its respective stakeholders to find a viable and durable long-term political solution. And as I have said before in this Chamber, we cannot expect quick fixes.
Twenty-eighteen has also been about bringing ASEAN to our young people. For instance, we organised the first-ever ASEAN E-sports and music festival, we renewed the Singapore-ASEAN Youth Fund, and we launched the ASEAN Youth Fellowship. These schemes provide for shared experiences of sportsmanship, community service and entrepreneurship, and we hope that this will spur more youths to get involved in ASEAN activities and strengthen our ASEAN Community and, ultimately, even more important, to strengthen the ASEAN identity amongst young people across Southeast Asia.
Our Chairmanship this year has been a whole-of-nation effort and it involves, as I said earlier, all Government agencies, our media, universities, think tanks, the private sector and the non-government organisations (NGOs). ASEAN has given us a collective platform to improve the lives of our citizens, and make our voices heard on the world stage. Post-2018, Singapore will continue to play the role of \"Shepherd\" for the ASEAN Smart Cities Network, and we will continue to bring new ideas to the table. There is still much more that ASEAN can achieve, and we will work with our counterparts to build a more united, resilient and innovative ASEAN in the years to come. ASEAN remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy.
Let me now move on to areas beyond ASEAN.
First, our standing as a trusted partner on a global level. There were at least two events which reaffirmed our reputation as an impartial, reliable and capable partner.
The first was the Summit between US President Donald Trump and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) leader Kim Jong Un on 12 June this year. Much has been said about the Summit, and I do not want to go through all that again. But the point I want to drive home is this: that we are a small country, but we can be counted on to deliver when necessary. We did not volunteer to host the Summit between the US and DPRK, but we were asked by both sides, and when we were asked, we could not say no. And so, we are proud that it went well, and that we had played a small part in easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
In fact, if Members just cast your minds back a year ago, the situation was extremely tense, rife with fiery rhetoric and provocative actions. Today, things are much calmer. And we hope that, given time and further negotiations and constructive diplomacy, there will be sustained peace and stability, and a fully denuclearised Korean Peninsula. Our region, and indeed the world, will be much better off for it.
Another event that I want to highlight more recently is the Bloomberg New Economy Forum. Members may be aware that, in fact, China was originally supposed to host this Forum, but when that did not materialise, Bloomberg had to relocate the event very, very urgently. Singapore again was their obvious choice. So, over two days in the first week of November, we witnessed the arrival of global business and political leaders gathered in Singapore to discuss the challenges confronting the world economy and possible solutions. The Bloomberg founder and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan, and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were all in town in that week. They joined some of the many other luminaries who came to attend the Forum. We were happy to be able to facilitate and to participate in these important discussions. And it is in our interest to add value and to make ourselves relevant to the global business community.
Overall, both these major events enabled us to raise our standing in the world and fly our flag high.
Let me now turn to relations with our immediate neighbours, in a sense, an update. With Malaysia, we have had a positive momentum of high-level exchanges with the new Pakatan Harapan government. We just hosted Prime Minister Mahathir to an Official Visit last week, and our leaders will meet again next year for the annual Leaders' Retreat. My Cabinet colleagues and I have built good rapport with our new Malaysian counterparts. Malaysia has a new, diverse and lively Cabinet – in fact, their ages range from 25 to 93 and I think that is a world record – but we do share many aspirations and challenges. And I can speak certainly for the younger Ministers, both in Singapore and Malaysia, that there is good rapport, there is good communication, we are all on Whatsapp and various other digital means of communication. This sometimes raises concern amongst the staff. But I can assure Members that we are not revealing state secrets! But nevertheless, that ability to communicate instantly, quickly and appropriately helps to build trust.
Issues will inevitably arise from time to time in our relations, and we will seek constructive ways to resolve them, while firmly protecting our national interests. On fundamental issues, and one key fundamental issue is the 1962 Water Agreement. On this case, our position is clear, consistent and has been articulated on many occasions, including in the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech and, in fact, in my own Parliamentary Statement in July this year. On Pedra Branca, we welcomed Malaysia's decision to discontinue their applications for both a revision and interpretation of the International Court of Justice's original 2008 Judgment. I am glad that both sides followed due legal process and put the matter to rest. On the High Speed Rail (HSR) project, we reached an agreement with Malaysia to suspend the construction of the HSR up till 31 May 2020. The significance of that date is that it will be exactly two years from when the new government took over in Malaysia. We did so in a spirit of bilateral cooperation and goodwill and, at the same time, protected our interests and rights under the Bilateral Agreement. Overall, the outcome was balanced and reflected both countries' commitment to uphold agreements and to advance bilateral cooperation.
With Indonesia, our relations are in good shape, underpinned by the robust and expanding economic cooperation, for example, in projects like the Kendal Industrial Park in Central Java and the Nongsa Digital Park in Batam, which, in fact, I launched with Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi in March this year.
The highlight of the year was the Singapore-Indonesia Leaders' Retreat in Bali last month. This was, in fact, the Prime Minister's third Retreat with President Joko Widodo. At the Retreat, we signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty and six other agreements across a diverse range of sectors, including tourism, the digital economy and culture. Our Leaders also announced a bilateral agreement between the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the central bank of Indonesia, and this bilateral agreement has since been signed. This bilateral agreement provides for a US$10 billion package, that comprises a local currency swap and a US dollar repurchase agreement to support monetary and financial stability, and to strengthen investor confidence in our region. These agreements reflect our belief that Indonesia's economic fundamentals are strong and that Indonesia is a large and dynamic market, with many opportunities for Singapore businesses.
Another initiative announced at the Retreat was the \"RISING Fellowship\". This is a fellowship scheme to deepen ties between Singaporean and Indonesian regional leaders. We wish Indonesia smooth elections in I believe April next year and look forward to continuing our mutually beneficial cooperation with them.
In 2018, we also reaffirmed our special and longstanding relationship with Brunei. In fact, President Halimah made her first State Visit to Brunei in May 2018 at the invitation of His Majesty the Sultan. Earlier this month, we also welcomed His Royal Highness Crown Prince Billah and a delegation of Bruneian Ministers for the sixth edition of the Young Leaders’ Programme. This is a key programme that enables the younger leaders on both sides to deepen personal ties and enhance trust and confidence.
Let me now turn to our relations with the major powers. Let us start with China.
This year is, in fact, an especially significant year for Singapore-China relations. It is the 40th anniversary of Mr Deng Xiaoping's visit to Singapore on 12 November 1978. Both sides have maintained a steady cadence of high-level exchanges. This year, Prime Minister Lee, Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman have all visited China; whilst on their side, Premier Li Keqiang, Vice President Wang Qishan and Vice Premier Han Zheng have also visited Singapore in recent months.
We continue to build on our deep and substantive cooperation with China. During Premier Li’s visit last week, we substantially, and I make that point, substantially upgraded the Singapore-China Free Trade Agreement. This will enhance bilateral economic cooperation between China and Singapore. We have also made good progress on all three Government-to-Government projects, the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Tianjin Eco-City and the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative (CCI). In fact, there is a new acronym in town. CCI now has a New International Land Sea Trade Corridor (ILSTC). This was formerly called the Southern Transport Corridor. The CCI-ILSTC connects the overland Silk Road Economic Belt with the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. It will enhance infrastructure connectivity and commerce within China, and between China and Southeast Asia. In fact, one of the reasons for the name change – and this suggestion came from China – was to make the point that they are talking about bilateral two-way flow of goods and services between China and Southeast Asia, and obviously we are at the heart of Southeast Asia and, from there, to connect to the rest of the Maritime Silk Road.
Cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative is a new highlight of our bilateral cooperation. It has progressed well under the four platforms. I will enumerate them. First, infrastructural connectivity; second, financial connectivity; third, opportunities for third-party collaboration; and fourth, professional services, including legal and judicial cooperation. There will be much work to pursue in the years to come. We will build on this year’s strong momentum to further enhance our bilateral cooperation with China, including at the provincial level, through the latest proposed Singapore-Shanghai Cooperation Council.
Let me now turn to the US.
Our relationship is robust. It spans defence, economic, security, education, scientific and people-to-people spheres. This year, we enjoyed a broad slate of high-level, substantive bilateral exchanges. President Trump was here in June, Vice President Mike Pence last week, and earlier in August, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Secretary of Defence James Mattis was here for the Shangri-La Dialogue and National Security Advisor John Bolton was here last week as well. Several Ministers, including me, have visited the US this year to meet our counterparts and engage members of Congress. The Prime Minister has spoken with President Trump on several occasions on the telephone. We have expanded bilateral collaboration in new and emerging areas, such as tax information exchange, cybersecurity, financial technology (fintech), e-commerce, infrastructure development, smart city solutions, advanced manufacturing and robotics, and technology partnerships.
The key takeaway is this. The current Administration may have a different approach to trade, but the fundamentals that undergird our longstanding relationship with the US remain strong. The US remains committed to our region, and we will continue to do more with the US Administration in the years to come.
Let me now turn to multilateral diplomacy.
At the United Nations (UN) General Assembly this year, I spoke about the crisis of confidence in multilateralism and its institutions. But I also made clear that Singapore will double down on our support for multilateralism and the rules-based global world order. In a sense, we have no choice but to subscribe to that because we will always be a small, tiny red dot, and our trade volume is more than twice our gross domestic product (GDP). So, we have no choice but to subscribe and do our best to support multilateralism, a rules-based world order and international trade. Keeping a free and open trading framework and having recourse to third-party dispute resolution mechanisms are essential for a tiny city-state like Singapore.
We have done our bit to help shape international norms on emerging new areas with transboundary impact, for instance, cybersecurity, climate change. And we have thus maintained our advocacy for Singapore's interests in international organisations, such as the UN and the World Trade Organization.
MFA has also been closely supporting the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) efforts to advance our agenda of free trade and economic integration. Just last month, the Prime Minister signed the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and now we will have to work hard to make sure it is ratified in the European Parliament by May next year. We have also just concluded the 3rd Review of the Agreement between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic Partnership (ANZSCEP). In fact, the FTA with New Zealand was one of our first-ever bilateral FTA for both of us. So, we now look forward to signing the Singapore-New Zealand Enhanced Partnership (EP) and the upgraded ANZSCEP next year.
We have also launched the MERCOSUR-Singapore FTA negotiations in July this year. For those of you who do not know, MERCOSUR includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. And we are also in the midst of negotiating an FTA with the Pacific Alliance. The Pacific Alliance is Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. MERCOSUR and the Pacific Alliance are significant trading blocs in South America. They represent the fifth and eighth largest economies in the world. We are also having ongoing and encouraging discussions on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)-Singapore FTA. Again, for those who do not know, the EAEU includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. I should make a shout out to Koh Poh Koon, who has been making a lot of trips to that part of the world, which many Members may not be familiar with.
Significantly, Singapore ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) this year. With a combined market of 500 million people, CPTPP will enter into force on 30 December this year. In fact, if Members cast your minds back to January this year, and if I told you that the TPP minus the US, the remaining 11 partners, would agree to renegotiate and conclude the CPTPP, and that we would ratify and that it would come into force on 30 December 2018, you would have thought I was being completely unrealistic. Nevertheless, this has been achieved. It will produce substantial savings and improve market access for Singapore companies.
We have also played an active and constructive role at APEC and the Group of 20 (G20). I told Members that the Prime Minister just returned last night from Papua New Guinea and we will soon be going to Argentina as well for the G20 meeting. On this trip, I will have to drag along Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat and I must tell Members, for those of you who really want to go, it will take you at least 30 hours to reach Buenos Aires and another 30 hours to come back.
So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker and Members of this House, we recognise the uncertainty and volatility in today's world. But if we look at what has been achieved this year, we do not need to be pessimistic about its outcome. Even in times of significant geopolitical turbulence, Singapore has built up that very precious asset called \"trust\". Trusted by our neighbours and by the international community. They trust us because they know we are straight, honest brokers. We are sticklers for international law, a rules-based world order and free trade, and we believe in the sanctity of agreements and contracts. And they also trust our competence to be able to deliver when times are short and the outcomes are urgent and important.
We will continue to be nimble to adapt, seize opportunities and to do our best. MFA will work closely with all other Ministries and agencies to keep our foreign policy balance sheet in good order. What is important – and this is a point I want to re-emphasise – is that foreign policy begins at home and we do need to maintain broad domestic support for our foreign policy. An effective foreign policy rests on this domestic consensus, a consensus built both within this House, and outside this House with fellow Singaporeans. As we commemorate our Bicentennial next year, 2019, I hope Members will continue to work as a whole-of-Nation, to build a safe, secure and prosperous home for all Singaporeans and our neighbours. Thank you all very much. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for sharing the Statement. We have some time for clarifications. Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his Ministry for helping to achieve a successful year with Singapore as ASEAN Chair. Building a rules-based region and bringing our economies closer are key and relevant initiatives.
I would like to ask a supplementary question on the humanitarian aspect. May I ask the Minister what is the Ministry's view on the repatriation of the Rohingyas that has been announced to commence in mid-November 2018 and whether, from the point of view of ASEAN, enough has been done to ensure that those who return will not face the same threats to their safety as when they first left.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. We are talking about a current and still evolving situation. As I said earlier, the silver lining, having visited both Bangladesh and Myanmar and having spoken to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the State Counsellor of Myanmar, is that I can state with a fair amount of confidence that both sides sincerely do want a return of the refugees. The State Counsellor herself has acknowledged that they are residents of Myanmar and that they are entitled to go back. This is a brave position for her to take.
Similarly, Bangladesh, as I said earlier, has done a fantastic job, a really admirable job, in looking after the refugees. But they also know that it is not sustainable and that, at some point, the refugees need to go back. The key point is this. It has to be voluntary, it has to be safe, and it has to be dignified. I cannot give Members a very specific date on which it will actually begin. Because apart from the preparations made by both sides, the refugees themselves have to agree and have to want to go back. Having spoken to some of the refugees, the refugees' key concern is security. Having to risk life and limb to get across to the refugee camps, their question is: will it be safe for me to return? How will my neighbours, the community and the other communities in Rakhine State view their return? They have asked what will be their livelihood? Because, in the end, nobody wants to be a refugee. Everyone wants to get a job, a good job, to be able to support their families. So, the point is that there are many, many details that need to be sorted out.
The other point I would emphasise is that the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) also have to do their part, both in terms of support and presence on the ground but also in building confidence. We should bear in mind that there are extremists on both sides who do not want this problem to be resolved and do not want the refugees to go back early. Because as long as this problem remains unresolved, it is a festering locus for extremism and for the recruitment of future terrorists. Which, ultimately, threatens not only their immediate neigbourhood but, in fact, threatens us all, across ASEAN.
So, there are a lot more details that need to be sorted out. What I can say now, from my own interactions, is that there is sincere goodwill on the part of both Myanmar and Bangladesh. We need the UN to do more. And, of course, as ASEAN, we will also be willing to step up. And it is ultimately about confidence and trust.
And the domestic lesson for us here is to understand why we are so focused on making sure inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations are looked after so assiduously. Because once those ties, the fabric, is torn, it is very, very difficult to put together again.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister concerning our relationship with Indonesia, particularly on the issue of extradition. I believe about a decade ago, the Singapore and Indonesian governments agreed to tie extradition together with some defence cooperation agreements, and, we have noted the Minister's update that we have concluded an ASEAN model Extradition Treaty. So, my question is: how will this model treaty affect our position with Indonesia as far as extradition is concerned? Does it mean that the Singapore Government is prepared to proceed on extradition without it being tied to defence cooperation?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: That is a good question, and I thank the Member for asking that. There are actually two separate matters. The Member has been in House long enough to remember that we had actually agreed with Indonesia on two agreements – Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and an Extradition Treaty (ET). They were both signed in the presence of the respective leaders, Prime Minister Lee and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia. Those Agreements remain signed but unratified. We will have to wait for the political dynamics within Indonesia as to whether Members are going to see any progress on those two bilateral agreements.
What I referred to was the ASEAN Model Extradition Treaty which, in a sense, forms a starting base to begin negotiations for an ASEAN Extradition Treaty. This will not be bilateral. This will be regional. Being a lawyer, you know that once it becomes regional, the scope and conditions will be quite different from that of a bilateral treaty. So, I would still keep this on two separate channels.
The important point for the ASEAN Extradition Treaty is that we do want to emphasise the importance of rule of law and interoperability within ASEAN. But I would not conflate the two Extradition Treaties, because we are going to keep them separate. The specific terms and conditions will not be the same between the two. As a lawyer, the Member would know, for instance, if you want to extradite someone, you have to show that it is an offence on both sides domestically. Now, if we look at a 10 by 10 extradition treaty, you can imagine the permutations and the lowest common multiple will be quite different from what you would have had in a bilateral Extradition Treaty.
So, I think suffice to say without getting into details, our position is this – there is a bilateral DCA and bilateral ET which were signed and witnessed by our Leaders, but not yet ratified. We will wait and see what happens with that. That, however, does not mean we should not be able to proceed with negotiations for an ASEAN Extradition Treaty on different terms. I want to emphasise that it is on different terms.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Deputy Speaker, on the issue of refugees, I am glad that the Minister said that ASEAN countries should step up. Could I ask what kinds of specific help, financial or otherwise, other ASEAN countries, other than Myanmar, have pledged to assist to resolve the crisis? And have any countries agreed to take in some of the Rohingya refugees selectively?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Actually, there has been a global outpouring of support for the refugees. And even from Singapore, I think the Member would be aware that at the grassroots level, at the NGO level, there has been fundraising and there has been support extended to the refugees. We have also extended help directly to the refugees in Bangladesh. For instance, the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) conveyed a couple of shipments. I believe Senior Minister of State Maliki was there at the handover.
Specifically, within Myanmar itself, when they go back – I myself have not visited Rakhine State – but the reports that I have received were that a lot of the homes and the farms were destroyed. Thay actually need to rebuild homes and a means of livelihood. Right now, for instance, I know India and China are helping with constructing prefabricated homes. But actually, what is important is for the refugees themselves to be able to construct homes of their design and at the standard they are accustomed to.
I know one problem which I have been informed of is that there is a lack of labour within Rakhine State to do rebuilding. Therefore, there has been proposals by the Myanmar government to have a cash-for-work programme so that the refugees will be paid to rebuild and to engage in construction and reconstruction.
There will be needs. There will be appeals. But actually, my sense of the issue right now is that the primary limiting factor is not money. The primary limiting factor is trust – confidence on the part of refugees and trust, and the ground conditions within Rakhine State itself. So, let us wait and see.
But we, as ASEAN, should be prepared to help in whichever way possible. And sometimes just the delivery of humanitarian assistance on the ground and having people on the ground – it is not so much the specifics of what is in the package – but the fact that someone else was there. Someone else was there in goodwill and helping to build trust. This is another point I want to emphasise. You must remember that there are other minorities within Rakhine State. In fact, the indigenous people in Rakhine are the minority in Myanmar. They also need support. They also need to enhance their livelihood. Again, trust requires all communities to be confident and to have a hope that there is a better future. There is a lot more work to be done.
I just wanted to clarify a little bit on the point that Ms Sylvia Lim raised. Let me just get this thing right. The Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Extradition Treaty that we signed with Indonesia – it was signed by both governments. Let me just state for the record: Singapore is prepared to proceed as and when Indonesia ratifies those two agreements. Let me just state that for the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, can the Minister share what major points of contention were removed in the single Draft Negotiation Text of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea? And in the Minister's opinion, how far is the draft away from being adopted by all the member states?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Let me be very frank with the Member. Yes, it is true we have arrived at a single Draft Negotiating Text. But let me not raise false hopes that all the issues are simple to resolve. For instance, if you speak to the different claimant states, each of them will stand up and loudly proclaim, \"Those areas are indisputably mine\". In other words, even what is in dispute is disputed. Do Members see my point? \"This is indisputably mine.\" Then another side picks it up and say, \"No, this is indisputably mine\". You cannot even agree on what areas are in dispute. I am just giving Members an example of a very thorny issue.
Other thorny issues: is this a binding agreement? And then there are enough lawyers here who may quickly then ask: is this a legally binding agreement? And then for those Members who are familiar with international law: even if you get a judgment, how will it be enforced? Who will enforce it? So, I am just trying to give Members a flavour of the enormous challenges which lie ahead.
Nevertheless, China has said that they hope that there will be a first reading of the Negotiating Text next year and they also hope that it can be settled in three years. My own view is that that is a very optimistic scenario. But let us not prejudge the issue. As I said earlier, the fact that patient, meticulous and constructive diplomacy has at least brought us to this point where the waters of the South China Sea are much calmer is still worth noting. It is still a positive step. But do not ever assume it is going to be an easy or short journey.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive view of MFA's work. It is important for us to stand up for multilateralism at a time when nationalism is on the rise everywhere. The question I have relates to some of the issues that arose from the SingHealth enquiry. Do we still have to worry about foreign interference in our local politics? And if so, what could be the best steps our people could take to prepare to deal with that?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The short answer is yes. The Member's second question was what steps we need to take. The first point is public education and people need to be aware that we will always be a target for campaigns and misinformation campaigns and deliberate online falsehoods. So, the first thing is to be aware of it. The second point is to be sceptical of what you receive through all your social media feeds. I remember this very good piece of advice that our former President Dr Tony Tan gave. He said when you receive a message, ask who it is from; second, ask who it will benefit and, of course, ask if it is accurate or not. I do not want to prejudge other issues which will be brought to this House. But let us get real. There will always be the danger of foreign interference. You will have to take it almost as standard statecraft of the digital age. And if you assume everyone is going to act with restraint, it will be very foolish.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I would like to join my fellow Members to thank the Minister and MFA especially, for all the work they have done to try and resolve the crisis in Rakhine State and in Bangladesh as well. I have three supplementary questions. One, I previously asked the Minister whether Singapore will be sending a second consignment of humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and the Minister at that point, replied that it is pending further assessment. Now that he has been to the refugee camps, could I ask for an update on whether we will be sending these humanitarian supplies?
The second is on the repatriation, which I agree should happen. But I am wondering whether once they are back in Rakhine state, whether there are plans to grant them citizenship. Because as the Minister mentioned, we have to address the root causes, and one of the root causes of why they fled and resulted in this crisis is because they did not have citizenship.
And the third is in the repatriation process, whether there will be UN peacekeepers on site. I think that was one of the requests of the refugees, to ensure that this repatriation is both safe and secure for them.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: They are three interesting supplementary questions. On further consignments of aid, yes, we are prepared to, but I would consider targeting the aid to the refugees when they return. What I saw in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar – I know the Member was there, but he was there earlier last year – and according to the people on site, there is a vast difference now. The conditions the refugees are living now are much much better than when they first arrived. You know, I used to be the former Environment Minister, so I notice things like drains, latrines, water supply, food supply, cooking gas and energy, and actually there has been a lot of work that has been done, especially on the Bangladesh side of it. My greater concern will be when they return – the rebuilding programme and, ultimately, their livelihoods and making a living.
I really do not want to get into the issue of citizenship because that is not for us, the Parliament of Singapore, to be debating or to decide on behalf of Myanmar. This is something which they have to sort out through their own political processes.
Similarly, this issue of UN peacekeepers is a sovereign issue that has to be sorted out by Myanmar and, if I were Myanmar, I would be offended if a Parliament elsewhere were making pronouncements on such issues. So, with your permission, I am not going to get into those two specific issues. Always think about how we, in Singapore, would view others pontificating or prescribing how we should solve our own political problems.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I will allow one last question. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Sir. I would like to join Members to congratulate the Foreign Affairs Minister for a successful 2018 in terms of foreign relations and putting Singapore on the world map. If I may add on another achievement for 2018, it is also Singapore Parliament hosting the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA), where we had the opportunity to discuss many issues, like deepening regional economic integration, and also meet with many new Members of Parliament, including those from Malaysia.
My question is on RCEP. I would like to ask the Minister whether he sees the prospect of RCEP concluding next year? And whether during the ASEAN Leaders Summit, does the Minister sense the political will to conclude the RCEP? And what could be the obstacles there? And the final point is to assure the Minister that as he represents Singapore in the various places, including Argentina, his Group Representation Constituency Members of Parliament stand ready to cover his duties when he is not around.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you for covering my numerous absences. I must tell Members I travel almost as much as a cabin crew. I calculated, I took about 36 visits a year, so I thank you for your personal support. Actually, I should start off with an apology to the House for not mentioning AIPA meetings which the Member has hosted, and Speaker has chaired. That has been very important and useful. It has also been particularly eye-opening for the younger Members of Parliament to meet your counterparts from other ASEAN states and, more importantly, to see how these issues can paralyse us, can divide us and how difficult it is. I mean there were some resolutions that you cannot even get onto the agenda, much less agree on a resolution. So, I apologise for not mentioning this. I should have. But I want to congratulate and thank all Members who did participate in AIPA, and I encourage you to continue participating as it moves on to other destinations as well.
On RCEP, the statement was very carefully crafted. We reported substantial progress on the negotiations for RCEP, in other words, not yet ready to declare conclusion. There are a couple of both negotiating as well as political considerations which have led to the current position where we can report substantial progress but not yet conclusion. On the Member's question as to what are the chances of it being done next year, well, based on the Leaders' pronouncement last week, all of them indicated their support for it to be concluded in early 2019. On the Member's next question are there potential derailers, of course, there are potential derailers, including the fact that there are several elections next year. I am not referring to Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I just want to add that the performance by the Singapore Members of Parliament during AIPA, led by Deputy Speaker Mr Charles Chong and the team of Members of Parliament, was very impressive. [Applause.]
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Payment Services Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the licensing and regulation of payment service providers, the oversight of payment systems, and connected matters, to repeal the Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Chapter 187 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act (Chapter 222A of the 2007 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) 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":"Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act 2014 (Act 6 of 2014) and the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 179 of the 1996 Revised Edition) to implement the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, and amendments to other maritime conventions, to make miscellaneous amendments relating to merchant shipping, and to make related amendments to the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911 (2004 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) 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":"Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act (Chapter 37B of the 2001 Revised Edition\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185 of the 2008 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo) 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":"Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Infectious Diseases Act (Chapter 137 of the 2003 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong) 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":"Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, Singapore has come a long way since we debated whether to build our first Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line many years ago. We are in a much stronger fiscal position today. However, building a new line remains a major decision due to the large upfront capital outlay involved. For example, the construction of the Downtown Line cost $21 billion, or close to 5% of our gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017. This escalation in costs over time is not just due to inflation, but also because we are now building under more challenging conditions, for example, deeper MRT tunnels and stations amidst our increasingly built-up environment.
Although the development costs are hefty, the benefits extend over many generations of Singaporeans. We should be responsible and set aside funds to invest in our rail network for the benefit of future generations.
This is why the Government announced the Rail Infrastructure Fund (RIF) earlier this year at Budget 2018. The RIF will enable the Government to save up when our fiscal position allows. This will smoothen out the large capital outlay for rail projects.
In line with this, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) proposes to enact the Land Transport Authority (LTA) (Amendment) Bill to formalise the establishment of the RIF. Let me now explain the key provisions in this Bill.
As the developer of the rail network in Singapore, LTA is well-placed to hold, manage and administer the RIF. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill establish the RIF as a Statutory Fund under LTA and assign the function of managing the RIF to LTA.
Clause 6 further sets out the sources of money for the RIF. This enables the Government to set aside money from the Consolidated Fund or Development Fund for the RIF through Supply Law.
Clause 6 also defines the purposes for which LTA is empowered to withdraw moneys from the RIF. Essentially, this ensures that the RIF is only used for the development of the MRT and Light Rail Transit (LRT) network. The key uses of the RIF are as follows.
First, to expand the MRT and LRT network. This includes constructing rail infrastructure, such as stations, tunnels and tracks; acquiring the first set of operating assets, such as trains; performing investigative studies; as well as associated costs, such as the cost of land. The RIF may also be used to replace existing operating assets, if such replacement is required to operate the expanded rail network. For example, when we build rail extensions that connect to existing lines, operating assets on the existing lines may need to be replaced to allow both sections to interface properly.
Second, to replace, upgrade and add rail infrastructure, such as tunnels and tracks, for existing rail lines. The development of a rail line does not end after it is constructed. We will need to continually invest in the upgrading and renewal of the rail civil infrastructure as they age, to ensure safe and reliable operations. These renewal works will similarly require large capital outlays. It is prudent for us to put aside money in anticipation of such spending.
Third, to invest in accordance with the standard power of investment for Statutory Boards. This is to enable the RIF to keep up with inflation. The investments made using the RIF moneys will be held within the RIF, to ensure that the proceeds continue to be ringfenced for the development of the MRT and LRT network.
Currently, the moneys in the Railway Sinking Fund (RSF), which is another Statutory Fund under LTA, may also be used to acquire operating assets. Clause 5 distinguishes the use of the RIF from the RSF. The RIF is intended for the expansion of the rail network and the acquisition of the first set of operating assets necessary to enable this expansion. On the other hand, the RSF is intended for the renewal of rail operating assets, such as trains. While the RIF is solely made up of Government subsidies, the RSF comprises a mix of Government subsidies and Licence Charge collected from the rail operators under the New Rail Financing Framework. This distinction reflects the allocation of financial responsibility between taxpayers and commuters – tax dollars will be used to invest in the civil infrastructure and the first set of operating assets. Thereafter, every generation of commuters will need to pay part of the recurrent cost of operating the rail network, including the renewal of operating assets. This ensures that the burden on taxpayers remains sustainable.
Sir, the RIF will allow us to save up and reinvest in our future, to benefit generations of Singaporeans to come. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the MRT and LRT networks are vital transportation arteries that residents of Singapore rely on. Based on statistics released by LTA in 2017, the average combined daily ridership on our rail MRT and LRT networks is approximately 3.3 million per day. This represents a sizeable proportion of daily commute on our public transportation system, and these numbers are expected to rise in the near future when our total rail capacity is further expanded with the opening of new train lines.
Since 2016, train operators have gradually transferred their rail assets to the Government under the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF). The NRFF is meant to create a more reliable system where maintenance regimes of train operators are regulated by the enhanced Maintenance Performance Standards.
In principle, the NRFF should have a positive impact on rail reliability since it increases the onus of preventative maintenance on the network operators. Yet, there have been several high-profile train disruptions in 2017, such as the flooding of the MRT tunnel in Bishan, the Joo Koon train collision, and a series of incidents that affected three train lines on the same day in November 2017.
These incidents do not seem to gel with the pledge that the Singapore MRT (SMRT) and LTA made in July 2016 that they would increase the headcount of maintenance and engineering staff to meet the enhanced standards. In this regard, I hope that MOT could give the House perhaps an update on whether SMRT and LTA are on track to increase their maintenance capacity, how the Ministry is holding SMRT and LTA responsible for adhering to the Maintenance Performance Standards, and perhaps the consequences they face for not doing so.
The NRFF also introduced a new framework to enhance the financial sustainability of the network – train operators will now pay a licence charge into an RSF that can be used to build, replace or upgrade operating assets. It was subsequently announced in the 2018 Budget that the Government will inject $5 billion into the RIF that the Minister spoke on earlier.
In principle, RIF is meant to allow the Government to save when the fiscal position allows, so as to finance the development of new rail lines and to renew and upgrade existing rail infrastructure. I hope that the Minister can provide clarification on the financing model of the RIF to meet future needs beyond the initial capital injection of $5 billion. I would also like to inquire if the Ministry has developed a set of financing guidelines for the fund and whether it will be making these guidelines known.
The topic of public transport, Sir, is not just a critical one, but it also somewhat an emotive one because it affects everyone in one way or another. While Singapore continues to upgrade and enhance our rail and network system, we need to build in a rubric of checks and balances to ensure that our investments are reaping due returns in the form of enhanced performance and reliability. Has the Government then predetermined a set of expenditure-performance ratios to measure the returns of capital expenditure from the RIF vis-à-vis the expected improvement in train reliability and performance?
Aside from setting up the expenditure-performance ratio, has a set of asset replacement guidelines been drawn up to ensure that capital equipment is replaced or bought before the need to do so becomes pressing? For example, lifts in public housing estates are generally replaced when they hit the 28-year mark or thereabouts. What is the lifespan of rail assets before they are being replaced and how is the operational lifespan of these assets determined?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the coming decade will see several big ticket expenditures in our public transport. While we are setting aside the RIF to fund current expenditure, I think it is also good that the RIF will form one of the foundational pillars to ensure that we have a reliable public transport system to meet future capacity. With that, Sir, I end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
The costs for rail infrastructure development have risen sharply over the years. In a speech that the Minister for Transport gave on 13 November 2017, he noted that the North-South Line costs about $160 million per kilometre (km), while the Downtown Line costs about $490 million per km to build.
Inflation aside, the real costs for rail development will continue to rise because our rail development now takes place in a highly built-up environment. And as our rail network grows, we will always be renewing some part of the system which will also be costly.
So, in this light, the RIF is a timely move. We want to avoid raising taxes substantially or borrowing at perhaps unfavourable rates when the time comes to make these investments. Provided that the Government can commit to prudently setting aside this money, the RIF will help us to finance these important infrastructure developments at the lowest possible cost. It is a move that makes our transport finances future-ready.
However, there are also other challenges involved in ensuring that our transport system is future-ready. Sir, the Government has planned for Singapore's MRT network to reach 360 km long by 2030. This is nearly double that of the present network. The RIF will provide us the financial capability to pay for these important investments, but we must also have the human resource capability to operate and maintain the systems and we must have the public support that commuters and taxpayers alike are willing to pay for the upkeep of the system.
Let me first touch on the human resource factors. Sir, our rail engineers and transport workers perform a highly skilled and often thankless job under demanding conditions. In 2017, SMRT announced that they were on track to increase their engineering staff strength to 700 engineers by 2020. This followed a 2012 review by SMRT that identified a need to triple the engineering strength to handle the maintenance, renewal and operations of future MRT lines.
Now, tripling your engineering staff strength in just a few years means that the majority of our rail engineers today are relative newcomers in the field. Sir, I do not doubt the training, integrity and commitment of our rail engineers. But experience and expertise do take time to develop, and the question is why was the engineering strength in our core public transport operators allowed to remain at levels that are manifestly inadequate to the task?
Let me suggest some reasons. Under the old financing model for public transport, operators had to survive based on profits from the very narrow margin between fare revenue and operating costs. Since there is little that our operators can do to raise the fare revenue side of the box, they had to keep costs down. Maintenance and operations are cost centres, so the pressure naturally fell on engineering to do more and more with less and less.
Sir, this was efficient from a narrow point of view. The old public transport financing model was designed to push operators to minimise costs and, hence, to minimise the fare burden on the public. And because of that, we paid relatively little to operate a world-class transport system while the system was new. But we ended up paying for it later through deferred maintenance and poor reliability. And, today, our rail operators are also paying the price. SMRT trains lost $86 million in the financial year (FY) 2018 because fare revenue simply does not match the operating expenditure required to provide a high-quality, reliable system. It is not hard to see the danger in this.
Sir, it is important that the Government put the financial model for our train operators on a path for long-term stability and sustainability. The Government has already done so with the Bus Contracting Model for our bus operators. A similar contracting model that mitigates fare revenue risks for rail operators, that also gets value for money through competition or benchmarking, may be needed for the rail sector. It is not about rescuing shareholders or private companies. It is about ensuring that our rail operators and their core engineering capabilities have the resources needed to thrive. Of course, we must ensure there are incentives to remain efficient. But the financial model needs long-term stability. A young talented Singaporean must see rail engineering as a viable long-term career where they can make a real difference. With support from the right Government financial and training framework, our public transport operators can build the human resource capabilities for our future rail system needs.
Now, let me touch on the issue of public support for these investments. Planning for our original MRT system took place in the public eye. Early studies began in the 1960s. The final decision to proceed with a rail-based system was only made in 1982. The high costs of a rail-based system, versus an all-bus system, were the sticking point. I think we are all glad that the Government made the decision to invest in the MRT. But the point is that the public was aware of, and publicly debated, these decisions to spend billions of dollars on rail infrastructure.
Today, I am concerned that we lack a similar level of public engagement and shared responsibility for decision-making in the transport system. The Senior Minister of State for Transport is now chairing the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 public consultation exercise. This is excellent. But I would suggest that we go beyond current efforts. We must continue to involve the public as a co-creator of decisions made in public transport, ranging from investing in MRT lines, to determining the quality of service offered. These decisions have cost implications and the public is ultimately paying the bill.
This question of public support for our transport system has often been framed as one of commuter satisfaction. But I think that is a narrow definition. If you put huge subsidies into the system and you greatly improve quality, as the Government has done in recent years, then, of course, the commuter will be satisfied, or at least more satisfied. The taxpayer may not be. But the problem is that today, the commuter may be satisfied without having any idea of the real costs and tradeoffs involved in providing a world-class transport system.
Sir, in FY2018, LTA spent $1.5 billion dollars on bus service fees and collected only $831 million dollars in fare revenue. For rail, the Minister for Transport said in the Committee of Supply debate this year that $4 billion will be spent to renew the rail system over the next five years. Meanwhile, a Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study, commissioned by the Public Transport Council, found that our fares were the second lowest among 12 major cities worldwide. Commuters may not realise that their fares are low, because they are only asked to pay today for a relatively small part of the operating costs.
I think the Government must set out a clear long-term vision of how commuters will contribute to the longer-term funding and investment decisions for public transport. The Public Transport Council’s introduction of the Network Capacity Factor, which links fares to the relative supply and demand for public transport services, is a good first step. It means that when the public enjoys better connectivity and less crowded rides, they share in the costs of providing these services. But now that the public pays part of these system costs, they must also have a way to say when they have had enough. We do not want to force people to buy business class tickets when what they really want is economy – or premium economy. There are no market forces that would allow commuters to tell us what is the right mix of quality and price in public transport. So, the Government has to do more to engage the public to discover this.
Sir, I strongly support the Bill. It places the Government on a firm financial footing to continue to provide a world-class public transport system. I hope the Government can assure us that, in addition to financial capacity building, equally strong measures will be taken to build human resource capabilities and public engagement and support for our public transport system.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the LTA Bill will strengthen the governance surrounding investments and maintenance of our rail lines. Therefore, I rise in support of the Bill.
Before I start, on behalf of my residents who use the North-South (N-S) Line, I would like to thank MOT, our MRT workers, as well as those involved with the N-S Line upgrade for their countless hours of hard work. After the completion of the resignalling project, the reliability of the line has improved. So, thank you.
I would like to raise three points today.
First, can LTA share how we determine on the lifespan of the key assets and system? If we draw on the lessons over the last decade or so, the key issue is how do we ensure timely upgrades, as well as preventive maintenance. Does LTA determine this lifespan through international benchmarks or through LTA's internal assessment working with engineering consultancy companies?
If LTA relies on international benchmarks, can LTA share which country and which system did we use? And when we localise those benchmarks for use locally, do we account for Singapore-specific conditions, such as our heat and humidity levels?
Secondly, I would like to request that LTA communicate to our people the true cost of the MRT system per trip. With that, I strongly agree with the previous Member's view that our people will need to understand, not just the quality of service, but how much it costs them. In the long run, our spending depends on our citizens' needs and expectations. So, our citizens need to know the true cost of service provision, even though we continue to ensure that fares, after subsidies, remain affordable to the broader public.
For example, in our medical bills, we reflect the true cost, and then we reflect the subsidies, before arriving at the amount that Singaporeans have to pay. That is a good approach to keeping Singaporeans informed. As such, from time to time, through various channels, including on the MRT station platforms and trains, we should communicate to our people the true cost of our MRT networks per trip. This cost should include components, such as infrastructure investment cost as well as total operating cost. This is important information for our citizens and, I suspect, will shape our discussions in our Chamber over time. I hope we cannot just talk about satisfaction levels, but also whether or not, like the previous Member said, are we overconsuming or under-consuming transportation resources.
My final point is a technical one. In clause 6(a), can I check how LTA will ensure that the expenses are charged accurately in the RSF and/or RIF since \"demolition and replacement\" expenses could be for both funds? I assume that the Sinking Fund is for existing lines and the Infrastructure Fund is for new lines. Demolition and replacement expenses of any rail line is likely to be a major expenditure. When will LTA charge these under the Sinking Fund and when will it do so under the Infrastructure Fund?
Notwithstanding my few queries, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Darryl David for their questions and suggestions.
Our land transport system is becoming more complex, and commuters have increasingly diverse travel needs and preferences. We have land limitations and fiscal constraints. We need to make difficult tradeoffs in deciding how to plan and develop our land transport network.
I agree with Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that the Government needs to engage the public when planning and developing our land transport system to develop public support and to ensure the land transport system continues to be designed with commuters in mind. This is why we have embarked on an extensive public consultation exercise, as part of developing the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) for 2040. Over the last two months, many Singaporeans have shared their concerns and aspirations. Some have participated in our Focus Group Discussions and LTA is gaining valuable feedback through this process. LTA is also taking the opportunity to share its planning considerations and tradeoffs. Please continue to come forward and participate through the LTMP consultation process so that, together, through partnership, we do achieve the best possible outcomes.
Mr Henry Kwek suggested that LTA communicate the true cost of providing MRT services so that citizens understand the financial tradeoffs. We are not able to issue receipts for each ride, so we use other ways to communicate the cost and subsidies. Over the next five years, the Government is subsidising $5 billion for bus services, $4 billion for renewal of rail operating assets and $20 billion to expand our rail infrastructure. We will continue to communicate to commuters the cost of providing public transport services.
Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Darryl David asked about the differences between the RIF and RSF.
The RSF is not permitted by section 13A of the LTA of Singapore Act to fund the \"demolition and replacement\" of rail infrastructure, such as tracks and tunnels. Instead, the RSF is to be used to acquire operating assets, such as trains and signalling systems, to replace or upgrade ageing ones for existing rail lines.
On the other hand, the RIF is, by this Bill, to be used to expand and renew our domestic rail infrastructure, such as tracks and tunnels. This includes associated works and investments. Beyond the injection of $5 billion in FY2018, the RIF can be topped up in future years when the fiscal position allows.
LTA integrates our transport plan closely with the land use plan and builds new rail lines only when there is a strong use case. This good planning and financial principle does not change with the introduction of RIF. The RIF simply provides the Government with the flexibility to save up, when our fiscal position allows, in anticipation of lumpy capital rail investments in future.
Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Darryl David also asked how LTA determines when to replace and upgrade key assets and systems in a timely manner. LTA determines the replacement schedule of our rail assets based on the asset design life and the specific asset’s actual condition. This is to take into account variance in lifespan under Singapore’s operating environment, as Mr Kwek correctly noted. Where necessary, LTA also engages engineering experts to provide third-party opinions. Going forward, LTA is developing the Rail Enterprise Asset Management System, which will integrate asset information and maintenance records across the different systems, so that the health of the various operating assets can be monitored holistically over their respective lifecycles. The system will be equipped with data analytics capabilities to monitor asset performance and identify potential faults before they occur, so that these assets can be repaired or renewed pre-emptively. This shift towards data-driven predictive maintenance and asset renewal will enable sustained rail reliability, while optimising overall lifecycle costs.
Mr Darryl David asked whether SMRT and LTA have sufficient maintenance capacity to achieve high rail reliability. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made some remarks and asked some questions about human capital development. Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that these questions do not relate to the contents of this Bill but I will take the opportunity to make a few short remarks.
I want to assure this House that MOT, LTA and our rail operators are working hard to raise rail reliability. SMRT has already raised its maintenance headcount by more than 700, as has been noted by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, since its transition to the New Rail Financing Framework. Assoc Prof Theseira also correctly noted that it takes time to train and groom our engineers. To attract, develop and retain skilled engineers and technicians for the land transport sector, we are professionalising the rail engineering vocation and have seeded a $12.5 million Public Transport Manpower Development Fund to drive manpower development initiatives. We are also partnering our institutes of higher learning and centralised academies, such as the Singapore Rail Academy, to roll out workforce development programmes.
But maintenance capability is not only about manpower. It is also about giving our engineers and technicians sufficient engineering hours to carry out these maintenance and asset renewal works. This is why we introduced Early Closures and Late Openings (ECLO) last December.
These efforts are starting to pay off. We have turned the corner. Last year, the Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) for our MRT network was 181,000 train-km. This has tripled to 661,000 train-km for the first three quarters of this year. This is not just a numbers game. The commuters have felt the improvement and I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his comments. His residents have given him good feedback about the reliability of the N-S Line. As the new signalling system for the East-West (E-W) Line stabilises, residents living in the East and West will also begin to enjoy better rail reliability.
Instead of a complex expenditure-performance ratio, the Minister for Transport has laid out a very clear objective target for rail reliability – to achieve one million MKBF for the MRT network by 2020 and sustain it at that level going forward. This is a bold target and very few metro systems around the world have consistently achieved this. MOT, LTA and our operators will continue to work hard to bring commuters safe, reliable and affordable public transport services.
Assoc Prof Theseira observed that we need a framework that allows our rail operators to be financially sustainable. This is so that they can continue to attract engineers to join the industry and to invest to sustain high rail reliability. LTA has just completed transitioning all rail lines to the New Rail Financing Framework this year. Under this model, the Government co-shares the fare revenue risk with the operators. This is a big step towards building financial sustainability that Assoc Prof Theseira spoke about. We will need to evolve our financing model to continue to adapt to the changing operating environment. The Government will continue to review our financing framework periodically to ensure the public transport system continues to serve us well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the idea to build an MRT network was discussed in 1967, just two years after Singapore became independent. This was contentious at the time. It would be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects for our young nation. After 15 years of careful study, the Government committed in 1982 to build the N-S and E-W Lines at a price of $5 billion, close to 15% of Singapore’s GDP at the time. It was a difficult decision but the right one. When these lines started operations in 1987, they opened up new possibilities for Singaporeans to live, work and play.
We have since expanded the rail network considerably. By 2030, with the addition of the Jurong Region Line and Cross-Island Line, we will have a total of eight MRT lines. The improved connectivity brought about by our rail network has allowed us to develop new economic centres and key facilities across our island. The implementation and success of Punggol Digital District, Changi Business Park, Changi Airport, Tuas industrial estate and Jurong Lake District, would not be possible without the enhanced connectivity brought about by the rail network.
The rail system is an economic project and a social leveller. As Mr Darryl David pointed out, Singaporeans depend on the MRT and LRT – 3.5 million trips are made on the rail network every day, bringing Singaporeans to school, work and back home.
Today, this rail network has grown to become the backbone of our public transport system. Because of the foresight of the previous generation, our economic opportunities have expanded and our island home is now more connected. In setting up the RIF, we are following in their footsteps and planning for the future of the next generation. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.06 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, access to justice is an important cornerstone of our society. The Government has strengthened our systems over the years to enhance access to justice for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs). This includes working with the Judiciary to enhance and improve Court processes to save time and costs and enhancing frameworks to enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly in a cost-effective manner, such as through the use of mediation.
Even with various Government-driven initiatives to reduce the costs of dispute resolution, we recognise that some in our society may still be unable to afford their own lawyers for basic legal services. Providing access to justice to persons of limited means underpins the Legal Aid and Advice Act, and the establishment of the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB).
To ensure that public funds are properly allocated to the most vulnerable persons who have reasonable grounds for legal proceedings they wish to pursue, the Act currently has a two-fold test for legal aid. First, applicants must satisfy the means criteria based on the applicants’ disposable income and disposable capital. Second, applicants must then pass a merits test.
The Government regularly reviews the Act to ensure that the Act remains able to meet the objectives that I have just set out. This Bill arises from our latest review.
The Bill does three things: first, it provides for the means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation; second, it provides for greater flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria; and third, it improves the administration of legal aid.
A significant clause of the Bill is clause 7(a), which provides for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation instead of the Act. This facilitates the modification and simplification of the means criteria.
Currently, the means criteria involve an assessment of disposable income and disposable capital. Disposable income is calculated by taking the total income of the applicant and his or her spouse and deducting various permitted deductibles, such as living allowances and Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. Disposable capital is calculated by taking the value of the property which an applicant possesses or is entitled to and deducting various permitted deductibles, such as a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owned and used by the applicant and his family as their home.
These criteria have worked well to identify those who have a real need for legal aid. Nevertheless, some changes to the means criteria may better serve the most vulnerable in the future.
The Bill will allow us to provide for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation, and we intend to simplify the means criteria, without compromising on its effectiveness at identifying the truly needy.
The revised means criteria will be aligned with those more commonly used by current social support schemes, and reference indicators, such as (a) the per capita household income (PCHI), and (b) the annual value (AV) of the applicant’s place of residence, and his savings and investments.
The new means criteria will involve assessing the applicant's gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. This also simplifies the application process for legal aid. Applicants will no longer need to provide various documentary proof of deductibles and, in setting the new PCHI limits, we intend to incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria to minimise the risk that applicants could be disadvantaged by the switch over from disposable income to gross income.
We will set out the qualifying limits for the new means criteria in subsidiary legislation next year, to account for the 2018, or the latest, income data. The new means criteria will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households which will remain eligible for legal aid.
We will continue to regularly monitor and review the new means criteria after implementation to ensure that legal aid remains available to persons of limited means.
Other than simplifying the means criteria, the Bill also provides greater flexibility for legal aid to be given where it is just and proper to do so, for example, to those who may find themselves in extenuating circumstances. This can be found in clause 7(b) of the Bill.
Currently, the Act only allows for a limited deviation from the means criteria. To illustrate, the Director of Legal Aid may disregard certain matters in determining the disposable income and disposable capital of an applicant in four specific circumstances defined in the Second Schedule. Those circumstances can be broadly summarised as follows:
One, where the applicant lives apart from his or her spouse.
Two, where the applicant has a sudden physical or mental disability.
Three, where the applicant has a sudden loss of income.
And four, where the applicant is involved in certain family proceedings involving children, or protection orders between spouses or ex-spouses.
In computing the applicant’s disposable income or disposable capital, the Director may: (a) grant such applicants additional deductibles; or (b) exclude the income of the applicant’s spouse.
However, the Act restricts how much the Director can do in these situations. It also does not allow the means criteria to be adjusted for other applicants who might otherwise fail the means criteria but do not fall within any of those four categories.
We understand that applicants may sometimes need more help. Applicants with other circumstances not currently prescribed in the Act may also face other strains on their financial resources and they may not be able to afford legal fees. For example, LAB currently is unable to help an applicant who fails the means criteria but cannot afford legal services because he has a sudden serious illness and has to pay for major medical procedures.
The Bill will provide greater flexibility for LAB to assist these applicants. Clause 7(b) allows the Minister to direct the Director to issue a Grant of Aid to an applicant who does not satisfy the means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper that legal aid be granted to this applicant. The Minister may also authorise any person, including a panel of persons, to exercise this power.
The remainder of the Bill makes general improvements to the administration of legal aid, and I will run through a few of the more significant provisions.
Clause 3 empowers the Director to appoint public officers to assist the Director, the Deputy Director or the Assistant Director of Legal Aid. Some of the appointed public officers will be specially-trained Legal Executives. These \"Specialist Legal Executives\" will be authorised to provide legal advice to applicants and may also appear in Court for certain matters, such as uncontested divorces. They will first undergo rigorous and specialised training for this purpose.
Clause 7(a) also empowers the Director to decide on the merits test in certain proceedings, instead of referring the matter to a board which comprises the Director and no fewer than two solicitors. This is to streamline the merits test process for what could be straightforward cases, such as uncontested divorce cases where the parties have agreed on all related or ancillary matters.
Clause 10 amends the Act to allow aided persons to obtain additional Court documents free of charge. Currently, they may only obtain a copy of the judge's Notes of Evidence free of charge. The additional documents, such as Grounds of Decision or certified transcripts in relation to proceedings for which legal aid is granted, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.
Clause 17 re-enacts the existing section 9 as a new section 22A, to clarify that the Director has the power to require contributions for legal advice cases. At present, it is envisaged that contributions may have to be paid where legal advice and assistance in preparing certain legal documents is requested. We do not intend to charge a contribution for applicants who have received only oral legal advice, as is the current practice.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill builds on the good work of LAB, supported by the legal fraternity and our key partner agencies, to continue enhancing access to justice. It facilitates the simplification of the means criteria for applicants, provides more flexibility for legal aid to be granted where just and proper, and overall improves on the administration of legal aid.
The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to ensure access to justice for the most vulnerable, and I trust these changes will also enhance LAB’s ability to do its work in the many years to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore. Often times, a person may feel daunted by the prospect of needing to navigate the legal process on one’s own. Some knowledge of the law may be needed to make legal arguments in Court. Some may not be able to afford Court fees, let alone hire legal assistance, aid or representation. For justice to be administered, the best institutional and legal infrastructure is necessary but insufficient; access to them is also important. At this juncture, I should declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.
Access to justice is important, not just for justice between relevant parties, but is also critical for society, a rule of law society, a society where people obey the law and are guided by the law.
As an example, if an employer knew that he or she can get away with not paying the employee's wages agreed upon in the contract because the employee is unable to bring a claim against him or her, it would be much easier for an employer to unlawfully withhold wages. But this would not be the case if the employer knew the employee has access to justice. Therefore, by knowing that there is a possibility that the Court system may be utilised to enforce the claim, there will be greater incentive to obey the law. In this way, access to justice promotes the rule of law, even before something goes wrong.
Furthermore, in certain circumstances, when something goes wrong, access to justice is important for people to not feel that they need to take things into their own hands by resorting to violence, for instance. A tangible example of this is personal protection orders, one of the many things that LAB helps its clients with.
Through this Bill, LAB will be even more effective in its mission of advancing access to justice and the rule of law. I should also state that many members of the Singapore Bar already provide hours upon hours of pro bono services to clients who cannot afford legal fees. So, these amendments in this Bill should be viewed as complementing the already selfless effort of many members of the litigation Bar.
Coming back to the Bill, clauses 7 and 21 remove the current means test in the Second Schedule of the current Act. Currently, the merit test comprises the disposable income test and disposable capital test. The amendment allows the means test to be brought in line with what is currently used among other agencies and welfare services. This simplifies the process and makes it easier for applicants who need various forms of help to use the same supporting documents to apply for the different kinds of help. Related to this, would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how the qualifying limit will be set?
On a related note, there is an increased discretion for the Minister to direct the Director to accept deserving cases should the applicant not meet the rigid means test. The broadened discretion expands the discretion beyond just loss of income or loss of earning capacity, to, for instance, a person who cannot afford legal services because he needs to pay for major medical procedures due to a serious illness. As difficulties in life that may reduce one's ability to afford legal assistance are very varied, it is good that there is greater discretion. Would the Minister elaborate on how this discretion is to be exercised? Is the aim to help those with around the same needs profile as those under the strict means test even though the need may arise from different circumstances?
This Bill also enables LAB to better manage their resources. Under clause 3, the Director may appoint someone who is not a qualified person under the Legal Profession Act to appear and plead in Court for an aided person. Would the Minister elaborate on the rigorous training that these public officers will undergo so that LAB will continue to be known for its high-quality legal services and so LAB’s clients' interests can continue to be effectively represented?
Notwithstanding the ability to appoint public officers to represent clients, Assigned Solicitors continue to play an important role in the LAB's work. For instance, they still seem necessary for specialised cases involving medical negligence, Syariah Court cases, or where both parties applied for legal aid. Under clause 4, Assigned Solicitors serve for terms of approximately three years.
The scope of legal assistance is expanded under clause 10 where other relevant Court documents, besides judge’s notes of evidence, may be provided without fees. This is a welcome move, especially because other Court documents may be necessary in the civil process. For example, the record of proceedings in a notice of appeal includes a certified copy of the grounds of judgment or order, if any, and a copy of the certified transcript of the official record of the hearing.
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore by enabling better management of resources, expanding the scope of assistance, and making the application process more straightforward and less rigid. In strengthening access to justice, this Bill also advances the rule of law in Singapore. Therefore, I support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.
The update and simplification of the means criteria for legal aid to align them with means criteria used in current social support schemes have been long-awaited. The current means test criteria, which take into account the applicant’s disposable income and disposable capital, have been in place since 1958.
To apply for legal aid today, applicants have to furnish documentary proof of their disposable income and disposable capital as part of the legal aid application. Even with such stringent means test criteria, there has consistently been a high percentage of applications, at around 90%, which passed the preliminary means test for legal aid over the past five years. The incidence of abuse is low and the large majority of applicants meet the qualifying criteria.
In 2016, 57% of the legal aid applicants had only secondary educational qualifications or lower. The challenges that this group face in accessing justice are multifold.
First, with lower educational levels, they will meet with more challenges in understanding their legal rights, seeking available recourse and comprehending legal processes.
Second, with limited financial means, there are significant financial challenges in seeking legal recourse.
Third, the inability or difficulty faced in seeking legal recourse can exacerbate existing challenges in their lives due to higher levels of stress arising from the inability to resolve the legal issue at hand.
Over the past five years, about 50% of applicants sought legal aid for matrimonial cases, 10% for monetary claims and 7% for probate matters.
When divorce is on the cards, there would inevitably be strain in the household. The parties involved and their family and children bear the emotional cost of the dragging out of a failing relationship. The ability to seek legal recourse, especially in cases where violence is perpetuated, must be available in the legal system and accessible.
There must also be urgency in helping lower-income claimants recover monies owing to them, and assistance for lower-income families who have lost a loved one to unlock assets of the deceased, especially where the deceased was the breadwinner. While the Public Trustee administers estates of deceased persons where the value of the estate does not exceed $50,000, the Public Trustee is unable to administer the estate where the deceased was the sole lessee of an HDB flat and a child is eligible to inherit the whole or part of the flat.
The mission of LAB is about \"Advancing access to justice, the rule of law, the economy and society through policy, law and services.\" The amendments proposed under this Bill, indeed, further this mission.
It is also timely at this juncture to consider a more integrated approach to provide more holistic support to families which are in need. Legal issues are not merely disputes between litigant and defendant; they can have extenuating and longer-term impact on the family.
To help families to manage stress arising from the legal dispute and any potential fallout, they can be directed to counselling support. Households in need can be directed to social assistance schemes and employment facilitation services.
At the close of the claim, a review should also be conducted to educate vulnerable claimants on how to better protect their legal rights in future. With this, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Hon Deputy Speaker and hon Members, Singaporeans may not often talk about justice, but few will doubt how important it is to have recourse to the law to affirm one’s rights; or to receive proper compensation for one’s work; or to protect one’s property; or to receive a fair arrangement at the end of a marriage; or to obtain protection from abuse. In our pledge, we refer to ourselves as a society based on justice and equality.
To realise that pledge, I believe that justice may be accessible to anyone who seeks it or who requires it. That is why I support this Bill as it is a great step towards strengthening access to justice for Singaporeans who may not ordinarily be able to afford lawyers or seek legal help. Allow me to zoom in on two areas: Public Awareness of Legal Aid and Expanding Services.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the move to simplify the means criteria for low-income Singaporeans in their applications for legal aid. The adoption of PCHI and the AV of the applicant's place of residence, savings and investments to replace the current arrangement, which is based on disposable income and disposable capital, is simpler and clearer. It will also align the means criteria to what is commonly used in other social support schemes.
I also support the move for greater discretion in the granting of legal aid. There are many applicants who are truly needy and deserving but find themselves unable to meet the means criteria for whatever reasons. A closer scrutiny of these cases and an inclusive approach are welcome.
The recent announcement of a website revamp at the LAB's 60th anniversary dinner is another step in the right direction. I support the digitisation of the registration and document submission process as it will help speed up the process to match assigned solicitors to those who are seeking legal aid.
But based on my interactions with Singaporeans through my outreach work with Roses of Peace, it seems that there are still Singaporeans who may not be aware of the available avenues for legal assistance like LAB or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), despite efforts by the Ministry as well as legal awareness campaigns by the Law Society of Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister if there are any more steps that can be taken to educate the public, especially those who require legal assistance but are unable to afford it, about the legal help that is available to the public.
Perhaps our civil society and our social service organisations can play a part to help spread the word on the avenues available for legal help.
I note that Singaporeans who are receiving financial assistance from our various social support systems may also often require access to legal aid. However, not all the frontline officers providing assistance to these individuals and their families may be equipped with the right knowledge of our legal aid services.
Perhaps, we can have a Legal Aid Conference to inform and equip these frontline officers from the social sector with basic legal knowledge and information on legal aid so that they can help their beneficiaries. It will also be of great benefit to have a legal aid playbook or an online resource guide that can be accessed by the public.
It is commendable to witness the progress of LAB since 1958. I understand that, to date, it has received about 400,000 applications for legal aid and, in 2017 alone, it received about 9,000 applications. Most were for matrimonial, claims and probate matters.
I also support the increased funding and support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) over the past years.
These are important institutions in the provision of legal aid and access to justice. But the public often turn to LAB when it is too late, when issues have come to a head or a problem has arisen. Perhaps, there is a role that can be played in promoting awareness of the law and to equip the public with enough legal knowledge in order to prevent legal issues from occurring.
For example, in the area of promoting micro enterprises among low-income families, LAB or the Law Society of Singapore's Pro Bono Services Office can explore working with community organisations, such as Casa Raudha, the Singapore Muslim Women’s Association (PPIS) and Daughters of Tomorrow (DOT), or our trade associations and chambers of commerce, and even small and medium enterprises (SME) Centres, to equip them with legal resources that can help micro enterprises.
In the example of DOT, it is a registered charity that aims to facilitate livelihood opportunities for underprivileged women to build and sustain financially independent and resilient families. Since its inception in 2014, DOT has enabled 150 women to find jobs and start business projects. Some 40% of these beneficiaries are single mothers with low education – secondary school and below. They have to juggle between caring for their children and making ends meet through their micro enterprises.
Equipping organisations, such as DOT with the right legal resources, such as business contract templates and other relevant knowledge, will go a long way to assist these women and, hopefully, prevent legal issues from occurring, thus, reducing the need for legal aid in a small but important and significant manner.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this move to ensure that any Singaporean who seeks justice may obtain it. It is a sign of a compassionate society when we ensure that even those who lack financial means may still be able to afford the ability to protect his or her rights. Access to justice provides all Singaporeans with the same dignity and the same fundamental right to fairness. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Many Members, myself included, have asked for the Director of Legal Aid to be given broader discretion to extend legal aid to those who do not qualify under the means test. I am heartened to see that the Ministry has taken on board our suggestions in allowing the Director general discretion to grant aid if it is just and proper to do so.
It was announced just last week that, from next year, a new system set up by LAB will help applicants access legal aid more quickly by allowing lawyers to browse and select cases, and legal aid applicants to check the status of their applications.
These legislative amendments, coupled with improvements in implementation, are progressive moves towards improving access to justice for the most vulnerable and our becoming a more compassionate society.
Sir, I have three clarifications.
Firstly, the Ministry has stated that the qualifying limit for the new means criteria to be set in subsidiary legislation will take into account the latest income data to maintain the number of eligible households. However, if legal costs have increased, access to lawyers may be beyond the reach to a larger number of households. If that is the case, rather than holding the number of eligible households constant, legal aid may need to be extended to a larger number of households.
When the Act was amended in 2013, the criteria was relaxed to increase the percentage of qualifying citizens and PRs from 17% to 25%. The last large-scale study of legal costs in Singapore was the 2001 Census of the Legal Industry and Profession. The census had suggested that the billable rate of law firms had steadily increased between 1998 and 2000. Is the Ministry tracking the trends in legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains inaccessible? Will the Ministry consider increasing the percentage of qualifying citizens and PRs?
Next, currently, an aided person who wishes to appeal a decision must make a new application for legal aid. In the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, the solicitor is advised that they cannot act for an aided person who is looking to appeal a Court judgment. There are strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal. This is acknowledged in the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, which advises the aided person to file a Notice of Appeal on their own before making a new application for legal aid. However, whether the aided person decides to appeal is likely to depend on whether they are able to obtain further legal aid. In this situation, it is left to the Assigned Solicitor to decide on their own initiative whether to assist the aided person in filing the Notice of Appeal.
Could the Minister clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid for the appeal? The means of the aided person might have changed, but I doubt it would have changed significantly for most persons. Admittedly, the merits of the case may need to be considered afresh if it is going to an appeal. An unfavourable decision may cast new light on the merits of the claim. In a favourable decision where the aided person is appealing against the amount awarded, it should be considered whether the sum awarded truly is so unsatisfactory as to warrant an appeal and whether this should be supported with legal aid.
However, given that the claim has gone through an initial round of merits testing, it may not need the in-depth assessment given to a new claim. Again, considering the strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal, would the Minister consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend legal aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal?
Similarly, a new application for legal aid must be made for an aided person to enforce the judgment. Could the Minister also clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another full round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid in enforcing the judgment? The means of an aided person would similarly not have changed much after obtaining the paper judgment from the Court. The merits of the case would be further reinforced by the favourable judgment given by the Court.
Having supported an aided person all the way to the point of obtaining a paper judgment, surely it would be logical for Legal Aid to see the claim all the way through until the aided person obtains the sum claimed, which is the entire objective of filing a claim in the first place.
Would the Minister consider allowing an initial Grant of Aid to extend to enforcement processes that an aided person may need to undertake? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments will certainly simplify the criteria for legal aid applications substantially. Instead of considering several components of disposable income and capital, focusing on the main categories of the applicant's per capita income, home AV, savings and investments will help to expedite the assessment process.
However, the new set of criteria still leaves certain applicants at a disadvantage. For example, an applicant may need to support parents, siblings or other vulnerable family members who do not stay with him under the same roof and thus are not considered during the computation of per capita income. I hope the Ministry will be able to exercise some flexibility for such applicants on a case-by-case basis.
I would like to seek clarifications about the role of CPF contributions under the new criteria. Will it be considered a component of savings and investments? If so, can it be excluded since the payouts from CPF are not immediate? In addition, if an applicant has a negative net worth, that means his personal liabilities exceed his personal assets. Can this be taken into consideration for his application?
May I ask the Minister how many applications were received in the last 10 years and how many were unsuccessful? What were the main reasons for the unsuccessful applications? Can the Ministry provide details of the various categories?
Lastly, for applicants rejected for legal aid, can the Ministry consider alternative assistance for them? For example, a deferment payment scheme for legal fees may be useful for those who are cash-strapped or who are asset-rich but cash-poor. With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer and an assigned solicitor with LAB.
I welcome these landmark amendments proposed to the Legal Aid and Advice Act which comes 62 years after the enactment of the original Bill.
The raison d’etre behind the Bill when it was moved by the then Minister for Labour, Mr Lim Yew Hock, in 1956 remains the same. This point was put across eloquently by the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah in this House in 2013 when she said, \"Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our society. We may have the best laws, the best Courts and the best system, but all that would be lost if they cannot be accessed by persons in need. Like all things, there is a cost to legal services and not everyone can afford such services. It was with this in mind that the Legal Aid and Advice Act was originally enacted in 1956 to ensure access to justice. That objective remains as relevant today as it was then\".
We have just heard the Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong, subscribing fully to this statement and the hon Member Mr Abbas Ali also echoed a similar point.
When the LAB was established pursuant to the Act on 1 July 1958, Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia to have such a legal aid scheme.
Currently, LAB sees over 9,000 applications for legal aid annually. It celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. It is timely that we review our legal aid scheme to ensure that we keep abreast with changes to our society.
A key reform in the Bill is the changes to the means test to be used to assess eligibility for legal aid. I recognise that it is not easy to fix a fair and equitable means test that is totally immune to criticism. The new means criterion of PCHI is commendable, as it allows more flexibility in the assessment of means, to take into account the overall income situation of the household and not the applicant's individual situation, which may not be reflective of his/her situation.
Let me give Members an example. Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question arising from a case. It concerned a legal aid application made by a father, seeking assistance to be appointed as a deputy of his mentally disabled son. I asked why is it that the father was treated as the applicant as opposed to the son. Ordinarily, his son would have been eligible for legal aid. But he cannot apply because he is not mentally capable. The application for deputyship and legal aid was made by the father. The application, after all, was for the benefit of the son and it was meant to facilitate the care and management of his son. Unfortunately, the father was deemed not eligible for legal aid, as the current means test only looks at his circumstances as an individual and not that of his son.
Under the Act, the Director of Legal Aid may exercise discretion to exclude up to $30,000 to determine the disposable capital of the applicant if the applicant is suffering from mental disability, a point that the learned Senior Minister of State just made. But here, this ground cannot be raised because, as far as LAB is concerned, the applicant is the father, who is mentally sound.
So, one wonders when this proviso can apply because, ordinarily, one assumes that applicants must be compos mentis.
In his reply, the Minister for Law stated, \"It is not possible for legal aid applications to be made for, or on behalf of, the mentally incapacitated person, and then use that person's means to support the legal aid application\".
In my respectful view, such an approach may operate unfairly against the family as it did not adequately take into account the circumstances surrounding the mentally incapacitated son and the reason for the application in Court in the first place.
I am glad to note, however, that if this Bill is passed, then this issue will be taken care of because the PCHI will be adopted as the means test, both the income of the father and his son will be taken into account to assess the father's means more holistically. LAB will also be vested with powers to exercise greater flexibility to provide targeted help to applicants in extenuating circumstances.
The means test must be flexible enough to remain relevant even when there are ups and downs in Singapore's economic growth. In terms of the qualifying limit for the new PCHI means criterion, which I understand will be set later in subsidiary legislation after taking into account the latest income data, could the hon Senior Minister of State please elaborate what are the considerations that will be inputted in relation to setting the limit? For example, would it be based on the 20th percentile of the PCHI?
Would the income limit exclude CPF contributions, a point that the hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned? This should be the case, in my respectful view, because it should take into account actual disposable income.
How about circumstances where families are put into significant expense? I believe that the Senior Minister of State mentioned that this would be taken into account. What will be the principles governing such assessments?
Apart from the new means test, the Bill now provides that the Minister may direct the Director of Legal Aid to issue a Grant of Aid even though the Director is of the opinion that the applicant does not satisfy the prescribed means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper for legal aid to be granted. May I clarify: does this operate as an appeal to the Minister by the applicant who has been refused a Grant of Aid by the Director? This is presumably so, because the Director would have already made an assessment of eligibility at the first instance.
If so, would the Minister require the Director to provide grounds for his decision and would such grounds be provided to the applicant so that the applicant can comment on it in its appeal to the Minister?
And what are circumstances that are contemplated where it would be \"just and proper\" for the Minister to grant legal aid?
May I also please ask what is the outcome of the suggestion that was made in this House by the hon former Member Mr Hri Kumar when the Act was last amended in 2013 when he suggested to Minister Indranee Rajah that the Government, through this Act, introduce a Public Defender scheme, drawing from the private sector, to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings? At that point in time, I read the Hansard and it was indicated that the Ministry would consider the suggestion. I would be grateful for an update, please.
Finally, the explanatory notes of the Bill state that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. I would be grateful for a clarification on the statement. I note that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has stated that the qualifying limit for the PCHI test will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households who are eligible for legal aid. However, there would presumably be some increase in eligible cases given the shift from individual-based criteria to household-based criteria. Would there not be a need for additional resources to be provided to LAB to deal with this?
I would now conclude. Over 60 years, the views expressed in this House is consistently that justice must be accessible to all. The Act has been reviewed regularly over the years to ensure this goal. I support the amendment Bill for its progressive changes made in the way that we assess means eligibility for legal aid to ensure that justice remains accessible by all.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer in private practice. Allow me to begin my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One of the key principles of our legal framework in Singapore is access to justice. This means that one should have the right to obtain legal advice and present one’s case in Court regardless of social standing or financial ability. This right should not be hampered by high legal costs or complex administrative processes. Therefore, efforts must always be made to ensure that support is available to those who require legal aid.
In Singapore, we have legal clinics, where the public can access general legal aid for free. We have the LAB that can provide assistance for civil cases like divorce cases and there is also CLAS for criminal cases. I also know of lawyers who sometimes would do pro bono or low bono work to help their clients who may have difficulties in paying the full legal costs.
The types of assistance I mentioned earlier have more or less helped to address concerns about the issue of access to legal aid. However, there are existing challenges that deserve some attention. Today, we are debating specifically on the Bill for legal aid and advice that will form an administrative guide for LAB, which handles legal aid for civil cases.
One of the concerns often raised is the process of means-testing someone before legal aid can be provided by LAB. Currently, when applying for legal aid, there are numerous details that must be provided and documents to prepare. This process can be daunting. It also takes time and causes the means-testing process to be further delayed. In the Bill currently before us, there are proposals to establish new means criteria that have been updated and will simplify the application for legal aid. I support the proposal. It is hoped that with these new criteria, the application process can be shortened. I also hope that the criteria that will be established can be scrutinised so that more people can be helped.
On this note, another matter that is often raised is the eligibility for legal aid. Having legal troubles is not something one often plans for or expects. So, when one needs to commence action or defend a case in Court, he or she may face difficulties financing the legal costs, even though he or she may be earning a decent income. At the moment, LAB is constrained by the Act in its present form and can only provide assistance to those who can fulfil the prescribed criteria. I am, therefore, grateful that amendments have been proposed to allow discretion in granting legal aid to those who may not completely fulfil the prescribed criteria, but nonetheless still require help. Certainly, there should be guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion. I am hopeful that this discretion will be used judiciously and can benefit more people who may be going through a difficult time in their lives.
(In English): Access to justice, regardless of social standing or financial ability, is a cornerstone of our legal framework in Singapore. Efforts must be made to overcome issues of cost, delay or complexities of the legal system that may hinder access to legal advice or the ability to present one's case in Court. In Singapore, we have legal clinics, the LAB and CLAS to partly address the need for access to justice. I also know of lawyers who would do pro bono or low bono work to assist clients who may not be able to afford legal costs.
However, there are existing challenges within the current framework in the provision of legal aid and advice. Therefore, this Bill is a welcome move and the opportunity to discuss this matter today is much appreciated.
One of the issues often raised is the means-testing process that is currently in place. The assessment process calls for much information and numerous documents to be provided. This can be overwhelming and daunting for the applicant. At a time when they most need help and are most likely preoccupied with significant matters happening in their lives, the requirement to prepare copious documents before they can get help, adds to the stress. This requirement also often delays the process because the applicant would need to set aside time to look for and prepare the documents. I am, therefore, very pleased to note that the Bill proposes to give the Ministry the flexibility to establish new means criteria to be set out in the subsidiary legislation. I note the Ministry’s efforts in reviewing the means criteria, to update and simplify the criteria. I also note that the plan is to align the means criteria to those commonly used in current social support schemes.
While I understand the need for alignment, there are already concerns with the existing means criteria. For example, in determining PCHI, we have heard some grievances of those who have children or relations living in the same address but not contributing to the household income. Also, in considering the AV of a property, it would be pertinent to note that there may be people who are residing in a private property not as a luxury but because of their circumstances. These grievances may be adopted if we take the PCHI and AV assessment methods wholesale. Would there be some way of addressing some of these issues head-on and provide for appropriate deductions or exceptions at the outset? I am not suggesting that the assessments are made less rigorous. I believe it is important to check properly and only grant aid to those who truly deserve it. However, if we already know that the applicant may be facing some difficulties, perhaps we could account for these situations, subject to the provision of some basic evidence.
The other issue that is often raised as a pain point is the eligibility for legal aid. Could there be adjustments to the limits of the prescribed means test to allow for more to qualify for legal aid? Having legal troubles is not something one often plans for or expects. It is not a habit to set aside savings for legal costs. So, when there is a need to commence an action or defend a case in Court, it is common to hear of situations where the individual is financially stretched and has difficulties financing his or her legal costs, even though he or she may be earning a decent income. In recent times, there have been calls for more legal assistance to be given to the sandwich class. I appreciate that a line has to be drawn somewhere and we will not be able to help everyone. However, we should endeavour to help as many as possible and we need to look at some measures to be able to address this gap.
I am, therefore, grateful that there are provisions in this Bill to give the Minister discretion to grant legal aid if it is deemed just and proper. I believe there will be guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion. I am hopeful that this discretion would allow for more deserving applicants to receive help even though they may not meet all the prescribed means requirements.
On a separate note, in the effort to enhance access to justice and close the gaps, I believe one strategy is to encourage and incentivise low pro bono efforts by lawyers. We have already many lawyers doing pro bono work. But this often comes at a cost to the lawyer’s earnings. I know people joke about how much a lawyer earns. But the truth is that not all lawyers are mercenary and not all lawyers earn big profits. A law practice is also a business and would have overheads and operational costs, just like a medical practice or other professional services. In fact, the legal fraternity also has to go through industry transformation like other industries in Singapore.
Bearing this in mind, and considering the need to close some gaps, we may, therefore, want to cast our sights on a more sustainable solution which could be a win-win solution for all. At the Opening of the Legal Year this year, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, proposed a family law assistance scheme. The idea is to develop a low bono model to increase access to legal services for those in the sandwich class who are embroiled in family disputes. This is a meaningful suggestion which is being looked into. There may also be a further need to incentivise lawyers with Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points to recognise them for efforts in pro bono as well as low bono work. I hope there would be more support in thinking about and developing such low bono models that could allow for more to benefit from getting proper legal advice and aid, but which could also support the legal sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction. I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the amendment Bill. I would like MinLaw to clarify about four points.
First, clause 3A states empowering the Director of Legal Aid to appoint \"suitable and experienced\" public officers who are not qualified persons under the Legal Professional Act. Can I understand more about how Legal Aid will determine what kind of processes or cases will merit public officers rather than qualified persons? And will it compromise the interest of the aided person in representing his case?
Second, clause 5. I note that legal aid is provided to both Singaporeans and PRs. Are all PRs given the same rights as Singapore Citizens with regard to legal aid? Or is there another set of tighter criteria necessary for PRs to qualify, such as closer ties to Singaporeans?
Third, clause 7(a) allows the Director to exercise this new power instead of a board. Can MinLaw share the rationale of this change? How can we balance achieving this potential increased efficiency with the downside of having the Director being a bottleneck or a single point of failure?
Last of all, can MinLaw share about how LAB assesses financial criteria on who to help, especially on the grounds of discretion? For example, there are some families with higher income than the threshold, but the family relationship may have been strained and money is not allowed, or the family have significant medical expenses or debts.
Another point we could look at is the cost of the legal aid to be provided. I mean, say, for example, the sandwich class. They are two different matters. One is to get LAB to handle something that costs thousands of dollars of legal fees. It is another thing to ask the sandwich class to take on a very serious lawsuit which can go on to tens of thousands of dollars. So, will the cost of the legal aid that is being provided be considered in the discretionary framework? Notwithstanding my queries, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for contributing to this debate and also for sharing in our vision that access to justice must be a cornerstone of our legal system. I also thank the very many volunteer lawyers, pro bono lawyers like Mr Murali Pillai who is an Assigned Solicitor for LAB, because these people, apart from the rules and regulations that we make, these lawyers, with their pro bono work, contribute to the richness of making justice accessible to even the most disadvantaged in Singapore.
There are several queries on the Bill and I would like to jump straight into addressing them.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the number of legal aid applications. In the past 10 years, LAB had received a total of 97,100 applications approximately. Of these, 88,800, or more than 90%, passed the preliminary means test.
In general, applicants who were unsuccessful had failed the eligibility criteria because they exceeded the disposable income or capital assets limit. Around half of LAB’s cases concern matrimonial matters. Other common cases concern the enforcement of Court orders, monetary disputes and also probate.
Let me next address the questions about the new means criteria and limits. Mr Henry Kwek asked about the assessment, while Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the qualifying limits and how they would be set. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether CPF moneys would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s savings and investments, and Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether CPF contributions would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s income. Finally, Mr Murali Pillai asked if there is a need for additional resources to be provided to MinLaw to administer the new means criteria.
MinLaw will adopt the PCHI and AV of the applicant’s place of residence, savings and investments as the new criteria to replace the current disposable income and disposable capital criteria. The new criteria are simpler and much more aligned with what are commonly used in current social support schemes.
The new means criteria consider the applicant's gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. We will incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria, such as CPF contributions, when setting the new income limits in the new assessment criteria to minimise the risk that those applicants who were previously eligible would no longer be eligible when we move from disposable income to gross income.
We will not include the applicant's CPF moneys in the computation of the applicant’s savings and investments. This is also consistent with our existing means test.
The qualifying limit for the new means criteria will be set later in subsidiary legislation, as I said earlier, to take into account the 2018 income data. But it will be set at a level where there will be no material impact on the number of households which will remain eligible for legal aid, and it will be set at a level which would ensure that a similar level of households at present, which is approximately 25%, will be maintained.
Next, we do not anticipate at this point in time a significant spike in the number of cases that come forward, and, hence, my point earlier about the allocation of Government resources. So, it will be managed. My Ministry will allocate the appropriate resources to deal with any increased caseload as they arise. But bear in mind also that the amendments do provide for Specialist Legal Executives to come on board to lend support to the giving of advice and also to appear in Court for some of these cases. So, that will also ease the load on LAB.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the use of household income would disadvantage applicants who need to support family members staying in a different household. In other words, what Mr Gan is saying is that if I look at only the household income of this individual, it may not give me a full picture because he may be supporting a family member residing in a different household.
We do not consider family members living in a different household in calculating the PCHI because family relationships can be complex and diverse. The situation that Mr Gan Thiam Poh cited could well work the other way, where an applicant could be supported by a family member not living in the same household. In other words, he is coming to apply, and based on his PCHI, he would qualify, but yet, he is also being supported by a family member living outside of his household. The Government is not privy to the family dynamics in each situation and so, it is best at this stage to use the household income as the best proxy for family support.
Furthermore, this will also be more convenient for applicants, as they will not have to provide information on family members who may not live with them, the extent of their support and the extent of their familial relationship, and why that may be. So, at present, we will keep to using the PCHI.
Given these, we will adopt PCHI as I said, although I would stress that, in appropriate cases, we would also be able to consider the scenario that Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned, where it is just and proper to do so. That is precisely the reason for the framework that we are building into the new amendments, where if it is just and proper, then the Minister may have the discretion to allow aid to be granted. To take the example a bit further, if the applicant is the sole source of support for that family member, and the family member is not a beneficiary of other Government schemes, those are factors that can be taken into account.
Mr Louis Ng had asked whether the Ministry is tracking the legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains accessible and whether we would consider increasing the coverage for civil legal aid. Ms Rahayu Mahzam also asked if there could be adjustments to the limits to allow for more to qualify for legal aid.
I would assure Members that MinLaw regularly reviews the means test for civil legal aid, taking into account legal costs, the cost of living and other factors, to ensure that legal aid remains accessible to Singapore Citizens and also PRs of limited means who cannot afford their own lawyers.
Legal aid is targeted and given only to those with limited means, as it has to be, because we have limited resources and we need to be prudent about how we allocate them. In the most recent review leading up to this Bill, we had taken into account these factors in deciding to retain the coverage at the present levels. And as I mentioned earlier, at this level, approximately 25% of households are covered.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we could consider negative net worth as part of the means assessment, if the applicant's debt liabilities exceed his assets. Mr Murali Pillai also asked, on a related note, if we would consider circumstances where families are put into significant expense as a result of intervening events. We do not generally exclude liabilities, such as debts, when we assess an applicant's means. I think what Mr Gan Thiam Poh has in mind is that if you are servicing or have taken out a loan which may be secured and where the security value may be below the value of the loan that has been taken, whether that can be taken into account. The reason we do not do that is because the applicant may have secured debt liabilities, for example, a mortgage or a car loan, which is quite common, but may still possess savings or income above the means limits. This may then allow him to afford legal fees. He would not be considered, in that situation, a person of limited means.
However, if that person or the applicant has liquidated his savings and investments to pay off the debts and thereafter, remains in a financial situation as would allow him to come within the means criteria, then yes, that person will be considered for assistance.
We will also consider an indebted individual with extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and may grant aid where it is just and proper to do so. For example, if the debt was incurred due to a significant expense as a result of an intervening event, as Mr Murali Pillai puts it, for example, a serious acute medical condition, then yes, those are circumstances that will be taken into account as well in the assessment.
At the same time, whilst we are not expanding the coverage or considering the negative net worth and family members living in a different household when assessing means, the Bill, as I said earlier, does provide for greater flexibility and discretion for aid to be granted to deserving applicants. And this will allow us to provide aid in a more targeted manner, which would also achieve greater equity.
This brings me to the questions from Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Murali Pillai who asked how this flexibility could be exercised. Mr Murali asked, in particular, what are the circumstances where it would be \"just and proper\" to grant aid. I have given a sense of what that might be in my earlier paragraph. Ms Rahayu also asked if we can consider extenuating circumstances, for example, children or relatives staying in the same household but not contributing to the household income, or applicants who stay in private properties due to their circumstances, in our computation of PCHI or AV.
The intention behind the amendments and the regime that has been set in place with the amendments in this Bill is, of course, to allow for a more flexible assessment to be made in order that aid can be granted if the Minister is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to do so, the key words being \"just and proper\". We want to retain that flexibility on a case-by-case basis, because each case will be different; the circumstances present for each applicant will be different and we want to have the flexibility to be able to assess these factors on a case-by-case basis. When such cases arise, the Minister may authorise any person, and that includes a panel of persons, suitably qualified, to make that assessment.
In exercising the discretion, we may consider granting aid to an applicant who might otherwise fail the means criteria but still not be able to afford legal services due to extenuating circumstances, such as those that Members had mentioned. Mr Murali Pillai gave some examples and Ms Rahayu Mahzam as well. We will also consider if family members staying in the same household cannot contribute to the individual’s legal costs. Children are one example; the other would be where the family members living in the same household may be estranged from one another. I just do not want to be taken in my answer to be limiting the circumstances which we consider. So, I do stress that it is on a case-by-case basis and looking at the particular facts of each case.
Applicants who fail the means criteria will be informed of the reason. Applicants who may then have extenuating circumstances can bring this up to the Minister, under the procedure. It is not a statutory appeal. At this point in time, we are working out the operational details and also the procedural steps necessary for this to be highlighted, but it will not be treated as a statutory appeal.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Ministry can consider alternative sources of assistance to applicants who do not qualify for legal aid, in other words, persons who fail the means test. And the example Mr Gan Thiam Poh gave was to ask solicitors to grant a deferred payment scheme for legal fees.
Government assistance is generally given to those most vulnerable and those most in need of assistance. And that is what the current regime for means criteria seeks to achieve.
If an applicant satisfies these criteria, plus the merits test, he will be given legal aid. But if the applicant does not satisfy the criteria, but goes on, nonetheless, to engage a lawyer, we will be unable to mandate that there be a deferred payment scheme for such services, which are really between the individual as the client, and his solicitor. But this, not being able to do it by legislation, does not stop a client from requesting his lawyers to consider either an instalment scheme or a deferred payment scheme as may be appropriate.
Next, we will also be making various improvements to the administration of legal aid.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked for an elaboration of the rigorous training that public officers who are not qualified persons under the Legal Profession Act will undergo in order to appear and plead in Court for an aided person. Mr Henry Kwek asked if MinLaw would decide what cases these public officers would take on and whether this would compromise the interest of aided persons.
LAB will ensure the thorough and proper training of such persons and will ensure that no aided person’s interest will be compromised as a result of the use of such public officers. LAB's Legal Executives are well-trained and they complement the work of Legal Officers.
Currently, Legal Executives already perform a significant amount of work at LAB and this includes the taking of instructions and preparing drafts of certain documents. We feel that many of them are capable of doing more and can be made to do more.
So, we will allow our best Legal Executives to be appointed by the Director to provide legal advice and also represent applicants in Court proceedings and at mediation. All appointed Specialist Legal Executives will have to attend legal knowledge courses on relevant subject areas to the kind of work that they do. So, it would be in areas of divorce, mediation, the Singapore Legal System, professional skills and, of course, legal writing. These courses will be provided by both external providers, as well as through the inhouse legal expertise which already exists at LAB.
They will have to go through a practical training programme, which will cover skills, such as drafting, client-management, client-facing work, Court etiquette and so on. They will be accompanied and receive inhouse supervision by experienced legal officers and have assessments made, before they are allowed to attend Court and represent clients.
This training will ensure that the Specialist Legal Executives will be well-equipped to handle the expanded scope of work so that LAB’s clients’ interests will be effectively represented. Even then, for a start, we intend to limit the cases where such officers will take up to simpler uncontested divorce proceedings where the matrimonial assets are $1 million or less, as a starting point.
If the matters that these officers are handling become subsequently contested or more challenging, they will be handed over to a lawyer, who will take over the matter. We will continually review the role of the Specialist Legal Executive to consider what more they can do. This will, no doubt, ease the burden and bring down costs overall as well as allow for cases to be managed more expeditiously, as I mentioned earlier.
Mr Henry Kwek asked about the rationale for allowing the Director, instead of the Legal Aid Board, to grant aid for straightforward matters. Mr Kwek asked if we could avoid the Director being a \"bottleneck\".
Currently, at this point in time, the merits of all applications are assessed by the Legal Aid Board which comprises the Director of Legal Aid and not fewer than two solicitors from a panel of solicitors maintained under the Act. The Board meets once fortnightly. This means that after LAB has prepared a legal opinion for an applicant, the applicant may have to wait for up to two weeks before aid is granted, deferred or refused.
Allowing the Director in such cases to grant aid for straightforward matters will help, and not hinder, the applicant’s case by up to two weeks, as the Director can now immediately determine whether in that case aid should be granted or not, assuming the means criteria is satisfied, without waiting for the Board to convene.
The discretion, however, will only be exercised in straightforward matters, such as uncontested matters relating to Probate, Letters of Administration and Guardianship matters where the defendants consent to the proceedings. Any application for which aid may be refused will still go through the Legal Aid Board.
Let me just wrap up with a few of the other clarifications that Members have raised.
Mr Henry Kwek asked whether PRs would be subject to a more stringent set of criteria in our assessment on whether they qualify for civil legal aid. The criteria will be the same, but PRs will generally be charged a higher contribution towards the costs incurred for their case, if they are granted legal aid.
Mr Louis Ng asked why aided persons have to go through a fresh means test when appealing a decision for a case in which aid was previously granted and for a case where the aided person subsequently wishes to enforce the judgment. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether the Minister would consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal, given that strict timelines do apply in the context of when an appeal is brought.
We require aided persons to go through a fresh means and merits test because considerable time may have elapsed between the time that the person first applied for legal aid and it was granted, and the completion of his initial matter. The means may have changed during this period of time. And, as Mr Louis Ng also acknowledged, the merits may also have changed, given that the proceedings have taken place, evidence may have been led, and a judgment may have been issued on the case. So, a fresh merits test is also necessary to ensure that we continue to grant aid only to those most deserving and this includes those who are applying for or seeking a meritorious outcome, and this includes for an appeal.
No doubt when a second merits test is involved, where one is making an assessment on the same matter after some time has elapsed, the time taken for that assessment will be quicker. Circumstances in such a case, however, which may affect the merits of bringing or resisting an appeal, or in enforcing a judgment, may have changed, and it would be useful to have regard to this in the fresh merits evaluation to ensure that the grant of aid still remains appropriate.
I would also like to assure the Member that where an applicant requires aid as a matter of urgency, for example, when an appeal is due to be filed, the Director may issue a Grant of Aid on a provisional basis, if the Director is of the view that the applicant is likely to satisfy the means test and is likely to have a reasonable ground for appealing against the decision.
This Grant is typically valid for a period of three months and can be further extended if necessary. Under the Provisional Grant of Aid, the Bureau may assist the aided person with the filing of the Notice of Appeal. In addition, the Director can also issue a notification under section 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act to stay the proceedings for a period of 14 days, whilst this is being done.
Mr Murali Pillai asked if the Ministry has considered Mr Hri Kumar's suggestion back in 2013 for the Government to introduce a Public Defender scheme to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings.
Since 2015, the Government has provided close to $6 million of funding support to the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office which runs CLAS. CLAS, in turn, assigns lawyers to accused persons who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford hiring a lawyer.
So, in this way, this has resulted in expanded assistance to criminal defence cases, as CLAS has been able to assist almost four times as many applicants in 2017, compared to pre-2015 before the funding was made available.
Mr Mohamed Irshad asked if we can equip micro enterprises with legal resources, such as business contract templates. This would, no doubt, simplify the process and the way in which legal services may be delivered on simple matters, but it is probably more appropriate for the Law Society to take this on and we will consult with the Law Society’s Pro Bono Service Office and other volunteer groups to consider if they can provide the micro enterprises with such assistance.
I will end off by highlighting the holistic help which some Members have asked about it, in particular Mr Patrick Tay, that LAB and its partners have been giving to legal aid recipients who have more than just legal needs. This addresses Mr Patrick Tay's question about giving such help to families in need, and also Mr Mohamed Irshad's question on public education and what more can be done to bring awareness of these schemes to the public's attention.
Members would know that the Ministry works with partners, such as the Law Society and the Community Justice Centre, to raise awareness of the law and avenues of legal help, for example, through pamphlets that are produced and also the annual Law Awareness Weeks. The Law Awareness Weeks, which just took place a few weeks ago, has expanded from one which lasts just one afternoon on one weekend, to one that lasts six weeks and is held at various locations across Singapore. This helps to bring awareness of the offerings that pro bono lawyers working with Law Society can offer to the community.
Since 2016, LAB has also established referral protocols for family violence victims with the Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE), and with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) for those with social service needs, such as housing problems, family dysfunction and also addiction issues. LAB is working with other agencies, such as Biglove and Hearts @ Feiyue, for applicants with child protection issues. The referral protocols allow LAB to refer applicants who require other social services to these agencies for help. Conversely, the agencies may refer applicants who require legal services to LAB for legal help as well. So, it works both ways. The referrals have helped a number of individuals and I would just like to highlight a few examples.
For one such referral, the applicant had applied for aid for his divorce proceedings. His wife was verbally and physically abusive to the family on a daily basis, which had a negative impact on the children. LAB, when they came to know about this, referred the case to PAVE and worked with PAVE to make arrangements to assign a social worker to the applicant, and also to give counselling to him and his family.
In another case, an 80-year-old applicant had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and partial Domestic Exclusion Order against his adult son who was violent to him; and this allowed the son to occupy only one room of the flat. However, his son continued to use violence against him and, during one quarrel, his son pushed him on his chest, causing him to hit his back and fracture his rib. LAB was aware of this and immediately referred him to PAVE, a family violence specialist agency. PAVE worked with the Senior Activity Centre near the applicant's flat to set up a community watch for this individual. PAVE then subsequently also worked with LAB to support the applicant throughout the Court process. LAB eventually successfully obtained the full Domestic Exclusion Order for the applicant.
Where relevant, LAB also proactively assists vulnerable victims and applicants to protect their legal rights. For example, if an applicant applies only for assistance in divorce proceedings, but when they come to LAB and LAB officers detect that there might also be family violence involved, then LAB will consider if it would be appropriate for him or her to also commence PPO proceedings or other such measures and assist with those applications. If the order involves the maintenance of wife and children, we will also inform the applicant how he or she can enforce the order if the other party does not comply with the order.
Sir, I hope I have dealt with all the queries that have been raised. I would just like to make a few remarks in conclusion. First, to thank the Members' support for the Bill. The Bill will allow the LAB to continue its good work. As Members know, it is in its 60th year this year
LAB's work is simplified by, first, simplifying the means criteria, which makes the process quicker, easier and also fairer; second, providing for more flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria, but nonetheless still cannot afford legal services for a number of reasons; and finally, improving the overall the administration of legal aid.
This is part and parcel of MinLaw's efforts to ensure that legal representation remains accessible for the general public and, in particular, the most vulnerable of persons.
Beyond legal aid, MinLaw is also committed to ensuring that the legal process is made simple and that access to justice in other forms will be enhanced. So, we enhance the family justice system, which centres on the welfare of the child and the family, through the Family Justice Review Committee established with MSF and the Courts.
Second, we are also looking at substantive reforms in civil law to keep legal costs affordable, to reduce the complexity of civil proceedings and to strengthen the enforcement of civil judgments. Finally, we also enhanced frameworks that enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly and cost-effectively and, where possible, as amicably as they possibly can in the circumstances. So, we have built up the infrastructure for mediation to take place; community mediation has been happening for a while. And we have also raised the claims limit recently for the Small Claims Tribunal from $10,000 to $20,000, so as to allow more to benefit from this quick and relatively inexpensive forum.
Finally, as I said at the outset, and I reiterate, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the various contributions from so many community partners and the legal fraternity, including the assigned lawyers and volunteer lawyers, all of whom have made LAB's work richer and more satisfying in the last 60 years.
We thank them for their continued support, and we will continue to work closely with the legal fraternity to provide access to justice to persons with limited means through pro bono efforts or low bono efforts and assess how we may better recognise lawyers for these efforts, as Ms Rahayu Mahzam had suggested. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Money laundering and terrorism financing are serious crimes which can have severe and even devastating consequences for Singapore. Left unchecked, they can destroy our reputation as a trusted global financial centre or lead to terrorist attacks.
We are strongly committed to combating these threats and making sure they do not take root here. We closely supervise our banking and trading systems to prevent them from being exploited and have tough legislation and regulations which we strictly enforce. In the last five years, we have seen around 70 convictions annually for money laundering. In 2016, we convicted six foreign nationals for terrorism financing. However, we will need to strengthen our defences.
Money laundering and terrorism financing are getting harder to tackle. With banking and financial systems going digital, monies can now be swiftly transferred between persons and across borders with minimum hassle. This opens up more channels to launder illicit funds and support terrorist activities. The growing volume and complexity of financial transactions also make it harder for regulators to detect offences. In particular, we are concerned with several groups exposed to the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing.
The first group comprises corporations and professional service providers.
In one recent case, a foreign national paid a local corporate service provider to set up several \"shell\" companies in Singapore. The bank account of one of these companies was then used as a pass-through for stolen monies. The service provider should have known better than to be complicit in this scheme but was overcome by the temptation of easy money.
The second group comprises individuals in Singapore, who act as money mules for overseas organised syndicates. This is where an individual is paid to simply accept money transfers into his or her bank account, and then transfer it out again, thus covering the tracks of illicit funds. The syndicates exploit the anonymity and reach of the Internet messaging tools and online banking to recruit locals to their schemes, and to move monies quickly through our financial system.
We must get tough on both groups. Although regulations are in place, we need more severe punishments to enhance deterrence and more effectively deprive the criminals of their illicit assets. We must also enhance our abilities to detect and prosecute these cases.
This is the aim of the proposed amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, or CDSA in short, and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (TSOFA).
We have benchmarked our proposals against the practices of leading jurisdictions, such as Australia, the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and Hong Kong. We have also considered international norms set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), of which we are a member. As Members know, FATF is an intergovernmental body which develops international standards to fight money laundering and terrorism financing.
I will, first, explain the proposed amendments targeted at corporations and professional service providers who become involved with money laundering and terrorism financing.
To strengthen deterrence, we propose to increase the penalties for these offences, some of which have not been changed since 2003. Clauses 7 to 10 amend sections 43(5), 44(5), 46(6) and 47(6) to raise the maximum penalty for money laundering committed by an entity from $1 million to the higher of $1 million or twice the value of the property involved.
Next, we will increase the penalties for not reporting suspicious transactions. Today, a person is required under the CDSA to report to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) when he knows or has reason to believe that any property is linked to criminal conduct or drug dealing and comes across such information in the course of his work. Such reporting is critical to our ability to enforce against money laundering and other crimes, as law enforcement agencies rely heavily on such intelligence to initiate and support investigations. However, the existing penalties for not doing so are manifestly low, with a maximum fine at only $20,000. Given the sums of money involved in such crimes, this is not sufficient as a deterrent.
To illustrate, a property agent was fined this year for not filing a Suspicious Transaction Report after finding out that his client was linked to a foreign Ponzi scheme. This is despite the property agent being well aware of his obligations to file the Report through guidelines and checklists issued by the Council for Estate Agencies. For this case, the client had wanted to buy a property at Sentosa Cove. Had the sale gone through, the agent’s commission would have been in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars. A maximum fine of $20,000 clearly makes it a small risk to take.
Clause 5, therefore, amends section 39 to raise the maximum penalty for failing to file a Suspicious Transaction Report under section 39(2) to a fine not exceeding $250,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years if the offender is an individual, and to a fine not exceeding $500,000 for corporations.
A related issue is tipping off on any investigations under CDSA or any disclosure made to the Suspicious Transactions Reporting Officer. Such behaviour subverts the course of justice. The penalties should, therefore, be increased. Clause 13 amends section 48 to raise the maximum fine for tipping off under section 48(1) or (2) from $30,000 to $250,000.
Clause 20 amends section 6A of the TSOFA to raise the maximum penalty for non-individuals who commit a terrorism financing offence under sections 3 to 6 of the TSOFA from $1 million to the higher of $1 million or twice the value of the property, financial service or financial transaction involved in the offence. Again, this is to ensure that higher penalties can be imposed on corporations that finance terrorist activities, for which $1 million may not be a sufficient deterrent.
It is also important for us to enhance penalties for not disclosing information related to terrorism financing to the Police.
Clause 22 amends section 8 of the TSOFA to, amongst other things, raise the maximum penalties for failing to inform the Police about transactions relating to a terrorist’s property or whenever one controls or possesses such property.
Clause 23 amends section 10(1) to raise the maximum penalty for failing to disclose to the Police information which a person knows or believes might assist in preventing a terrorism financing offence or lead to the arrest, prosecution or conviction of another person for terrorism financing. The penalty increase under these offences will be tiered into three categories with differentiated punishments to reflect the differing culpability of groups that might commit such offences.
First, individuals who come across the property or information in the course of their work, such as bankers. These individuals have a high level of culpability if they do not inform the Police, because they are bound to standards of professional conduct that require such reporting. For this group, the maximum fine will be raised from $50,000 to $250,000, while the maximum imprisonment term remains unchanged at five years.
Next, corporations. These also have a high level of culpability due to their professional obligations. They will, therefore, face a maximum fine of the higher of $1 million or twice the value of the property involved in or services rendered for terrorism financing, up from a maximum fine of $250,000 today.
The last group comprises other individuals who are non-professionals. As this group is less culpable, the penalties are unchanged at the current maximum punishment of $50,000 fine and/or five years’ imprisonment.
On a related matter, clause 24 increases the maximum penalties for disclosing information that might compromise a terrorism financing investigation under section 10B(1) and (2) to a fine of $250,000 and/or five years' imprisonment. As these offences subvert the course of justice, they should be enhanced for greater deterrence.
Let me now turn to the proposed CDSA amendments to combat organised overseas syndicates and their money laundering operations involving money mules.
As explained earlier, we have observed syndicates targeting locals and using their bank accounts to launder criminal proceeds. Money laundering operations planned by these syndicates are complex, with multiple money mules being used to make it difficult for the crime proceeds to be traced to their original source. Some money mules are even trained not to make any admission during Police investigations and taught to destroy evidence by deleting handphone messages. Under our current laws, the prosecution must prove that these money mules know the monies are linked to criminal conduct. This is challenging, especially against mules trained to claim ignorance.
Clause 11 introduces a new section 47AA to CDSA. This criminalises the possession or use by an accused of property which would be suspected by a reasonable person of being benefits from criminal conduct, if the accused cannot satisfactorily explain how he came by the property. With this amendment, the Courts will be able to decide, based on the circumstances of the case, whether the accused could be reasonably expected to suspect that monies are linked to criminal conduct.
The maximum penalties for this new offence are a $150,000 fine and/or three years’ imprisonment for individuals.
I will now move on to the other proposed amendments to CDSA.
While we have levers today to prosecute money laundering that is linked to overseas crimes, our law enforcement agencies have highlighted challenges. Today, prosecutors must not only prove that the overseas act amounts to a serious offence if committed in Singapore. In addition, they must also show that the overseas act amounts to an offence in the overseas jurisdiction. This is based on the established principle of dual criminality. Practically, the law today requires prosecutors to obtain a certificate from the foreign government or a testimony from an expert in that foreign law to fulfil the burden of proof. This is not ideal for two reasons.
First, we frequently encounter delays to obtain the certificate as the foreign government may not act on our request expeditiously, or, in some cases, may not be willing to issue it. Second, engaging an expert is costly and may discourage prosecutors from proceeding with enforcement action.
Clause 12 amends section 47A to address these challenges. In effect, clause 12 will allow the Courts to decide on the basis of evidence presented by the Prosecution that an offence has, indeed, been committed in the overseas jurisdiction, without having to rely on foreign governments or experts.
We will also amend our laws to strengthen our levers against Cross Border Cash Reporting Regime (CBCRR) offences.
Under sections 48C(2) and 48E(2) of CDSA, a person is required to declare to the authorities any sum of monies brought into or out of Singapore exceeding the prescribed amount, which is $20,000 today. Failure to make a report constitutes a CBCRR offence.
Clause 15 introduces a new section 48FA to empower the Court to make a confiscation order against a defendant convicted of a CBCRR offence on any sum beyond the prescribed amount. This means that for a person who is convicted of bringing $100,000 into or out of Singapore without declaring it, the Court has the option to confiscate up to $80,000. This gives the Court greater discretion to impose heavier penalties for CBCRR cases. This will bring our penalties in line with jurisdictions like the US.
For the less serious CBCRR cases, the Police have the powers to compound in lieu of prosecution. Clause 16 amends section 60(1) to raise the maximum composition amount for an offence under section 48C(2) or 48E(2) to $20,000.
These proposed amendments allow a wider range of penalties and composition fines to be taken against CBCRR breaches of different severity and are in line with standards set by FATF.
Next, we will also amend CDSA to enhance the sharing of financial intelligence with financial intelligence units of overseas jurisdictions. As money laundering offences are often transnational, the exchange of financial intelligence between jurisdictions is critical to support the investigation of these cases. Currently, the law only allows us to exchange intelligence with countries with which we have bilateral arrangements. We have around 50 such arrangements today with other countries’ financial intelligence units.
Clause 6 amends section 41 to allow us to exchange information under an international arrangement, provided that there are sufficient safeguards to protect the confidentiality of information shared and control their use. In effect, this will allow us to exchange financial intelligence with more than 150 financial intelligence units of overseas jurisdictions which are members of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, thereby tripling the size of our network. We will be able to access more valuable information, while being assured that information shared in return is not abused, through the guidelines that the Egmont Group puts in place for its members.
Under CDSA, we will also make amendments with clauses 2 and 3 to clarify the powers of the Courts to confiscate criminal proceeds, and an amendment with clause 4 to expand the types of assets for which charging orders can be imposed on by the Courts to include “capital market products”.
I will next touch on the other TSOFA amendments. While cases of terrorism financing in Singapore are few, these proposed amendments are important to strengthen the counter terrorism financing regime.
Clause 18 amends section 4 of TSOFA to prohibit financing the overseas travel of an individual to any place to provide or receive any training in facilitating or carrying out any terrorist act, when one knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the involved property or services are used to support the individual’s travel. This gives effect to Resolution 2178 (2014) of the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) and is also in line with FATF standards.
Next, we will enhance TSOFA penalties for greater deterrence. Clause 21 inserts a new section 6B into TSOFA to make a person who abets, conspires or attempts to commit a terrorism financing offence under sections 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the Act liable to the same punishment as if the person had committed the offence under the applicable section.
These acts are no less egregious than the primary terrorism financing offence and should be punished at the same level to create a clear deterrence against anyone from getting involved. This proposed amendment will align how we peg our terrorism financing penalties with jurisdictions like the UK and Australia.
We will also make amendments with clauses 17, 18 and 19 to protect a person against civil liability when the person complies with TSOFA prohibitions. This will give greater confidence to a person to do the right thing without fear of breaching contractual obligations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore, as a major international trade and financial centre, faces high risks of our systems being exploited by criminals and syndicates to launder monies and finance terrorist activities. These threats are real and can lead to concomitant terrorist attacks, a loss in reputation as a trusted global hub, and a breakdown in law and order. We must do all that we can to obviate these risks.
These proposed amendments enhance the effectiveness of our laws to deter corporations and professional service providers against being involved in money laundering and terrorism financing activities. They also demonstrate our commitment that we have towards combating overseas organised syndicates and dismantling their money laundering operations involving money mules. All in all, the proposed amendments strengthen our frameworks to combat such criminal activities and ensure that we will have an even more effective set of levers and powers to deter, detect and prosecute. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes involving money laundering and terrorism financing by expanding the scope of offences, making enforcement and investigation easier, and enhancing the offences' penalties.
The Bill is also timely. Why? Because the present and rapid advancement of technology has facilitated the exchanging of cash for virtual currency and vice versa. Technology has also enabled transactions and transfers to be done from almost anywhere. For example, someone who does not have an e-payment app could easily ask someone else to help them pay another person in exchange for the money in cash. This would not normally be a problem unless the cash actually came, for instance, from dealing in drugs or other illicit activities. To make matters worse, there could be a cross-border element to the crime.
This Bill expands the scope of the offences pertaining to money laundering and provides a more comprehensive approach to tackling the issue. In particular, clause 4 expands the definition of capital market products, no longer requiring the product to be linked to Singapore. This allows a charging order to be made against more assets.
Additionally, clause 11 of the Bill creates a new offence for a person to possess or use any property that may be reasonably suspected of being or representing any benefits of drug dealing or benefits from criminal conduct, if the person fails to account satisfactorily how the person came by that property.
These enhancements are to be welcomed.
The other crime that this Bill strengthens our stance against is the financing of terrorism.
Financing of terrorism adds fuel to fire. It adds financial support to aid the committing of heinous acts. Therefore, terrorism financing has to be stopped and its streams of support dried up.
To that end, Singapore is party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. TSOFA implements this international agreement and, today, this Bill goes further in our commitment by implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2178 through clause 18.
Clause 18 expands the scope of the offence to include financing someone to travel to another country to be trained or to train others to commit a terrorist attack. Clause 21 goes one step further and makes it an offence to abet, attempt or conspire to commit those terrorism financing offences.
Because people would not be convicted of a crime without fulfilling both the mental element and physical action of the offence, there may be instances where although they were unaware, acts of terrorism are still being financially supported. As such, may I ask the Minister: what is being done to raise awareness on what are some \"red flags\" to look out for, such that monies donated or provided do not unwittingly fund terrorism?
Besides expanding the scope of offences, this Bill also makes enforcement and investigation easier under CDSA, an Act that the Minister alluded to in her speech. How? By facilitating the sharing of information internationally and by making it easier to prove that something is a foreign serious offence or foreign drug offence. This is holistic and should be welcomed. After all, knowledge and information are key assets in winning wars against terror as well as its financing.
The third way in which this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes is by enhancing penalties. Firstly, the maximum punishment has increased substantively. For instance, clause 5 changes the maximum penalty for an individual from a fine of $20,000 to a maximum penalty of a fine of $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to three years. I agree with the enhancements. Why? Because these financial crimes are calculated crimes based on the lucrativeness and perceived benefit of committing a crime. They can be committed across jurisdictions. Therefore, it is imperative that Singapore plays its part by deploying tough laws to deter money laundering and financing of terrorism. As such, would the Minister share with us how the proposed punishment tariffs compare with other jurisdictions and how the punishment tariffs in this Bill were calculated? I believe the Minister talked about how the punishment tariffs were calculated in the Bill. I am asking how they compare with the other jurisdictions.
Sir, in conclusion, this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes involving money laundering and terrorism financing. It is timely and needed. Therefore, I support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, in its press release on the Bill on 1 October, the Ministry explained that this Bill seeks to strengthen Singapore's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing frameworks. It was stated that the Bill would enable Singapore to more effectively tackle money laundering and terrorism financing, which are usually more complex and transnational in nature. The Ministry emphasised that there was a need to ensure that our laws remained relevant to the current operating landscape.
One gets the sense that this Bill is being tabled because the current laws are deemed somewhat inadequate to deal with the problem of money laundering and terrorism financing. Indeed, the ongoing investigations into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal and the alleged transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to and from the Singapore bank accounts of Mr Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, make uneasy reading. An online financial news portal finews.asia has even described Singapore as, and I quote, \"the banking centre at the heart of the scandal\". While the facts are yet to be fully established, this is a reputation we do not want. I thus support moves to strengthen the legal and enforcement machinery to tackle this challenging task.
To have a further understanding of the need to amend our laws, could the Government share its assessment of the current efficacy of the two Acts in question, namely, CDSA and TSOFA? What has been the rate of reporting, detection and prosecution, and how satisfactory is it?
Coming back to the Bill now before the House, I note that the Bill focuses much attention on enhancing the penalties for offences. For instance, under clause 5, the maximum fine for not reporting knowledge or suspicion of property suspected to be linked to drug dealing or criminal conduct has gone up from $20,000 to $250,000, an increase of 12.5 times. For offenders who are not individuals, being entities, such as banks and corporations, the fine has gone up to $500,000, an increase of 25 times. Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 22 and 23 will also impose on entities an additional monetary exposure of being fined an amount of up to two times the value of the benefits of crime.
Sir, having penalties that sting is certainly necessary, but not a sufficient deterrent by themselves. Such illicit activities will go on unless the chance of being caught is high. Here, the law enforcement agencies face a monumental task. Besides their transnational nature, laundering criminal proceeds and financing terrorism usually involve layers of intermediaries, including seemingly innocuous ones like legitimate businesses and charities, making detection especially challenging. Earlier, the Minister also mentioned anonymous digital transfers as yet another obstacle for investigators to overcome today. In this vein, I would like to seek some clarification as to how the Government as a whole is going about improving the likelihood of detection of such activities. Such an endeavour will involve other authorities and agencies besides the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Last year, it was announced that the Government was going on the offensive against money laundering and terrorism financing by setting up the Anti-Money laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Industry Partnership (ACIP), under the auspices of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The ACIP would specifically work with eight banks and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS). One year on, how has it enhanced the likelihood of detection of such crimes?
Besides domestic agencies, the sharing of financial intelligence across borders is vital. To this end, I note that clause 6 of the Bill is amending section 41 to enable the Ministry to share financial intelligence not just with jurisdictions with which it has bilateral arrangements, but with other jurisdictions which have endorsed the Egmont Charter and Principles for Information Exchange. It would be useful for the Minister to give her assessment on how well the current bilateral arrangements are working, and to elaborate further on the potential of working with countries who have subscribed to the Egmont Documents.
In summary, Sir, I believe the Bill brings about important changes which are necessary to meet the challenge of tackling money laundering and terrorism financing. Nevertheless, the Government's clarifications on improving detection and the effectiveness of financial intelligence sharing will be most relevant to the Bill's efficacy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Fatimah Lateef.
Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a financial hub. We have trusted reputation as a financial, business and economic centre. Our regulatory framework is current and relatively robust but there may be loopholes. Moreover, money laundering and terrorism funding these days are getting more sophisticated and it may go undetected for some time. Being linked to different aspects of terrorism today seems to be sexy and fashionable, especially for certain segments of people and perhaps also our young who may view it as an exciting adventure. They are more information technology (IT)-savvy, and its use and execution can be very smooth and fabulous but still a form of exploitation.
I support the enhanced framework and the higher maximum penalties proposed in the Bill. This Bill is moving in the right direction to ensure law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers to keep Singapore safer. I have a few clarifications for the Minister.
Firstly, can the Minister explain the role and job description of a suspicious transaction reporting officer? How is it different from the usual enforcement officers? As their jobs entail getting and procuring information with foreign countries as well, how are these officers identified and trained? How are they different from the usual CAD?
Secondly, Singapore is a member of FATF. How do we stand in the implementation of the recommended regulations and guidelines thus far? Under this FATF, it helps us to identify our own national level vulnerabilities. What are these so far and how have we worked to ensure they are addressed appropriately and adequately and are reviewed at regular intervals?
Thirdly, also pertaining to FATF, there is a recommendation on preventing abuse of non-profit organisations and the non-government organisation (NGO) sector. Globally, this sector seems to be at a higher risk for money laundering and terrorist funding activities. Can the Minister share on how we have ringfenced and conducted surveillance on these as necessary?
Fourthly, on matters pertaining to money laundering and counter-terrorism funding, it requires a national and concerted effort. Whilst the financial sector may be more well prepared and vigilant as it is often a target sector, how about our other non-financial sectors and stakeholders? What about accountants and lawyers, for example?
Fifth, in line with this Bill, we may also need to strengthen and have more prudent risk assessment when dealing with foreign businesses and investments. How are we educating and aligning our business personnel, trade sectors and also how is the Ministry working perhaps with our chambers of commerce. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have two questions for the Minister in relation to this Bill. First, regarding this Bill, can the Minister provide clarification on the sharing of cross-border information through the officers who are tasked with the issue of terrorism funding?
Secondly, aside from the financial and audit sectors, other sectors can also be affected and become victims in this matter. How does the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) provide guidance and heighten awareness amongst our Mosque Management Boards so that they have a better understanding and become more vigilant about their financial account matters?
(In English): There is a need for us to develop a culture of risk sensitivity through better risk assessment. All stakeholders across all industries must work hand-in-hand to uphold our reputation and combat the potential undesirable effects of a possibility that is waiting to happen. All stakeholders and the industry's regulators, enforcement agencies and everyone must do our part and uphold our reputation of being a clean and trusted business and financial centre with strong anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing controls. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer who occasionally handles criminal cases.
Given Singapore’s position as a major financial hub and the greater push towards digitisation of our financial services and banking industry, Singapore is vulnerable to criminals who exploit our financial system to make illicit gains.
Singapore is not unique in this regard. There has been a trend of rising economic crime worldwide.
In response to a Parliamentary Question that I filed last month on economic crimes in Singapore, the hon Minister for Home Affairs stated that the number of commercial crimes reported in Singapore had remained stable over the last three years from 2015 to 2017. However, in PwC's global economic crime and fraud survey 2018, PwC noted its findings of a sharp increase and a record high of reported economic crime in Singapore, which is consistent with the global trend.
In particular, according to PwC's survey, more than one-third of Singapore-based organisations experienced economic crime, up from 22% in 2016.
The hon Attorney-General noted in his keynote address at the 36th Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime earlier this year that while our domestic crime rate remains low, Singapore’s exposure to transnational economic crime is on the rise.
The amount of foreign illicit funds seized by CAD in 2016 amounted to around S$164.5 million. This is a nearly five-fold increase from the previous year in 2015.
Given the increase in both extent and sophistication of transnational economic crime syndicates, I fully support the Bill, which seeks to enhance the law enforcement agencies' abilities to seize assets from illicit activities and deter criminals by taking the profit out of their crimes.
In this regard, I beg to differ with the opinion expressed by the hon Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim who postulated the question as to whether this Bill throws up purported inadequacies in the current regime by reference to the 1MDB case. As a private practitioner, it seems to me that actually the 1MDB case shows the efficacy of the regime as it stands now. Singapore, ahead of other jurisdictions, has prosecuted and secured convictions of perpetrators. Not only that, two banks were closed down as the result of quick action by the relevant law enforcement authorities. Not only that, recently, FATF has given Singapore, after a mutual evaluation, a clean bill of health.
So, this shows that the regime works but we are faced with a dynamic situation, not a static situation. And it is entirely appropriate for the hon Minister to highlight that, given the inventiveness of these criminals, we need to constantly check to see whether or not the measures we have are adequate. In this regard, I have a few suggestions.
The Bill provides for the Public Prosecutor to apply to Court to make a confiscation order against monies that a person has moved in or out of Singapore in contravention of section 48C or 48D of CDSA.
This, as well as confiscation powers under sections 4 and 5 of CDSA, only apply after the accused is convicted of the offence. By then, it may be too late as the monies may have been dissipated by the accused.
These provisions will have \"bite\" if assets are frozen at the outset and the confiscation order is then applied against the frozen assets.
There could also be situations where assets from ill-gotten gains are in Singapore, given that it is a prominent international financial centre. But the perpetrators may not be here. Hence, the prosecution, much less conviction, is not contemplated. Yet, there is a compelling case to seize and confiscate such monies, too.
As the hon Minister mentioned, these activities can have the impact of \"destroying our reputation as a trusted global financial centre”.
I would suggest that we consider having civil seizure and confiscation provisions prior to or in parallel with criminal proceedings.
The Organised Crime Act has such provisions. The Act, which was introduced in 2016, allows for confiscation without the need for a criminal conviction where a person carries out a serious offence at the direction of an organised criminal group. Serious offences include the various offences under CDSA, such as assisting to retain, acquiring, possessing or transferring benefits of criminal conduct.
However, the Organised Crime Act, as the name implies, requires the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that he or she was acting in accordance with the direction of an organised criminal group. Hence, the ambit is fairly narrow. Providing for a wider civil-based freezing and confiscation regime under CDSA would give the law enforcement agencies more teeth.
As a parallel, the US has a civil forfeiture regime in place, which allows law enforcement officers to take assets from persons suspected of involvement in crime, without necessarily charging them for wrongdoing.
Australia also has a similar legislation which allows for civil-based recovery. Such civil-based recovery allows restraint and recovery of assets suspected of criminal origins without the necessity of securing a criminal conviction.
The UK has additionally introduced an \"unexplained wealth order\" civil-based regime whereby, independent of a conviction in a criminal court, a person's assets may be seized and confiscated in favour of the government if he or she is unable to explain the disparity between his known sources of wealth and the value of his assets.
The UK Law Commission has recently embarked on a two-year project to review its laws on confiscation to ensure effective recovery of proceeds of crime which is presently in the pre-consultation stage. The review will focus on whether the present conviction-based confiscation regime is sufficient and what improvements could be made.
Specifically, it is consulting on a proposal whereby a person who is charged in Court for an economic crime, is also visited with a \"freezing order\" of his assets amounting to the same amount that he is alleged to have gained from the economic crime.
It is typical, in the words of Prof Michael Levi, a very well-known criminology professor, that criminals in such situations often claim that they have spent all their ill-gotten gains on fast women and slow horses. Clearly though, they should not be taken at face value. We should ensure that we have sufficient tools to combat economic crimes, in particular, by depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains. In this regard and in light of the global trends, I have three suggestions.
First, providing for an increase in punishment or some punitive measure against the criminal if the confiscation order made against him is not satisfied. There is already a trend in the UK of unsatisfied confiscation orders. Such paper judgments cannot deter people from committing economic crimes. What we do not want is for criminals to go to jail at the expense of our people, come out and then connect with the monies that they had stolen later.
Second, providing resources to our authorities to \"chase\" after the assets of criminals in other countries. It should not just stop at invoking Mutual Legal Aid Treaties (MLATs). If necessary, there should be civil actions taken to recover the proceeds.
Third, at the point of charging a person for an economic crime, if he has unexplained wealth in his name, even though it cannot be specifically traced to the crime in question, the authorities should consider commencing money laundering prosecution in parallel so that the unexplained wealth may be frozen pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. This will allow the confiscation order that may be made subsequently in the event of a conviction to have more \"bite\".
In my Parliamentary Question last month on economic crimes, I had asked for the total value of assets misappropriated or gained by offenders who have been convicted for economic crimes in Singapore, in contrast with the total value of assets recovered by the authorities. The response from the Ministry was that Singapore does not track such data. With respect we should. Without tracking such data, we may not be able to monitor the effectiveness of our confiscation regime to track our progress on this front.
Separately, I would ask how would the confiscation orders work in the context of co-accused persons? Would they be jointly and severally liable in respect of the confiscation order?
Moving on, in respect of the proposed amendment to allow for exchange of information under an international arrangement, I note from the hon Minister’s speech that this would include the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. Apart from this, what other international arrangements are contemplated, and would such international arrangements be disclosed?
In conclusion, I would like to highlight that the hon Attorney-General's speech at the Cambridge Symposium where he described Singapore's approach to combating economic crime as the 3D approach – detection, deterrence and deprivation.
The confiscation provisions in the Bill specifically focuses on the final \"D\" is deprivation. My suggestions are made in the context of focusing also on the first two Ds, that is, getting the authorities to detect the extent of a criminal’s wealth as well as providing some \"teeth\" to deter like-minded offenders. As criminals constantly revamp their methods to evade detection and the law, we, too, must constantly evaluate our means to guard against them or deter such behaviour. I support the Bill, which is in step with our efforts to ensure that Singapore is not seen as an easy target for criminals.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Members raised many useful points, which I will address.
Let me first elaborate on the regulation of the non-financial sectors. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked how we are regulating non-profit organisations, businesses and professions, such as law and accountancy. She also asked how MUIS is working with the management of mosques to ensure that they do not run afoul of our laws on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing. Mr Christopher de Souza asked how we are raising awareness of such laws so that monies donated or provided are not unwittingly used to fund terrorism.
Professionals in non-financial sectors that may be at risk of becoming parties to money laundering activities, such as lawyers, accountants and so on, are collectively known as Designated Non-Financial Business Professionals (DNFBPs). There are many, many acronyms in this particular set of amendments.
Today, the different DNFBPs are supervised by their respective sector regulators. For example, casinos are supervised by the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA), and corporate service providers by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).
These regulators develop the control measures to address their sector's inherent risks against money laundering and terrorism financing and oversee implementation of these requirements through education and enforcement. Examples of such requirements include the need for DNFBPs to put in place customer due diligence measures and to have controls and policies to ensure compliance with UN sanctions obligations.
DNFBPs who breach these requirements are liable to a range of penalties, including fines or face prosecution.
In the non-profit sector, charities are supervised by the Charities Unit, and mosques by MUIS. These agencies work closely with charities and mosques to educate them about their risks and help them to put in place procedures to identify and report suspicious transactions.
At the national level, MHA, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and MAS have set up the Steering Committee for combating money laundering and terrorism financing. This Steering Committee formulates our national policies on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) to ensure that our mechanisms and controls against money laundering and terrorism financing remain relevant and are consistent with international standards and best practices. It also coordinates the practices of regulatory and law enforcement agencies in different sectors to ensure consistency. Our coordinated national approach has strengthened our regime.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked for the rate of reporting, detection and prosecution of CDSA and TSOFA cases, and how the setting up of ACIP has enhanced the detection of such cases.
From 2013 to 2017, the number of Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) filed increased from 22,000 to 35,000. In the same period, there were about 70 convictions annually for money laundering. In 2016, there were six convictions for terrorism financing.
We strive to improve the situation further through ACIP, which brings together stakeholders from industry and the Government to discuss and raise awareness of transnational financial risks confronting Singapore.
Since it began in 2017, it has published two papers highlighting best practices regarding red flag indicators and crime typologies targeted at businesses and professions. The papers guide industries to put in place better controls to detect financial crimes. The Police are also sharing case-specific information with ACIP stakeholders to help them better detect and report crime.
The increase in STRs filed over the past few years suggests that the different sectors are increasingly aware of their AML and CFT obligations. Sector agencies regulating DNFBPs also observed the improving quality of such reports.
Let me now address Members' questions on the effectiveness of our regulatory regime. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked specifically how we stand in the implementation of FATF standards.
FATF member countries, such as Singapore, go through periodic assessments to assess our compliance with the standards, and whether our measures are effective. The last assessment on Singapore in 2016 showed that we have a strong regulatory framework, good understanding of our risks and good internal cooperation. Nevertheless, we have to anticipate and strengthen our defences. In areas where there were suggestions for improvement, we have taken firm action.
For example, FATF highlighted the need to enhance transparency of information on beneficial ownership for companies, limited liability partnerships and trustees.
In 2017, we amended our laws to require such entities to maintain beneficial ownership information. MOF and ACRA are exploring the setting up of a central non-public register of such information, where timely access will facilitate law enforcement and supervisory efforts.
Another area FATF highlighted was the need to regulate the precious stones and metal dealers (PSMDs).
Since then, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has established a new AML and CFT Division. In addition, MinLaw recently concluded a public consultation on the proposed regulatory regime for PSMDs. A comprehensive regime will be ready by 2019.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we take FATF assessments seriously and are following up on the areas for improvement, some of which feature in this round of amendments as well. I thank Members for their suggestions on how we might further improve our regime.
Mr Murali Pillai was accurate in categorising this set of amendments as anticipatory in nature so that we do not find ourselves on the back foot in a dynamic anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing landscape.
He suggested strengthening our powers of confiscation and shared a number of practices across international jurisdictions which allow confiscation to take place prior to or apart from criminal proceedings, such as civil confiscation regimes, unexplained wealth orders and freezing orders.
Let me assure the House that our current regime already has in place several mechanisms to seize, restrain and confiscate the property of criminals.
During investigations, the Police can seize the property under section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code if it is suspected to be linked to a criminal offence.
In addition, section 16 of CDSA allows the High Court to make a restraint order on the property of an accused involved in these crimes even if the property might not be directly linked to these crimes.
These levers allow the Court to subsequently confiscate the property once the accused is convicted, minimising the risk of dissipation.
In determining the confiscation amount upon conviction, law enforcement agencies will consider the criminal's known income. Similar to the unexplained wealth order regime in the UK, any amount that is disproportionate to his known income will be presumed to have been derived benefits from criminal conduct and confiscated.
In response to Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether we can confiscate criminal proceeds parked in Singapore even though the perpetrator is not physically here, the answer is yes, we can. Section 27 of CDSA allows for a confiscation order where the person has absconded and cannot be brought back to Singapore.
Mr Murali Pillai also had specific questions about how confiscation works.
Regarding his question on whether we should have punitive measures against the criminal if the confiscation order made against him is not satisfied, section 14 of CDSA allows us to do that. In effect, it converts the outstanding amount into equivalent fines and allows the Court to imprison the person in default for not paying the fine. He also asked how confiscation orders would work in the context of a co-accused. Confiscation is pursued against an individual, and not jointly.
With the above measures in place, we assess that there is currently no need for a civil confiscation regime under CDSA. But let me assure Mr Murali Pillai that this is a matter we will continue to review.
On international benchmarks, Mr Christopher de Souza asked how our penalties compare with other jurisdictions. The increased penalties allow for greater deterrence against such offences and are benchmarked to international standards.
For the amendment cited by Mr Christopher de Souza in which we are raising the penalty for an individual failing to file STRs from a fine of $20,000 to a maximum penalty of a fine of $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to three years, the revised penalties are comparable with jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and the US, where fines can go up to S$300,000 and imprisonment in the range of two to five years. So, they are quite comparable.
In most cases, including the case of failing to file STRs, we have increased or tiered the penalties to allow a calibrated response according to the severity of the offence and the nature of the offender. For example, the maximum penalty imposed on a corporation is higher than on an individual.
We also sought to achieve parity across the penalties in CDSA and TSOFA based on the nature of the offence. For example, the penalties for persons failing to report information on terrorism financing is pegged to the penalties for failing to file an STR. This is because, in both cases, there is a similar professional obligation on persons to report suspicious information or transactions to the authorities.
Next, let me address international cooperation and its effectiveness, which Prof Fatimah Lateef and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also asked about the role and training of officers from STRO.
STRO is a specialised unit in CAD of the Police. STRO officers gather intelligence from a variety of sources to detect financial crime and support investigations. As STRO manages sensitive information, all its officers are security-vetted and undergo comprehensive training on their responsibilities in managing such information.
Besides the STRs, as mentioned in my earlier speech, STRO officers also work closely with foreign counterparts to exchange intelligence. Cooperation with overseas jurisdictions has led us to detect transnational crime and prevent our financial systems from being abused.
For example, in one recent case, we detected irregular money flows and shared information with another country. This led to joint investigations that uncovered more than $27 million which had been transferred to Singapore from one of the largest ever overseas Ponzi schemes. We were able to seize the criminal proceeds and successfully return the monies to the country of origin.
Depriving overseas syndicates of their criminal proceeds deters them from using Singapore to launder their ill-gotten gains.
The growing volume and complexity of financial transactions across borders point to the increasing importance of international cooperation.
In my earlier opening speech, I shared with Members how our proposed amendments will allow us to exchange financial intelligence, including information on terrorism financing.
The proposed amendments will allow STRO to exchange information with more than 150 countries under the Egmont Group, compared to just 50 countries today. This will open up new channels of information and allow us to more effectively target overseas organised syndicates and their money mule operations. To Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether the Government is contemplating other international arrangements, we are always open to possibilities but have no firm plans for now.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members once again for their support of the Bill. I hope I have addressed their concerns adequately. Money laundering and terrorism financing are serious crimes.
As an international financial hub, Singapore is a potential transit point for illicit funds. There are serious consequences on Singapore if such risks are not addressed.
The proposed amendments allow us to get tougher on corporations and professional service providers involved in money laundering and terrorism financing activities and target overseas organised syndicates and their money laundering operations involving money mules and other perpetrators. With the support of the House, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) (Amendment) Bill 2018 covers six tax changes. These include a measure announced in the 2018 Budget, as well as five changes arising from periodic reviews of the GST regime to ease business compliance, clarify existing legislation and improve tax administration.
We sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated all the feedback received and incorporated them where relevant to the draft text of the Bill.
Let me start by highlighting the key amendment that we are making in this Bill, which is the introduction of GST on imported services, which was announced in the Budget this year. This measure will ensure that our GST regime remains fair and resilient in a digital economy and will take effect from 1 January 2020.
Currently, GST is applicable on services only in instances where the service is supplied in Singapore, essentially when the supplier has an establishment in Singapore. With the digital economy, it has become increasingly common for services to be supplied by overseas suppliers, without the need for the suppliers to establish a presence within Singapore. We welcome this development, as it allows businesses and consumers to have access to services from overseas suppliers readily.
But at the same time, we must ensure that our tax rules are updated, such that both imported and local services are treated on a level playing field and accorded the same GST treatment. This means that GST ought to apply on local consumption of services, irrespective of whether the service is supplied in Singapore or from abroad.
So, GST on imported services will be introduced through a Reverse Charge mechanism for business-to-business (B2B) imported services, and an Overseas Vendor Registration regime for business-to-consumer (B2C) imported services. To ensure smooth implementation of the measures, MOF and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) have consulted extensively with businesses as well as industry associations. I will explain in greater detail how these measures work.
Normally, GST-registered businesses will charge and collect GST on their supplies of services to customers, and then they will pay the GST collected to IRAS. But GST is not charged by overseas suppliers as they are not registered for GST in Singapore. So, we have proposed a Reverse Charge mechanism where local business customers that are GST-registered and purchase services from overseas suppliers will instead be responsible for accounting and paying the GST to IRAS. That is why it is called Reverse Charge because instead of having the supplier account for and pay the GST as it is traditionally done, we are now asking the customer to do so. Examples of B2B imported services include management, information technology (IT) and payroll services charged by overseas service providers to local business customers.
I should clarify that the vast majority of local businesses purchasing services from overseas suppliers will not be affected by Reverse Charge. This is because we will not apply Reverse Charge on businesses which can claim full refund of the GST they incur on their purchases, including imported services. So, such businesses need not pay the GST on imported services, only then to claim a full GST refund later. Essentially, they are paying and then claiming in full, so really, there is no need to do so. And that is why we are not applying reverse charge on such businesses, and this will avoid unnecessary compliance burden for these businesses. Instead, businesses affected by Reverse Charge are primarily those that are not entitled to full GST refund in the first place, for instance, when they make GST-exempt supplies, and these affected businesses are mainly financial institutions and residential property developers.
So, earlier, the Reverse Charge was for B2B. On the B2C front, overseas suppliers and electronic marketplace operators will be required to register for GST under our Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) regime, and they will have to register if they have a global annual turnover of $1 million or more and make sales of digital services of at least $100,000 to local consumers. So, it is a two-tier criterion. These GST-registered overseas vendors will then charge and collect GST on their sale of digital services to consumers in Singapore and pay the GST they collect to IRAS. Examples of such B2C imported digital services are video and music streaming services, mobile applications and software.
Reverse Charge and OVR are not new and have already been adopted in several jurisdictions with Value-Added Tax (VAT) or GST regimes, such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea. These measures are also consistent with international guidelines for consumption taxes to address the tax challenges of the global economy.
For B2C services provided to consumers, the scope is targeted and, as mentioned earlier, covers only digital services like video and music streaming services, mobile applications and software. Such digital services form a small share of current consumption expenditure.
Clauses 5-20, 22-29 and 35-41 of the Bill provide for the tax change that I just described on introducing GST on imported services, with effect from 1 January 2020.
As mentioned earlier, MOF also regularly reviews and refines the GST regime, and the Bill provides for other changes to existing tax policies and administration. So, let me highlight the key changes.
First, similar to the amendments introduced in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2018, which were passed in Parliament last month, we will enhance IRAS’ powers to investigate tax crimes for GST.
Tax offenders and criminal syndicates are employing more sophisticated schemes to defraud the authorities, as I mentioned in my last speech when I passed the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. And so, enhanced investigative powers are required to more effectively deal with serious tax offenders, as well as acts of obstruction which may hamper IRAS' investigations and prosecution.
The proposed amendments will enhance IRAS' investigative powers by providing authorised IRAS officers with the power of forced entry, the power to arrest without warrant, and the power to carry out body search, subject to conditions, and I should highlight that investigation officers of other tax authorities, such as the UK and US have similar powers to facilitate their investigations.
Similar to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2018, we will put in place safeguards in the way these enhanced legislative powers are exercised. All these enhanced investigative powers may only be exercised by officers authorised by the Comptroller of GST. These authorised officers will receive training consistent with those in other law enforcement agencies, like Singapore Customs and Singapore Police Force.
The amendments will also expand IRAS' power to gather from any person all information relevant to its investigations or the prosecution of offences under the GST Act. Currently, for GST purposes, IRAS may gather information relating to a person’s business transactions only. The amendment will allow IRAS to gather all information as long as it is relevant to the investigation or prosecution. For example, this could include information relating to a person’s income or assets, or information relating to accomplices.
Clauses 3, 33 and 34 of the Bill provide for all of the changes to enhance IRAS' powers to investigate tax crimes which I have just described.
The second broad change pertains to the proposed amendment of the GST Act to allow IRAS to share with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) information that may be relevant to the investigation or prosecution of serious crimes. Such crimes are prescribed in the First and Second Schedules to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. Likewise, this proposal was introduced in the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2018. Again, other countries, like Australia, Norway, Sweden and the UK, also allow for the disclosure of tax information to LEAs to combat non-tax crimes.
The information shared is to be disclosed by the Comptroller to the head of an LEA for the purpose of the investigation or prosecution of serious crimes. Unauthorised onward disclosure of such information constitutes an offence. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the changes.
Lastly, we propose to amend the GST Act to strengthen prosecution and deterrence of unauthorised collection of GST. Currently, an offence is committed if a non-GST registered person issues an invoice or receipt with an amount purporting to be GST. Such an offence is currently punishable by a penalty and a fine.
To further protect consumers and strengthen deterrence against unauthorised collection of GST, the proposed amendment makes unauthorised collection of GST an offence, without reference to the issue of an invoice or a receipt for such collection. This, in turn, allows the use of alternative evidence, such as sales contracts or service agreements, in proving unauthorised GST collection.
The amendment also introduces a heavier punishment, by way of a custodial sentence, in cases where the offence is committed without reasonable excuse or through negligence. The custodial sentence of not exceeding three years is aligned with existing penalties under the GST Act, which are similarly committed through negligence or without reasonable excuse.
In addition, our proposed amendment will counter unauthorised GST collection by introducing a new offence where a GST-registered person, or a person authorised to collect GST, collects more GST than what is allowed under the GST Act, without reasonable excuse or through negligence. This ensures that GST-registered businesses exercise due responsibility when charging and collecting GST on their supplies made and also deters the abuse of a company’s GST-registration status. Clauses 30 to 32 of the Bill provides for this change. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Following the Budget 2018 announcement on the imminent GST increment from the current 7% to 9%, there has been some interest and suggestions on what more MOF can do to make GST collection more robust and equitable.
In general, I am supportive of the amendments, which largely are to impose GST on imported services, and to facilitate and enhance the powers of IRAS to combat tax evasion and crimes. These are very much welcome, particularly with the rise in the purchase and consumption of products and services through digital means and e-commerce platforms, and the higher potential for tax evasion and cyber-related tax crimes.
Nonetheless, I seek some clarifications from the Ministry and I have one suggestion to offer for consideration for future amendments to the GST Act.
First, I would like to seek clarifications on the GST imposed on imported products and services. I am supportive of the changes to impose GST on imported products and services for both B2B and B2C transactions. This will help in creating parity between imported and local products and services. However, may I seek the Ministry's clarification on a few things?
First, are all of our current locally provided services and products through digital means or e-commerce platforms, whether B2B or B2C, done by GST-registered entities?
Two, what is the number of individuals selling products or services locally through digital means or e-commerce platforms who are not running GST-registered entities?
Three, what is the number of local entities selling products or services locally or overseas through digital means or e-commerce platforms which are not GST-registered, but which are charging local GST on their customers?
Four, are these areas of concern for the Ministry, and, if so, how does the Ministry intend to address them? How will the Ministry address GST collection, even without evidence of invoices given to the customer, such as through online payments or transfers? Are the above examples of business transactions resulting in any loss of GST revenue?
Next, while this round of amendments does not involve differential GST rates, I would like to urge the Ministry to seriously consider imposing differential and higher GST rates, specifically for luxury items and certain other items that can have an impact on social behaviour.
To elaborate, luxury items would include more expensive alcoholic beverages, such as wine that cost more than $1,000 a bottle, and also luxury cars that cost more than $160,000 each, for instance. Would the Ministry consider imposing higher GST rates for such luxury items, where the price tiers and corresponding GST rates can be decided through engaging Singaporeans in focus group discussions and eliciting their views?
Besides, we have already imposed differential tax rates for housing, for instance, where residences that cost less than $1 million are charged a 3% Buyer's Stamp Duty, while those that cost more than $1 million are charged a 4% Buyer's Stamp Duty. Hence, it has been done for housing, and can we now extend such differential GST or tax rates to other luxury items, too, such as cars, for instance?
In addition, there are other items, such as alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, which can have an impact on social behaviour and which can be imposed with differential GST rates. To elaborate, tobacco products, such as packed cigarettes, can be imposed with a GST rate of 10% at the minimum, while cigars, which are usually consumed by the more affluent, can have a higher GST rate of 12%-15%, for instance. Likewise, alcoholic beverages can be imposed with a GST rate of 10% at the minimum and gradually increased depending on the alcohol content of the beverage.
Again, the price tiers and corresponding GST rates for these tobacco products and alcoholic beverages can be decided through engaging Singaporeans in focus group discussions and eliciting their views and suggestions. Tobacco products and alcoholic beverages are not daily necessities, and in order to nurture a healthier lifestyle and a more positive social behaviour, differential GST rates can be imposed so as to encourage individuals to choose alcoholic beverages of lower alcohol content, for instance, and eventually give up smoking because it would simply be too expensive a habit to have.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the questions I have and the suggestions I have made for further amendments in future, I stand in support of the amendments in their current form.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Over the recent years, Singapore's e-commerce industry has been growing steadily. According to some estimates, our e-commerce industry will generate over US$3.7 billion in revenue in 2018 alone, and the market is expected to grow to US$5.4 billion by the year 2025.
GST is an important source of revenue for Singapore. The proposed extended coverage to ensure that GST is collected for services purchased overseas serves to ensure that our GST system remains fair and resilient in this digital economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Seventh Schedule of the Bill spells out the types of services that would incur GST. Subsection 2(a)(xi) extends the GST to any advertising service on any intangible media platform, where the Comptroller is satisfied that the advertisement is intended to be substantially promulgated in Singapore.
Unlike advertising on traditional media platforms, online advertising services offer advertisers the ability to target individuals with specifically tailored messages. Even if the advertiser intended for the advertisements to be substantially promulgated here, it might be hard to prove this if the authorities are only able to see a small subset of the advertisements.
Programmatic advertising is another key trend in the industry, whereby software is used to buy digital advertisements. For such advertisements, the one making the decision to show the advertisement to the individuals is an algorithm, rather than a person. I would like to better understand how the Ministry intends to investigate and enforce this.
The Bill also proposes to tax operators of electronic marketplaces. How would the authority calculate the GST payable if an online marketplace sells a mix of services that both incur and are exempt from GST? If it is based on self-declaration, how would the authorities ensure against under-declaration? I would also like to ask if consultancy or advisory services offered through such online marketplaces would attract GST.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while extending the GST to digital services is important to ensure the resilience of our tax system, but this is only half the equation. Does the Ministry have plans to extend the GST to goods purchased online? With e-commerce posing as a serious disruption to traditional retailers, perhaps the Ministry could consider ensuring a level playing field for local merchants who are required to incorporate GST, as compared to their online competitors who do not need to. Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Sir, the move to impose GST on imported digital services is a step in the right direction. However, it raises a number of important questions.
Digital services are becoming an increasingly central part of our lives. We all use mobile apps multiple times a day. From games to health tracking, to stock market information services, we hardly even notice them anymore. For just mobile apps alone, the market is estimated to be US$77 billion globally in 2017 and poised to grow to US$200 billion in 2020. When you add up all the value of all the digital services, including software, entertainment, online learning and search engines, the total value is mind-boggling.
At one level, the imposition of GST on overseas providers is a simple matter of levelling the playing field. Currently, Singapore-based providers are at a disadvantage. This is because they have to charge GST while their overseas counterparts do not have to. This is an issue especially for consumers. They may decide to abandon local providers for foreign ones in pursuit of what they think to be a 7% \"discount\". For businesses, most businesses can claim back GST. However, many small businesses may not be registered and, hence, behave essentially like consumers.
So, the idea, while bold, is fundamentally sound. But the relatively novel nature raises a number of critical questions.
First, how do we ensure even and effective implementation of this regime?
The threshold for OVR is $1 million of global revenues and $100,000 of Singapore revenues. The $1 million global revenue threshold is very low. The implication is that many small companies will be liable under our regime. In particular, I am concerned about small marketplaces. Marketplaces exist to match buyers and sellers. Their actual revenues may only be a small fraction of the turnover on their site. Will the Ministry review this threshold and adjust it if it is found to create problems? And, if not, will there be a mechanism to review it periodically, and adjust it when expedient?
The next question has to do with efficiency of the new tax. How much revenue does the Government expect to raise through this tax? We all know that spending on digital services is growing rapidly. But how much of that would fall under this regime and how much taxes would be generated for our national coffers?
More importantly, what is the cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance? The tax regime will be global. Do IRAS and the other relevant authorities have the capabilities and the capacity? Digital service startups are proliferating, with thousands appearing every day. There could be potentially millions of small GST payers all around the globe. Can IRAS cope?
How will we inform all the affected companies and marketplaces about their liabilities under our GST regime? How will we monitor that all relevant vendors are complying with this regime? And how will we enforce penalties for non-compliance, given that they have no presence in Singapore? Is there a risk that service providers may thumb their noses at Singapore and they basically say to IRAS \"catch me if you can\"?
A global tax regime of this nature is likely to be complex. Will the revenue raised justify the expenditure on monitoring, collecting and enforcing the tax?
A related question is on providers abandoning Singapore. Would active enforcement result in some companies simply deciding not to serve Singapore-based consumers? Small and innovative overseas startups may not be willing to invest in the costs of compliance. They may simply decide not to serve a small market like Singapore. This could potentially deprive local companies and consumers of cutting-edge technology.
Under the new rules, Overseas Vendors are required to obtain and maintain at least two pieces of non-conflicting evidence of customers' location: Payment Proxy, Residence Proxy and Access Proxy.
It is easy to imagine smaller companies saying, \"forget it, Singapore customers are just not worth this trouble\". The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union (EU) was seen as onerous. There were stories of businesses that simply turned away EU customers when GDPR was introduced. They felt that compliance was just too cumbersome. And that was for a market of 500 million people!
One possible consequence is that Singapore-based customers may resort to evasion tactics. They could use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), online credit cards and overseas post office (P O) boxes in order to be able to access these services. This opens them to the risk of penalties. The regime states that non-GST registered customers should not provide incorrect or false information to the Overseas Vendors. According to IRAS, \"customer misrepresentation is a serious offence, and offenders may face heavy penalties\". What penalties are envisaged, and how will they be enforced? Unlike people bringing in undeclared goods, there will not be any physical evidence to rely on.
The final question is a familiar one on the impact of such a tax on some consumers. If we are optimists, we could argue that this broadens the tax base. It makes our tax regime more progressive by generating revenue from overseas companies. This would free up additional resources for beneficial programmes. We can reduce other taxes that disproportionately burden lower-income groups that are already under stress.
However, there is a potential dark side to such a tax. There is increasing concern about a \"digital divide\". Lower-income groups are going to be disadvantaged because they lack exposure to the digital world. Some digital services may also act as more affordable substitutes for physical services. For example, online learning and education and even online entertainment. The imposition of GST on such imported digital services could reduce their consumption. It could price children from lower-income families out of digital experiences. And such experiences are critical to survive and to thrive in the world of Industry 4.0. Will the Government consider some form of digital GST rebates, particularly for \"virtuous\" digital services, such as online learning and online education?
In conclusion, the move to impose GST on imported services is a step in the right direction. As Singapore prepares itself for the new digital economy, I would like to applaud the Government for having the vision and the courage to undertake this bold initiative. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the amendment Bill.
I would like to declare my interest as the advisor to the Federation of Merchant Associations (FMA), which represents many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and micro-SMEs within our Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands.
The issue of GST for online commerce is a major one, and the international debate in western countries has been going on for more than a decade.
Originally, exemption was given by many governments because of the difficulty of enforcement, as well as the desire to promote online commerce. However, online commerce has taken off in a way in many countries, including Singapore. Now the pendulum has swung to the other side, which is that the major online commerce companies are threatening the survival of many brick-and-mortar businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that we ignore the advance of technology. Online commerce is here to stay, and brick and mortar businesses have no choice but to adapt. Our SMEs, especially the micro-SMEs in our HDB heartland, are facing tremendous challenges these few years. Their existence, or not, will impact the fabric of our society.
Having said all that, the SMEs I speak to know that they must adapt. What I heard from some SMEs is the desire for a level playing field, including on the issue of tax. I understand that today we are amending the GST to include online services for taxation purposes. Can MOF comment on the global tax trends in both taxation of online service as well as online commerce of physical goods so that we can have a more informed debate? Notwithstanding my queries, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of Parliament Dr Intan Mokhtar, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Henry Kwek for supporting the Bill and also their comments on the Bill. Let me address the questions raised by the Members in four different parts.
First, on the design of GST for imported services and how the measures can be effective. Both Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Melvin Yong raised questions on how such a regime – GST for imported services – can be effectively implemented. So, let me highlight a few salient aspects of the design of the proposed measure that will enable us to ensure effective implementation.
First, Singapore adopts, as Members are aware, a broad-based single rate GST regime with few exemptions. This provides a good foundation for businesses to comply with the new GST rules for imported services without much need to classify and ascertain the applicable GST treatment, as the same GST rate applies to most transactions.
We build on this foundation by learning from the experience of other jurisdictions and consulting extensively with industry players on how rules may be formulated to impose minimal compliance burden. These include the Business Industry Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA) and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS). Here, I would like to thank all stakeholders for providing us with feedback. We will continue to engage businesses as we prepare for implementation from 1 January 2020.
Second, where possible, we have ensured consistency in our rules with those of other jurisdictions. This eases compliance, promotes effectiveness and provides certainty for the industry. For example, the scope of digital services that is subject to GST as well as the definition of electronic marketplace operators under the OVR regime are generally aligned with that in other jurisdictions.
Third, our rules ensure that we do not impose unnecessary GST liability on businesses. As I mentioned just now, under reverse charge for B2B imported services, we do away with the need for local businesses to account for GST on the services they import if they can already claim a full refund of GST incurred on their purchases. And we put in place a two-tier registration threshold for the OVR regime for B2C imported services, which is based on global annual turnover and sales to Singapore customers. The $1 million global turnover maintains parity with the GST registration threshold of local suppliers, while the $100,000 threshold on sales to Singapore ensures that we bring into the tax net overseas vendors with significant sales to consumers here.
These features enable us to focus our enforcement of GST for imported services on these overseas vendors. This is also in line with the concern highlighted by Mr Ong Teng Koon on enforcing the system vis-a-vis the millions of suppliers worldwide. By designing the system as we have, I think it does facilitate enforcement and implementation.
Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Melvin Yong also asked how we will enforce compliance for overseas vendors for B2C services. IRAS will make use of various information sources to identify and engage potential registrants as well as to verify the GST reporting by these businesses. Similar to domestic traders, business audits will be conducted by IRAS on a risk-based approach. We already do this for our regular GST regime. So, we will extend this for OVR as well. IRAS can also use provisions in bilateral tax agreements to obtain information on overseas vendors from other tax jurisdictions. In the event of non-compliance, the existing penalty and enforcement regime under the GST Act will apply. IRAS will raise additional tax assessments, apply penalties and recover the outstanding tax payable directly or through the appointment of agents.
We are not the first country to do this. So, we have learnt from the experiences of many other jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, which apply similar penalty regimes to non-resident registrants, as with domestic businesses.
That said, as I highlighted earlier, many of these overseas businesses have experience meeting similar VAT/GST obligations in other jurisdictions. Many of them are familiar because we are not the first country and they have experience meeting similar GST obligations in other jurisdictions. So, we do not anticipate significant compliance issues. Experience from other jurisdictions show that these multinational businesses are likely to comply to avoid reputational damage.
On Dr Intan Mokhtar's queries, not all digital services consumed in Singapore, be it B2B or B2C, are supplied by GST registered businesses. So, there are non-GST registered suppliers for such services. We do not track the number of these services. They may be small companies or even individual entrepreneurs providing such services on various online platforms. We do not track their numbers. So, Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about such non-GST registered businesses and the concern whether they may charge GST on their sales. That is, indeed, a concern. And that is why we currently impose penalties and fines on all unauthorised GST collection offences under the GST Act.
In this Bill, we have proposed heavier punishments, including custodial sentence and new offences to further strengthen prosecution and deterence of unauthorised collection of GST. This applies for both local and overseas suppliers.
Ultimately, GST is a self-assessed tax. This applies even in the existing GST regime. It is the responsibility of GST-registered businesses to apply the correct GST treatment on their transactions. On the Government's part, we will continue to engage the industry to keep the GST for imported services effective, easy to comply and certain. That way, we make the GST system a resilient one in generating tax revenue to fund public services.
Mr Ong Teng Koon asked how much revenue will we expect to collect from GST on imported services. We expect additional revenue of about $90 million per year. But I should also explain that it is not just about the delta in revenue collection because this move also seeks to defend our current revenue base from being eroded as more and more transactions move online. So, if we were not to do anything, potentially, the revenue base may get more and more eroded and we may be losing more revenue. So, we have to make this move now to defend our current revenue base from being eroded.
Mr Ong Teng Koon made the comment that overseas businesses may decide to stop their sales to Singapore as a result of the tax measure. It may be a concern for some, but I should highlight as I said earlier that, firstly, we are not the first country to impose GST on imported services. Other jurisdictions have done so, and this is in line with the global movement towards taxation of the digital economy. Secondly, for many businesses, Singapore's appeal to businesses is not premised solely on tax alone. Tax is important but there are many other fundamental attributes, such as our high digital penetration, our sophisticated and tech-savvy consumers, our extensive connectivity as well as our robust IT and logistics infrastructure. So, overall, we are still in a very strong position to be a regional e-commerce hub.
Mr Melvin Yong raised queries relating to the taxation of online advertising services and also asked whether consultancy and advisory services will be subject to GST under the new regime. Briefly, the scope of tax under OVR is consistent with current GST rules and how they are applied to local suppliers.
So, for online advertising services, whether or not GST is applicable depends on the place of circulation of the advertisement. Under existing rules, media advertisement that is circulated substantially or wholly outside Singapore qualify for zero-rating. Likewise, if provided by overseas suppliers, such advertising services are not subject to GST. So, we are using the current GST rules and if it is zero-rated locally, then when supplied under OVR, it will not be subject to GST.
By the same logic, for advertisements placed on the Internet, we regard the viewer access is generally global. Such advertisements can qualify for zero-rating and, correspondingly, will not be subject to GST under the OVR regime.
For B2C consultancy or advisory services, they will be subject to GST if the services meet the definition of \"digital services\", that is, if the service is supplied over the Internet or other electronic network with minimal or no human intervention.
Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there are plans to extend the GST measures to low-value imported goods. Most jurisdictions have in place an import relief threshold for imports of goods via air and post. Imported goods below this threshold will not be subject to GST, so as to facilitate clearance at the border, and to ease administrative costs. In Singapore, I am sure Members are aware, this threshold stands at $400. Below $400, there is no need for GST. Above that, you have to pay GST.
The taxation of low-value goods is a relatively new tax development and we are monitoring international developments on this front. Australia is the first in the world to implement a Vendor Collection regime for overseas suppliers to collect GST on imported goods in July this year. Switzerland and New Zealand, and the EU have indicated plans to do so in 2019 and 2021 respectively. So, again, as we have done for imported services, we first look at what other jurisdictions have done, we study their experiences and then, we learn from these experiences to see what can be done in Singapore. That is what we are doing with regard to the GST measure for low-value imported goods.
Mr Ong Teng Koon shared his concern on a \"digital divide\". That is, indeed, something that all of us ought to be concerned about. There are several ways we are dealing with this. First, we have in place the permanent GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme that provides annual assistance to citizens. This offsets GST expenses for many Singaporeans, especially retiree and lower-income households. We review the GSTV scheme regularly to ensure that there is adequate assistance for the lower income.
Second, as Singapore becomes more connected, the Government will also do more to ensure digital inclusion and accessibility. There are already many programmes under the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) which provide lower-income households with subsidised broadband and devices and access to the Internet. In addition, the Silver Infocomm Initiative offers affordable IT classes to equip seniors with relevant basic digital skills. And, of course, Singaporeans can use their SkillsFuture Credit to offset course fees, including digital courses offered by online platforms.
Finally, Dr Intan Mokhtar proposed introducing differential and higher GST rates on luxury items, as well as items like alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. I understand Dr Intan’s intent. This is not a new suggestion. We have debated this in the House every time we have a Budget and when we talk about the GST regime. Basically, we agree fully with the objective of having an overall tax and transfer system that is progressive, one where we give more help to those who have less. I think all of us share fully that intent. But we have also seen the experience of other countries with a multi-tiered GST system which introduces immense complexities in trying to define what are regarded as basic essentials and what are to be treated as luxury goods.
In some jurisdictions, attempts at classification have resulted in bizarre outcomes, endless disputes and loopholes that may very well be exploited and end up being counter-productive.
So, Singapore’s adoption of a broad-based, single-rate GST regime, coupled with the permanent GSTV Scheme, is a more equitable approach in creating a fair and progressive tax system. We have a broad-based single rate GST, but we couple that with a permanent GSTV which provides targeted transfers and help at the lower-income and retiree households. By doing so, we create a GST system that is progressive, that effectively has lower tax rates for the lower-income while those with the highest means pay at the full rate. Besides luxury items, Dr Intan Mokhtar also proposed higher consumption tax rates for alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. We are mindful of the negative externalities arising from the consumption of such products, as the Member has highlighted and, in fact, these are already taken into account by way of excise duties. And so, these duties are reviewed regularly and updated from time to time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I have addressed the questions and comments raised by the Members. I would thus like to reassure everyone that MOF will continue to review our tax regime regularly to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in the digital economy. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 12.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.45 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviews and Changes Made to SAF Training Doctrines Given Recent Deaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Defence in the wake of the recent SAF training accidents, whether there will be an SAF-wide review on training doctrines that will factor in the learning from the various incidents.
26 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Defence in light of the recent fatal accident involving a National Serviceman (a) how many serious vehicular incidents have there been over the past three years; (b) what have been the safety enhancements since the Shoalwater Bay Training Area incident in September 2017; and (c) what are the Ministry's proposed plans since this latest incident.
27 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence regarding the death of a National Serviceman during training on 3 November 2018 (a) what was the cause of his death; (b) what is the status of the investigations; and (c) how can processes be improved to reduce the probability of something similar happening in the future.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) offer our deepest condolences to the family of the late Corporal First Class (CFC) Liu Kai. CFC Liu was a dedicated soldier who served with honour and was well-respected by his peers. His passing is a loss to the SAF and our nation.
Parallel and independent processes to investigate the cause of the training death of CFC Liu are ongoing. They include Police investigations, wherein the Coroner may decide to hold a public Inquiry. The Armed Forces Council has convened a Committee of Inquiry (COI) whose members all work outside MINDEF/SAF. They comprise the chairperson, a civil servant from another Ministry, a consultant medical specialist, a member from the External Review Panel on SAF Safety (ERPSS), a senior-ranked National Serviceman and a member of the Workplace Safety and Health Council. The COI has started work. The COI has full access to material and witnesses to determine the facts and will make specific recommendations to rectify any systemic or human lapses found. The ERPSS will also provide a written report on the COI findings, which will be made public.
Without prejudicing these official investigations, I will provide some preliminary findings in response to Members' questions.
On the morning of 3 November, CFC Liu was driving the Land Rover carrying a trainer that was involved in an Armour exercise at the Jalan Murai training area. The Land Rover was stationary behind a Bionix Armoured Fighting Vehicle which was part of the exercise. The Bionix responded to a simulated enemy encounter to reverse away from simulated enemy fire. The Bionix reversed into the Land Rover and partially mounted the Land Rover. The trainer was unhurt but CFC Liu sustained injuries. Training was immediately halted and the onsite medic attended to CFC Liu. The SAF Emergency Ambulance Service, unit medical officer, and Singapore Civil Defence Force were activated and arrived soon after to attend to CFC Liu. Unfortunately, CFC Liu succumbed to his injuries and passed away.
There are obviously a number of questions that need to be answered in determining the cause of this incident. They include: were safety protocols followed by the crew of the Land Rover and the Bionix vehicle during this phase of the exercise? Were the vehicle commander, driver and crew of the Bionix aware of the Land Rover behind them and did they conduct their reversal safely? What was the physical state of exercise participants and did it have an effect on their attention to safety protocols? Was there any mechanical malfunction of vehicles or platforms? Did Safety Officers and Vehicle Commanders perform their responsibilities? The COI and Police investigations will fully examine these and other related questions into the death of CFC Liu. When all the facts have been gathered, I will give Parliament a full account, as we have done previously in this House.
Following CFC Liu's incident, a safety timeout was effected for both local and overseas training by the Army to review our safety systems and ensure that our Servicemen can continue to train safely. This included a review of our training doctrines and safety processes that Members of Parliament (MPs) asked about. Particular attention was paid to the safety management plans for high-risk activities, such as live-firing and training, which require the use of vehicles and military platforms. Vehicle operators and crew conducted a series of drills to refresh their training and ensure that they were well-prepared to carry out their assigned tasks. Unit commanders reinforced the importance of safety in training to their soldiers and emphasised the responsibility of every commander and soldier in ensuring not just their own safety, but also of their buddies and those around them. The safety timeout was lifted on 8 November and training has resumed progressively.
Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How visited Exercise Trident in Shoalwater Bay, Australia. The troops had been conducting safety rehearsals to refresh their drills before the exercise. During the exercise, the sea was choppy and affected plans for the conduct of ship-to-shore operations, which was a key highlight of this year’s bilateral exercise with the Australian Defence Force. The safety of our soldiers is of utmost importance to the SAF. The unit adjusted their plans and transferred the forces from ship to shore by helicopter. We can train effectively and safely.
Member Mr Desmond Choo had asked about the number of serious vehicular incidents in the last three years. Apart from this November's incident, there was one other training-related vehicular incident that resulted in death, in the last three years. That involved the late 3rd Sergeant (3SG) Gavin Chan in September 2017. Apart from these two cases, there were no other combat vehicular incidents which resulted in serious injury.
MPs Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Christopher de Souza have also asked how MINDEF and SAF can learn from past incidents to prevent further injuries and deaths. Over the past three years, the Army has been deploying more Regulars to supervise and conduct the training of our full-time National Servicemen. The Army is now reviewing the experience level and roles of supervising, conducting and safety officers to further strengthen training and safety outcomes. MINDEF and SAF will also undertake further reviews to curtail human lapses and mitigate risks associated with training. SAF is also convening an External Review Panel on Combat Vehicle Safety. This panel will comprise experts outside of SAF, to have a thorough review of current policies and measures surrounding combat vehicle training safety.
SAF will continue to find ways to enhance our safety systems and ensure that the processes in place remain sound and robust. SAF will continue in its efforts to instil a strong safety culture to achieve zero training fatalities, which can only be achieved if every soldier has an ingrained concern for the well-being of himself and his fellow soldiers. This will be emphasised to every commander and soldier.
MINDEF and SAF await the conclusion and recommendations of the investigative processes for the death of CFC Liu and will implement the necessary changes thereafter. We will do all we can to help support the late CFC Liu's family through this difficult period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Private Security Officers, Cleaners and Waste Collectors as “Public Service Workers” under Protection from Harassment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether all private security officers working in public places can be treated as \"public service workers\" under the Protection from Harassment Act instead of limiting protection under the Act to only those working in specified places, such as public healthcare institutions, educational institutions, bus interchanges and railway premises.
31 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether cleaners and waste collectors can be treated as \"public service workers\" under the Protection from Harassment Act; and (b) whether such a class of workers can be expanded to cover all cleaners and waste collectors working in places to which the public has access, as such individuals are performing services which are essential to the well-being of the public or the proper functioning of Singapore and are vulnerable to harassment and abuse in the course of their work.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member asked if we could classify all private security guards, as well as all cleaners and waste collectors, as Public Service Workers. In general, we consider individuals as Public Service Workers for the purpose of additional protection under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) if their jobs serve the general public, and not just patrons of a private business or establishment. For example, cleaners in public hospitals and security guards at bus interchanges would be considered as Public Service Workers. On the other hand, cleaners in private hospitals and security guards in commercial buildings would not be considered as Public Service Workers.
Notwithstanding this, there are sufficient protections under POHA for everyone. Offenders convicted under POHA for harassment can be punished with a fine of up to $5,000, or an imprisonment term of up to 12 months, or both, if the victim is a Public Service Worker or public servant. If the victim is any other member of the public, the punishment is a fine of up to $5,000, or an imprisonment term of up to six months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence and Awareness of Vitamin D Deficiency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for Health what is the estimated percentage of the population that is deemed deficient in Vitamin D and whether there are measures to increase awareness of the risks associated with Vitamin D deficiency.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Vitamin D promotes the absorption of calcium by the body, which, in turn, keeps our bones strong and healthy. Most people obtain Vitamin D from skin exposure to sunlight, supplemented with dietary sources. A lack of Vitamin D may put a person at higher risk of conditions, such as osteoporosis. Other effects still being studied include the impact on immune function.
According to the National Health Survey in 2010, 40% and 8% respectively of Singaporeans were deficient and very deficient for Vitamin D. However, not all people with Vitamin D deficiency would experience an impact on their health. Our survey findings are also comparable to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and South Korea.
To ensure adequate levels of Vitamin D and proper absorption of calcium by the body, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) recommends a diet containing foods rich in Vitamin D, such as eggs and oily fish, and at least five to 30 minutes of sun exposure at least twice a week. To promote adequate nutrition, HPB rolled out \"The Recipe for Healthy Ageing\", a toolkit designed to raise awareness on nutritional requirements for seniors aged 50 and above and guide them on food sources that would meet their dietary needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policies and Guidelines for Handling Sensitive Health Data of Patients in Public and Private Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has overarching policies, guidelines and oversight for handling sensitive health data and records of patients in both the public and private healthcare sectors; and (b) if so, whether there are audits and checks scheduled and conducted that are over and above that which individual institutions may have.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Healthcare entities in the public and private sectors are licensed under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act. They are required to have in place adequate safeguards to maintain and protect their medical records against loss or unauthorised modification, destruction, access, disclosure, copying or use. They are also subject to requirements under the Personal Data Protection Act, which imposes obligations to protect personal data.
For selected clinical conditions, additional safeguards are required due to the sensitivity of such conditions. Some are protected by legislation, such as the Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Human Organ Transplant Act. Other sensitive medical conditions are subject to additional technical controls to restrict access to records, in line with the Advisory Guidelines issued by the Personal Data Protection Commission for the Healthcare Sector in 2014.
The Ministry of Health regularly inspects and audits healthcare institutions for compliance to ensure that licensees have taken reasonable actions to implement appropriate and adequate safeguards for the integrity and confidentiality of patients' medical records. If licensees are found to be non-compliant, they may be subject to penalties under the relevant Acts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Computation of Land Cost in Sale Price of New HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development how is the land cost amount which is included in the sale price of a new HDB flat tabulated.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The key consideration in the pricing of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats is to keep public housing affordable. That is why new HDB flats are priced substantially below the prices of comparable resale flats. In particular, the average monthly instalment to income ratio for first-timer families buying new flats in non-mature estates is less than a quarter of applicants’ monthly income. This means that home buyers will require little or no cash outlay.
The selling prices set by HDB for new flats cannot cover their development costs, which include construction and land costs. That is why HDB incurs significant deficits every year in its home ownership programme.
On top of the subsidised selling price, HDB also provides housing grants of up to $80,000 to give more help to lower- and middle-income families buying their first home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Installation of Fire Alarms at HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for National Development whether a manual fire alarm can be installed at the lift lobby of every floor or at least at the ground floor lift lobby of each HDB block so as to allow residents to raise the alarm and notify other residents should any in-unit fire break out within the block, similar to what is provided in private residential or commercial buildings.
Mr Lawrence Wong: All Housing and Development Board (HDB) buildings are designed to meet the prevailing Fire Code requirements. For HDB residential blocks, each residential unit is designed to be a fire compartment, to prevent the spread of fire to adjacent units. In addition, various measures have been put in place to ensure the fire safety of HDB flats. These include the provision of fire-rated entrance doors, fire-resistant walls and floors, and installing dry/wet rising mains and fire lifts, where required, to facilitate firefighting.
Under the Fire Code, manual fire alarm systems are not required for standalone residential blocks, be it HDB or private. The Fire Code requires each residential unit to be designed as a fire compartment, and so any outbreak of fire is limited to that affected unit. Hence, there is generally no need for an entire block to evacuate in the event of a fire. However, for all buildings where residential uses are mixed with other uses, such as commercial, social-communal and car park use, fire alarm systems will be installed as and when required by the Fire Code.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Wellness and Resilience Training for Primary and Secondary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there can be a more comprehensive and widespread incorporation of mental wellness and resilience training for students from primary and secondary schools; and (b) what are the roles of staff in the Psychology Division of the Ministry.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mental health is a global issue and, internationally, the figures are on the rise. The World Health Organisation projects that mental illness will account for 15% of global disease burden by 2020, up from 12% in the early 2000s, with young people, in particular, being susceptible.
The factors affecting mental health are many and varied. Hence, the issue needs to be addressed on different fronts by different parties working together. For young people, their main environments are home and school. Support from parents plays a big part, as well as support from educators, peers and professional counsellors.
On its part, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has stepped up efforts to support the mental well-being of students in our schools.
To build mental wellness and resilience among the students in general, we have been strengthening socio-emotional learning through lessons and co-curricular programmes from primary to junior college. These include emotional regulation, perspective taking, impulse control, problem solving and various coping strategies. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and other community agencies also organise mental health awareness talks and exhibitions for our students.
To ensure that students with mental health issues have access to help, we have introduced at least one school counsellor in every school. Our school counsellors provide emotional support to students in distress, help them explore different perspectives and develop strategies to manage their personal, social and emotional issues. Where necessary, they will engage parents and work with relevant external agencies to strengthen the support net for the students.
Teachers are also equipped to identify signs of distress in their students and check on their well-being. When any student needs professional intervention, the teachers will refer them to the school counsellor.
HPB provides mental health awareness briefings and resources for teachers and school counsellors annually. These enhance their understanding of mental health issues, its impact on students as well as provide strategies on how to support students better.
Recognising that peer support also plays an important role as students typically turn to friends and peers when they have issues, we have, in recent years, been promoting peer support among students in all schools. The peer support programme encourages help-seeking behaviour, reduces stigmatisation of mental illnesses, and helps students to identify friends who are in distress for support.
Professionals from a number of MOE Divisions work together to support the entire system from a mental health perspective. The educational psychologists and specialists design curriculum, programmes and resources, as well as conduct training and consultation for school personnel to implement the relevant programmes. The educational psychologists also provide assessment, case consultation and other specialised services to students with special educational needs. Where necessary, MOE will engage external expertise, including the mental health professionals and relevant social service agencies.
While schools can assist to the extent that the students are in school, support in the home environment and from parents is crucial as that is central to the students' lives. We have stepped up our engagement with parents to raise their awareness so that they can better understand and support the mental health needs of their children and also provide them with information on where they can seek specialised help if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Achieving Even Spread of Students from Different Socio-economic Status in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education whether it is desirable for schools to achieve an even spread of students from different socio-economic status and, if so, what are some of the measures that have been introduced or are being contemplated.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Schools are a major national platform where Singaporeans from all walks of life get to mingle and build friendships. We do not set out to achieve an even distribution of students of different socio-economic backgrounds across schools. This is because it will mean a significant departure from current admission policy, which is based on various admission phases for Primary 1, and academic results, strengths or aptitudes for secondary school and beyond. Actively intervening to ensure an even spread of students across socio-economic backgrounds will change the bases for admission quite fundamentally, and I am not sure parents and students are ready for that.
Notwithstanding, we do not want our schools to become segregated, as it will reduce opportunities for social mixing and weaken Singapore's social fabric. Thus, we try to encourage as much mixing and mingling as possible. We adjusted primary and secondary school registration to ensure primary schools do not become closed circles. For Primary 1 registration, since 2014, 40 places are reserved in Phases 2B and 2C for children without prior connection to the primary school. For secondary schools, starting from the 2019 posting exercise, 20% of places for each course in every secondary school with an affiliated primary school will be reserved for students without affiliation.
We are also enhancing the opportunities for mixing and interaction amongst students from diverse backgrounds within and across schools. Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) enable students to work and engage with peers from other schools. We revised the formats of the Singapore Youth Festival (SYF) and National School Games to encourage combined school teams. For example, the SYF Celebrations 2018 saw the participation of 351 schools, of which 56 engaged in combined school performances. Another way is through outdoor learning. Since its implementation in 2017, the Ministry of Education-Outward Bound School (MOE-OBS) Challenge Programme enabled about 17,000 Secondary 3 students from different schools to come together in mixed school cohorts to experience the outdoors and overcome challenges together.
I should emphasise that MOE is committed to ensuring that all our schools are well-resourced, so that the learning needs of our students are met, regardless of which school they go to. We will continue to provide timely interventions at all levels to students who require more help, such as levelling-up programmes in literacy and numeracy skills, and additional after-school support through school-based Student Care Centres. Ultimately, our lower socio-economic status students are not and will not be worse off in terms of learning and support provisions at any of our schools, and it remains MOE's duty and mission to ensure that every child is given a strong foundation to do well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Have Been Helped by Industry Transformation Maps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many companies have been helped by the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) since the launch of the ITMs; (b) what are the delivered outcomes so far; and (c) how can the ITMs be scaled up to help more companies.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The development of Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) is one of the recommendations from the Committee on the Future Economy. The ITMs put in place a framework for partnership, bringing together industry stakeholders, including companies, trade associations and chambers (TACs), workers, unions, economic agencies and education institutions, to develop and implement a transformation plan for each of the 23 industries. The ITMs seek to sharpen the competitiveness of companies and industries here, and to enable our workers to deepen skills and increase productivity. In this way, companies and workers can continue to progress and enjoy the fruits of their efforts.
In developing the ITMs, the Government plays an enabling role, bringing together all stakeholders to develop and implement the plans. The leaders of companies and industries play the critical role of developing the strategies for their companies and industries, and of seeking partnerships, within Singapore and with global partners, to develop deep capabilities. To transform successfully, companies need industry-specific and holistic solutions that span different areas from technology adoption to manpower training. ITMs allow us to work with companies in a coherent way. For example, the Job Redesign Initiative under the Environmental Services ITM helps cleaning and waste management companies adopt automation and digital solutions to improve productivity, and to redesign jobs so that workers can benefit from these changes. The various initiatives reinforce one other, for instance, redesigning jobs and processes, as companies adopt new technologies.
As at the end of financial year (FY) 2017, the Government has committed $1.7 billion to support companies. These funds have been deployed by agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and the Economic Development Board (EDB), to support about 30,000 companies in FY2016 and FY2017.
Industry transformation has to be pervasive and sustained. We cannot expect immediate results. But so far, we are glad that companies appreciate the need to change, and many are already taking action to do so. At the economy-wide level, we are seeing good productivity growth. In 2017, we achieved productivity growth of 4.5%. While we cannot attribute all of these to the industry transformation efforts, it is a step in the right direction. More detailed analyses are being done to assess the effectiveness of various initiatives.
Clearly, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa alludes to, we need to scale up to ensure that even more companies can undertake the transformation effort. There are several initiatives that we are working on. One is to get industry stakeholders to work together to take charge of the transformation. While companies compete to differentiate themselves, they can also cooperate to solve common challenges, and share resources and facilities to achieve scale. Food manufacturers, for instance, can tap on the shared facilities available at the JTC Food Hub @ Senoko, launched in July this year. The Food Hub provides shared spaces, such as an integrated cold room and warehouse, as well as advanced food processing equipment, such as microwave-assisted thermal sterilisers. By sharing resources, each food manufacturer can lower his operating costs. They can also embark on research and development work together, which each alone will find too costly.
Another way to bring more companies on board is for the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the various TACs to exercise leadership and bring companies together. For instance, SBF is working closely with the various industry TACs to look into helping industries digitalise, through its Digitalisation Committee. The Committee has been working with Government agencies, such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA), to implement initiatives in key areas, such as e-invoicing, e-commerce and e-payments.
Another example of how we are scaling up to help more companies is in the logistics sector. Four TACs – the Container Depot and Logistics Association (Singapore) (CDAS), SAAA@Singapore, Singapore Logistics Association (SLA), and Singapore Transport Association (STA) – came together to form the Logistics Alliance as part of the Logistics ITM. The Alliance launched a Transport Integrated Platform (TRIP), which integrated several existing systems into a single digital platform to enable easier tracking of container trucks. This has helped logistics companies to increase productivity and reduce the idling time of their trucks. I look forward to the TACs' continued good work in accelerating transformation.
To conclude, the Government will support companies in industry transformation, as industry partners and TACs continue to work together to realise synergies and forge win-win partnerships. With everyone playing his part, I am optimistic that our companies and workers will benefit through industry transformation, as they have in the past.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers who Have Participated in the Business and Institutions of a Public Character Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many employers have participated in the Business and Institutions of a Public Character Scheme and what is the total number of hours volunteered by employees based on rebates claimed to date; and (b) whether there is a plan for an \"Individual and Institutions of a Public Character Scheme\" to encourage more volunteerism by individuals beyond the tax rebate for donations.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Business and Institution of a Public Character (IPC) Partnership Scheme (BIPS) was introduced in July 2016 to encourage businesses to support their employees to offer their expertise and skills to IPCs. Through BIPS, businesses can enjoy a 250% tax deduction on basic wages and related expenses incurred when their employees volunteer or provide services to IPCs.
Between July 2016 and December 2017, about 3,200 employees from 48 businesses contributed about 17,000 volunteering hours through BIPS projects. To encourage more businesses to come on board, we will continue to promote the scheme and simplify the claims process. For example, we will provide an option for businesses to claim tax deductions on wages based on a fixed manhour rate. This will provide greater flexibility to businesses which may find it tedious to compute the prorated wages of employees who had volunteered.
Ms Anthea Ong asked if similar tax deductions could be given to individuals to encourage volunteerism. The design of the scheme facilitates IPCs with specific needs to benefit from the expertise of staff in diverse businesses, including consultancy, legal and accounting services, courier services.
We continue to encourage individuals to volunteer and contribute out of passion and heart for the community.
Under the SG Cares movement, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, together with its partner agencies, support volunteerism through various ways. These include volunteer training and matching of skills and passions to areas of need to create a more fulfilling and engaging experience for volunteers. Individuals and corporates with outstanding contributions to the community are also recognised through awards, to inspire more to join them. Grants, such as Our Singapore Fund, are available to support ground-up projects which meet social or community needs.
We will continue to review the effectiveness of our strategies and explore further ways of encouraging volunteerism, to build a caring society where the community steps forward to support one another.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Offer of Humanitarian Relief for Crisis and Famine in Yemen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will offer humanitarian relief to help alleviate the crisis and famine in Yemen.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Yemen has been torn by strife in recent years. The underlying roots of the current conflict are deep and complex.
Critically, the conflict has become a breeding ground for terrorist and extremist groups. More recently, the Islamic State has established a foothold in Yemen, which heightens the risks of radicalisation.
Alongside the threat of radicalisation, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen generated by the ongoing upheaval is also of serious concern for the international community. Between March 2015 and August 2018, the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights documented more than 17,000 civilian casualties, including more than 6,500 deaths.
Prolonged fighting will worsen the humanitarian situation and create more security vacuums for terror groups to exploit. Therefore, we strongly encourage the key players involved to work towards a ceasefire and return to the negotiating table to find a political solution. There can be no lasting and durable peace without political negotiations and compromise.
In the meantime, I am heartened to note that some of our community organisations have held various fundraising drives for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. For example, the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation, in partnership with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, organised a special fundraising effort at 71 mosques in July 2017 for the affected civilians in Yemen. Islamic Relief Singapore has an ongoing fundraising drive for Islamic Relief’s efforts to distribute food and provide emergency water. In 2016, the Arab Association Singapore partnered the United Nations Development Programme on the initiative \"Yemen Our Home\", in order to support the rebuilding of infrastructure, skills training and the empowerment of women in Yemen. These ground-up initiatives speak to the generosity of Singaporeans.
The dire humanitarian situation will only improve once a durable ceasefire is in place, and reconstruction is only possible when the conflict is resolved. Singapore supports the work of UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths in organising peace talks to reach a political solution, which is the real key to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. We continue to urge all parties to exercise utmost restraint and to work together towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Yemen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Healthcare Professionals with Three Medical Schools Fully Established","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health with our three medical schools now fully established and stabilised (a) how is Singapore meeting our needs for healthcare professionals; and (b) how is our population-to-doctor ratio doing compared to the last five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health regularly reviews our healthcare manpower needs taking into account population demographics and disease trends. We aim to build a strong local core of doctors to meet Singapore's healthcare needs.
In line with the Healthcare 2020 Masterplan, we increased our local medical intakes through the expansion of the National University of Singapore (NUS) Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine and Duke-NUS Medical School, and the establishment of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine in 2013. Between 2012 and 2018, the total local medical intake increased by about 40%, from 354 to 500.
The annual output of about 500 medical graduates from our local medical schools will contribute towards building a strong local core of doctors in our healthcare workforce. This will be supplemented by overseas-trained doctors, including Singaporeans returning to join our healthcare family.
In Singapore, we had about 2.4 doctors per 1,000 population in 2017, a significant increase from 1.9 in 2012. Our ratio is higher than Hong Kong and Taiwan; comparable to those in South Korea and Japan; and lower than the United States and the United Kingdom.
We need to be cautious when comparing these ratios across healthcare systems and be mindful of the differences in healthcare models, operating environments and national contexts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Monitoring and Care for Discharged Mentally Distressed Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) when a mentally distressed patient requiring continued medication and supervision is discharged, whether there is a follow-up system to ensure that the patient will continue with the prescribed treatment; and (b) how does the Ministry follow up on such cases where there is no caregiver who is able to manage the patient adequately to ensure the necessary supervision and help.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) works closely with our healthcare and community service providers to support persons with mental health conditions after they are discharged. Discharged patients who require further support in the community can be referred to the community outreach teams for the necessary supervision and help. This includes persons with no caregivers.
Typically, after a patient has been discharged from the hospital, an outpatient appointment to follow up on the patient's condition will be arranged. For patients with moderate or severe but stable mental health conditions, they would be case managed by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). This involves post-discharge monitoring, mainly through regular follow-up telephone calls and home visits, to ensure that patients attend their outpatient reviews and comply with medication. If required, patients can also be referred to other agencies and community outreach teams for social support.
For patients who require more intensive follow-up, IMH deploys multidisciplinary teams to the patients' homes to provide treatment and counselling. A 24-hour crisis intervention helpline service and mobile crisis team are available when their mental health issues escalate.
To complement IMH's work in providing post-discharge care and follow-up, MOH has also been building the capability of healthcare professionals and community partners to provide better supervision, treatment and support for persons with mental health issues within the community.
Together with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), the Aftercare Programme was implemented in 2015 in parts of the central and south of Singapore. The programme aimed to support clients' smooth transition from IMH into the community. In collaboration with the community mental health partners, IMH and AIC co-develop joint workflow and protocol to facilitate the referral of these clients and also build the partners' mental health capability through training and case discussions. The Aftercare Programme has since expanded from the first site at Ang Mo Kio-Sin Ming, to Kembangan-Chai Chee and Kreta Ayer-Henderson sites as of end June 2018.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outlets found Selling Liquor beyond Specified Trading Hours and Outside of Licensed Premises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of outlets found selling liquor beyond the specified trading hours and outside of the licensed premises within the Liquor Control Zone in Little India since 1 April 2015; (b) what actions have been taken against these outlets and the persons-in-charge; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to curb such violations.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since 1 April 2015, 32 liquor outlets within the Liquor Control Zone in Little India have been found supplying liquor beyond the specified trading hours or outside the licensed premises.
Licensees that breach their licence conditions face fines of up to $10,000 and suspension or cancellation of their licence.
The Police are also working with licensees to increase awareness of their regulatory obligations. Such efforts could include placing signages within their outlet to highlight, for example, the restriction in trading hours.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Illegal Moneylenders who Advertise Using SMS or Other Forms of Electronic Communication","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs since 2014, what actions have been taken by the Police in relation to complaints regarding illegal moneylenders advertising for loans via SMS messages or other forms of electronic communication.
Mr K Shanmugam: Members of the public who receive unsolicited advertisement from unlicensed moneylenders (UML) in the form of SMS messages or other forms of communications should not reply to these messages. Those with information on unlicensed moneylenders can call the Police hotline at 1800-255-0000 or the National Crime Prevention Council's X Ah Long hotline at 1800-924-5664. All information given to the Police will be kept confidential.
The Police take a strong stance against unlicensed moneylending activities and will not hesitate to take swift action against persons found to be engaging in them. The Police regularly conduct major operations against UML syndicates to cripple them. From 2014 to September 2018, Police have arrested more than 6,900 persons in connection with UML activities.
We will also continue with public education on unlicensed moneylending. In 2017 and 2018, the third Anti-Unlicensed Moneylending media campaign was conducted. Besides educating the public on the dangers of borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders, this campaign provided advisories on how to deal with unsolicited unlicensed moneylending advertisements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans aged 65 and above who Have Remained in Bankruptcy beyond Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the current number of Singaporeans aged 65 and above who have remained in bankruptcy beyond five years; (b) what is the number of such Singaporeans who have been made bankrupt by Government agencies; and (c) what are these agencies.
Mr K Shanmugam: The bankruptcy regime is designed to balance the interests of individual debtors, creditors and the wider society. It seeks to ensure that bankrupts deal with their debts as best as possible while allowing them to make a fresh start in their financial matters after a reasonable period of time.
As at end October 2018, there were 964 Singapore Citizens aged 65 and above who had been in bankruptcy for over five years1. This comprises around 6% of the overall number of bankrupts in Singapore. Most of these individuals became bankrupt before they reached 65 years of age.
Of the 964 individuals, Government agencies were the petitioning creditors for 37 individuals. The agencies involved were the Housing and Development Board (HDB), Ministry of Manpower (MOM) (Controller of Work Permits), Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) (Comptroller of Income Tax) and the Land Office (the predecessor of Singapore Land Authority).
Government agencies would first make several requests for payment. They will also see what other methods are possible to recover arrears. When these avenues fail, or are not feasible, then a petition for bankruptcy will be filed.
Agencies not infrequently come across individuals who will not pay unless action is taken. Monies owed are taxpayers' money and agencies owe a duty to take steps to recover them.
Bankrupts may be discharged after a reasonable period of time. To help rehabilitate bankrupts, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has implemented the differentiated discharge framework since 1 August 2016. This framework provides timeframes and goals for bankrupts to meet to be eligible for a discharge. The bankrupt’s eligibility for discharge will depend on whether he has met his Target Contribution to the bankruptcy estate. The new framework allows bankrupts who pay their target contributions expeditiously to be eligible for an earlier discharge.
Should any individual face difficulty paying their target monthly contributions due to extenuating circumstances, they are encouraged to inform the Official Assignee (OA). The OA who will take these circumstances into account in administering the bankruptcy. Any repayment under the bankruptcy regime also takes into account the need for the debtor to fulfil his basic necessities. The OA may reduce the monthly contributions of a bankrupt person if he can show that his personal circumstances have changed and he can no longer pay the previously agreed monthly contribution. The bankrupt person may also be eligible for an earlier discharge if the OA is satisfied that he is unable to pay his target contribution due to extenuating circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : From 2013 to 2017, the average length of time that a person stayed in bankruptcy was 9.6 years."],"footNoteQuestions":["47"],"questionNo":"47"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against Employers for Overinflating Employees’ Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower over the past five years (a) how many workers have lodged a complaint against their employers for overinflating their salaries where the actual amount they receive as salary is actually lower than that declared to the Ministry or stated on their pay slip; and (b) among those who complained, how many are (i) workers above the age of 60, (ii) blue collar workers, (iii) PMEs and (iv) foreign workers respectively.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In the past five years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received an average of around 8,300 claims annually from employees that they received a lower salary than the rightful amount due. They constitute 0.2% of the workforce. Fewer than one in 10 were above 60 years old. More than eight in 10 were rank-and-file workers, while the remaining were professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). Slightly over half of the claimants were foreign workers.
Since its inception in 2017, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) has handled salary-related disputes of both local and foreign employees. In 2017, about eight in 10 cases were settled amicably through mediation. The remaining cases were forwarded to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) for adjudication. To date, TADM and ECT have helped about 90% of employees with salary claims recover their salaries in full.
In the course of mediating a salary claim or through proactive inspections, MOM may uncover evidence that the employer has falsely declared inflated salaries so as to enjoy foreign work pass privileges. MOM will not hesitate to take action against such employers under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. Since 2013, about 70 employers have been dealt with annually, with penalties ranging from imprisonment, fines, administrative financial penalties to warnings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring New Opportunities and Job Roles from Automation will be Equally Distributed to All Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is being done to ensure that the new opportunities and job roles brought about by automation will be equally distributed across all affected workers; (b) whether there are plans for the Government to partner private companies to develop more training programmes to help affected industries make the transition; and (c) how many people have upskilled themselves in the past three years tapping on the Government schemes.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Technology is quickening the pace of restructuring and transformation in every sector. To remain relevant, businesses and workers have to be agile and take full advantage of the opportunities that technology brings. This includes implementing automation solutions where useful to improve productivity, overcome manpower shortages and expand growth potential.
The Government supports these efforts through a broad range of programmes, many of which also help to equip existing workers to effectively handle the new technologies implemented by their employers. With improved productivity, there has also been broad-based wage growth benefiting many workers. From 2012 to 2017, the real income of full-time employed Singaporeans rose by 3.9% per annum at the median and 4.3% at the 20th percentile.
We recognise that some workers may be displaced as a result of restructuring. Through the Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) offer employment facilitation services, such as career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching. These initiatives help jobseekers get back to work and have opportunities to progress further. Supported by robust job creation in the economy, unemployment rates have remained low while employment levels remained high.
Under A&G, there are now over 100 Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) in over 30 sectors and around 50 other Place-and-Train (PnT) programmes that provide wage and training support for employers to retrain workers to take up new jobs or move into sectors with better job prospects. Since 2016, more than 11,600 individuals have been placed in new jobs or careers through PCP and PnT programmes.
Where possible, we intervene upstream before workers are retrenched. Sector agencies closely monitor industry developments and work with WSG to help companies reskill their workers to meet emerging needs. For example, with the Monetary Authority of Singapore's support, WSG and the Institute of Banking and Finance developed the PCP for Consumer Banking to reskill about 3,000 professionals, managers, executives and technicians over the next two years. This will enable bank employees, such as those in bank teller and operational roles, to be redeployed to new functions, such as digital marketing and relationship management, instead of being retrenched. For the Information and Communication Technology sector, WSG is working with HP Singapore and the Institute of Systems Science to reskill existing employees through the PCP for Data Analysts. This will enable employees, such as those in procurement and sourcing, to use data analytics to improve operations efficiency and stay relevant to their employers. Such programmes demonstrate how workers affected by business transformation can also gain from the new job opportunities created.
In addition to WSG's efforts to help displaced and at-risk workers, a wide range of SkillsFuture (SSG) programmes is also available to help our workforce deal with disruptions in the economy. For example, under the SkillsFuture Series, our Institutes of Higher Learning have launched various training programmes in eight emerging and priority domain areas, including Advanced Manufacturing, Data Analytics, and Urban Solutions, that will help equip our workforce with the skills needed for jobs in the future economy. Training is heavily subsidised, with enhanced funding support for mid-career individuals, low-wage workers and employees of small and medium enterprises. Many of them are delivered with private sector partners. Where appropriate, such partnerships will continue to be pursued.
We are encouraged that our workers have been upskilling themselves through training and upgrading, with the training participation rate for the resident labour force increasing from 35% in 2015 to 48% in 2017. The number of participants in the Ministry of Education/SSG-funded training programmes increased from 360,000 in 2015 to 430,000 in 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Smart Technology and Elderly-friendly Features for HDB Flats under Home Improvement Programme II","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development for Home Improvement Programme II, whether HDB will consider the use of (i) smart technology for toilet flushes and (ii) single-lever taps for wash basins to make it more user-friendly for the elderly.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme II (HIP II) is a second round of upgrading for our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats at the 60th to 70th year mark to keep the flats safe and liveable to the end of their lease. It will be launched in about 10 years' time and focus on common maintenance issues which occur in ageing flats.
At present, single-lever taps for wash basins are provided under the HIP, as part of toilet upgrading. We will study the specific scope of works for HIP II, including the Member's suggestions, closer to the launch of the programme, taking into consideration user needs, long-term maintenance issues and fiscal sustainability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Distortion of Market Prices Given Minimum Built-up Area Requirement for Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether stipulating a minimum built-up area of 85 square metres for private properties will distort market prices.
Mr Lawrence Wong: To clarify, our guidelines do not stipulate a minimum built-up area for private properties. Instead, we impose a limit on the maximum number of units that developers can build in a development, to manage potential strains on local infrastructure and safeguard the liveability of residential estates. Within these limits, developers still have the flexibility to provide a range of unit sizes to meet the diverse needs of home buyers.
To calculate the maximum number of units that developers can build in each development, the maximum permissible gross floor area of the development is divided by an average unit size. In the recently announced changes to the guidelines, this average unit size was increased from 70 square metres (sqm) to 85 sqm for all private properties outside the Central Area, and to 100 sqm for selected locations.
As the guideline changes were only announced last month and will only take effect in January next year, it would be premature to conclude whether the changes have had any impact on market prices. Moreover, property prices depend on many factors beyond the guidelines. These include developers' bidding behaviour for land, home buyers' evolving demand for units of various sizes, as well as how developers adjust the mix of unit sizes for upcoming projects to cater to demand, just to name a few.
We will continue to monitor the distribution of unit sizes in residential developments and review the guidelines periodically, taking into account factors, such as infrastructure load, as well as changes in lifestyle and housing needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Validity Period of Doctors' Letters Certifying Condition of Patient for Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the Lasting Power of Attorney (a) whether the validity period of doctors' letters certifying the condition of the patient is uniformly accepted by all banks, insurance companies and Government agencies; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider standardising the validity period to reduce inconvenience and hardship for affected families.
Mr Desmond Lee: A Lasting Power of Attorney can only be used on behalf of a person, if the person has lost mental capacity.
If the doctor's medical report states that this mental capacity loss is permanent, there is no limit on the validity period of the medical report.
If the loss is temporary, the validity is subject to the person's condition, and respective third parties' due diligence requirements based on their risk assessment. As such, the Ministry cannot standardise the validity period of medical reports stating temporary loss of mental capacity. The Housing and Development Board, insurance companies under the Life Insurance Association Singapore, and banks under the Association of Banks in Singapore would apply a six-month validity period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Rate for Differently-abled Persons in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the employment rate for differently-abled persons in the last three years; (b) whether there are statistics on which groups of differently-abled persons are the most affected by unemployment and why; and (c) given the diversity of our society, whether matters affecting differently-abled groups are reported on and considered before a Bill is passed and, if not, whether there is a need for a governmental body to do so.
Mr Desmond Lee: It was estimated that more than 8,600 persons with disabilities (PWDs) were employed in the private and public sectors in 2017. This was an increase of nearly 9% from the figure in 2015. The Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Department of Statistics will also be collecting more information on PWDs through the upcoming population census in 2020 which will provide further information and more accurate data on PWDs. Like many of us, the challenges faced by different PWDs during their journey towards employment could be unique to their circumstances, as this is dependent on the individual’s readiness and their prospective employers' expectation.
To maximise the potential of PWDs and empower them to participate fully in society, we are working closely with employers to help them build inclusive working environments and to redesign jobs for PWDs. For example, the School-to-Work Transition programme aims to support Special Education (SPED) students who are assessed to be work-capable to transition from school to employment. It has helped 120 SPED students thus far and will be fully rolled out to SPED schools by 2019.
Before Bills are introduced by the Government, the Ministry introducing the Bill consults other Ministries to ensure that the Bill has taken into account relevant perspectives. Apart from the Government departments, the consultation could be extended to an identified group of stakeholders, which could include members of the public and representatives from both the private and people sectors.
As the Member would know, after the Introduction and First Reading of the Bill in Parliament, the Bill is circulated to every Member of Parliament, and Members of Parliament can raise questions on the Bill in the process and propose amendments.
The process provides ample avenue for input to be considered before any Bill is passed, without the need for a separate governmental body to be established.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing with Pigeon Nuisance at HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development what effective strategies have been developed to deal with pigeon nuisance at HDB estates.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The management of pigeon-related issues requires a multi-stakeholder approach. This includes Government agencies, such as the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA), Town Councils, and members of the public.
Restricting the availability of food is one of the most effective ways to reduce pigeon populations. AVA issues advisories to inform residents about the environmental health and hygiene issues caused by feeding pigeons and also takes enforcement action against pigeon feeders. In tandem, NEA ensures good food waste management in food centres and coffee shops in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and enforces against littering offences. Finally, Town Councils maintain the cleanliness of estates. Where appropriate, they also deploy localised bird-deterrent measures, such as spikes or nets on the external facades of buildings, to discourage pigeons from roosting.
AVA will continue to test other solutions to manage the pigeon population. For example, AVA has conducted trials at selected locations to study the efficacy of contraceptives to manage the pigeon population. These trials saw some success but also revealed that the use of contraceptives should still be coupled with other measures, such as enforcement and education, to ensure a sustained reduction in the pigeon population. AVA will continue to trial the contraceptives at other suitable locations to further assess the effectiveness of this solution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria to Guide Government Funding Support for Startups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what criteria are used to guide Government funding support for startups; (b) how are the investments distributed across various sectors; and (c) how much is invested in deep-tech startups.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Startups are an important driver of innovation and enterprise in our economy.
The Government provides funding support to Singapore startups across different stages of their development.
In the early stages, Startup SG Founder provides capital grant to first-time entrepreneurs with innovative business ideas, while Startup SG Tech provides grant support for Proof-of-Concept and Proof-of-Value commercialisation of innovative, proprietary technologies. At this point, the uniqueness of the idea or product will be the main consideration.
For startups that are more mature and ready to receive institutional investment, funding support is provided through Startup SG Equity which co-invests with independent third-party investors. The private investors help assess the startup's commercial viability and the strength of its business model and management team. These co-investments cover both general tech and deep tech startups, across a range of sectors and domains, such as Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering (AME), Health and Biomedical Sciences (HBMS), Urban Solutions and Sustainability (USS), and Services and Digital Economy (SDE). Between 1 April 2017 and 31 October 2018, the Government has co-invested in a total of 62 startups under the Startup SG Equity scheme. The Government's funding of S$43.8 million for these 62 startups catalysed S$50.3 million of private sector monies from their appointed co-investment partners. Around half of these investments were deployed into deep tech startups, and the rest into general tech startups.
At Budget this year, the Government has also announced the National Research Foundation (NRF)-Temasek Intellectual Property (IP) Commercialisation Vehicle, which will co-invest in startups whose business models are underpinned by intellectual property generated from publicly funded research. NRF has committed to invest $50 million and Temasek has committed to co-invest at least $50 million into Singapore-based early-stage high-tech companies.
Growing a conducive environment for startups goes beyond funding support. Startups also need access to mentorship, talent, local and global networks, co-innovation platforms and infrastructure, in order to build their capabilities and grow. Hence, besides funding, the Government has put in place support to meet the non-financing needs of startups. Under Startup SG Infrastructure, startups have access to spaces that they need to grow, experiment and flourish. The strong network of startups, incubators and venture capitalists at LaunchPad@one-north generates opportunities for collaboration and accelerates the growth of startups. Under Startup SG Accelerator, the Government provides support to incubators and accelerators to take on the role of catalysing growth opportunities for high-potential startups through their programmes, mentorship and provision of resources. The Government also works closely with partners, such as the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE), SGInnovate and our universities to support the growth of startups in Singapore.
Through these efforts, Singapore's startup ecosystem is becoming more vibrant. Venture funding activity in Singapore has ramped up, from 80 deals worth US$136.4 million in 2012, to 174 deals worth US$1.37 billion in 2017. The Government will continue our efforts to make sure that we have an enabling, pro-enterprise environment for startups and that Singapore is the place of choice for startups in Asia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Trade Tensions between China and US on Singapore’s Growth and Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the trade tensions between China and the United States (a) what are the implications of a lower economic growth forecast for 2019 and what can be done to mitigate it; (b) whether Singapore's exports have decreased over the last few months; (c) which industries are the hardest hit and how can they cope with this difficult period; and (d) whether the plans laid out in the Industry Transformation Maps are affected and require calibration.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The impact of the trade tensions on the Singapore economy has been limited thus far. In the first three quarters of 2018, Singapore's non-oil domestic exports (NODX) grew by 6.2% on a year-on-year basis, with the third quarter of 2018 marking the eighth consecutive quarter of growth in NODX. Notwithstanding this, Singapore’s gross domestic product growth is likely to moderate in 2019 on the back of an expected slowdown in growth in major advanced and regional economies, such as the United States (US), China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-5 economies, in part due to the ongoing trade tensions.
The impact of the trade tensions on the Singapore economy will be felt most in externally oriented sectors which are plugged into the US-China supply chains, such as the electronics and precision engineering clusters. However, there is potential for businesses to mitigate some of the impact by redirecting their exports of intermediate goods to other markets. In addition, there could be some offsetting effects when US and Chinese importers source more from the ASEAN region, including Singapore.
Our economic agencies are working closely with businesses to identify any disruptions promptly and facilitate linkups with other suppliers and markets to restructure supply chains where necessary. Businesses can also leverage the strong trading networks that we have developed over the years, as well as our extensive network of free trade agreements, to navigate the disruptions and seek out new opportunities and alternative suppliers and demand markets.
The Government will continue to press on with efforts to help companies build the capabilities that they need to access new markets, onboard cutting-edge technologies and create good jobs. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are dynamic plans that will be updated to respond to changes in the economic environment. The Future Economy Council, comprising tripartite representatives, monitors the progress of our ITMs, and ensures that they continue to be relevant to emerging trends. The Council will monitor the situation and adjust the ITMs as the situation requires, in partnership with key stakeholders, such as businesses, trade associations and chambers and unions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Bus Services Reliability Framework's Adherence to Time Schedule Requirement on Driving Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Bus Services Reliability Framework (BSRF) which requires buses to adhere strictly to the time schedule has led to the behaviour of bus captains deliberately slowing or stopping at bus stops when they are ahead of schedule to avoid incurring penalties; (b) whether the framework can be finetuned to improve commuters' experience and not unnecessarily prolonging the bus journeys; and (c) whether long-distance trunk services can be exempted from BSRF.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We have introduced the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) to improve the punctuality and reliability of bus services. Under BSRF, bus captains adjust their travelling speeds to maintain consistent headways between buses, so as to minimise bus bunching and improve punctuality and reliability. While speeding up may benefit commuters on the bus, other commuters who arrive at the bus stops based on the scheduled timings will end up missing them and waiting much longer. Nevertheless, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) works closely with the bus operators to periodically review the schedules, so as to better reflect traffic conditions.
Long-distance bus services are more exposed to potential delays due to traffic conditions as well as passenger boarding and alighting activities. Hence, it is even more important that these routes remain under the BSRF to ensure service reliability for commuters.
Moving forward, LTA will step up publicity efforts on the BSRF, so that the public can be made aware of the reasons for and benefits of BSRF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Adoption Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the take-up rate for adoption leave after the legislative changes introduced in July 2017 that allows for adoptive mothers to get 12 weeks of adoption leave.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 1 July to 31 December 2017, 67 mothers applied to adopt a child aged below 12 months. Twenty-four have taken adoption leave. Not all of the adoptive mothers require adoption leave, as some may not be working. This number may still increase as adoptive mothers have the flexibility to take adoption leave till their adopted child turns 12 months old.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Care Resources for Students with Special Needs and Mental Health Conditions in Polytechnics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the care resources available to students with special needs and mental health conditions in the polytechnics; and (b) whether there is enough continuity in support for students with such needs and conditions going from secondary schools to the polytechnics.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All polytechnics have a Special Educational Needs (SEN) Support Office. The office provides funding support for students to purchase the necessary Assistive Technology devices, such as motorised wheelchairs and support services, such as notetaking services for students with Hearing Impairment. They also collaborate with voluntary welfare organisations for internship placements and job matching for students, and conduct training for faculty and staff to raise awareness of SEN and build an inclusive campus culture.
Polytechnics have put in place appropriate measures to support their students. With parental consent, the Ministry of Education passes on SEN-related information of secondary school graduands to the receiving polytechnic to facilitate their transition into a new learning environment. They will advise students with SEN and match them to courses that would be suitable for their learning needs. Some polytechnics also organise special orientation programmes for students with SEN.
As for mental wellness, polytechnic students are older and may seek help differently from those in secondary schools. The polytechnics equip their students with basic knowledge of mental wellness through curricular and co-curricular programmes. Peer support programmes are also in place to equip student volunteers with active listening and other skills to identify distress signs in their peers. Para-counsellors, or academic staff who have undergone the necessary training, will provide the first level of support to students. Students who require more help can turn to the professional counsellors in the polytechnics.
The polytechnics also partner external agencies like the Community Health Assessment Team which provides online counselling service. In addition, the Singapore Association of Mental Health also supports the polytechnics with referrals and case management.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Buyer Stamp Duty Remission for Singles who Bought Second Property and Sold First Property within Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Finance whether the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty remission can be extended to singles who have bought a second property and subsequently sold the first property within six months from their purchase of the second property.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The policy intent for the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) is to moderate demand among home buyers and to ensure a stable and sustainable property market. This, in turn, will help both existing and aspiring home owners, by keeping price increases in line with economic fundamentals.
ABSD is applicable on the second and subsequent residential property purchases of all Singaporeans. This applies regardless of whether they dispose of their first property subsequently. This is because even if the first property is eventually disposed of, the purchase of the second property adds to the demand for residential properties.
We have made one exception, namely, for Singaporean married couples. A Singaporean married couple may need to change home due to changing family needs, such as when they have more children or when their children are growing up. It is in this context that we have an ABSD concession for Singaporean married couples buying a second property. Under the concession, we allow Singapore married couples to claim a refund of the ABSD paid on their second property, provided they sell their first property within six months after the purchase of a completed property, or the Temporary Occupation Permit date of an uncompleted property.
This ABSD concession is not available to other groups of property buyers, as our overall key objective remains to moderate the demand for residential properties, including that for second residential property of Singaporeans. Buyers who do not wish to incur the higher ABSD on second residential properties may wish to consider selling their first property before purchasing their replacement property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Probability of Patients Catching Infection at Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health what is being done by our hospitals to reduce the probability of patients catching an infection at the hospital while being treated for other medical conditions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been working with experts on the National Infection Prevention and Control Committee (NIPCC) to improve infection control in hospitals. The National Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines for Acute Hospitals, published in August 2017, outlines the infection prevention and control programmes that all public and private hospitals are required to put in place. These programmes cover standard and transmission-based precautions, active surveillance, outbreak response procedures, education of employees in infection prevention and monitoring of infection control practices.
Our hospitals carry out audits regularly to assess infection control practices and address gaps, if any.
MOH monitors the performance of all hospitals on standards developed by NIPCC. In April 2018, MOH completed the inaugural infection prevention and control peer review across all public hospitals. We also held a series of engagement sessions with the private hospitals to facilitate cross institutional exchange and learning.
MOH has worked to strengthen key antimicrobial resistance control efforts through antimicrobial stewardship programmes, and maintains surveillance of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. While healthcare-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infections dropped from 0.84 per 10,000 patient days in 2013 to 0.38 in 2017, we cannot afford to be complacent. We need to continue to work with stakeholders, including doctors and healthcare providers, to strengthen antimicrobial stewardship.
Finally, our hospitals have implemented measures to restrict the number of visitors to inpatients to reduce the risk of transmission of infections. We can also play our part by washing our hands before and after visiting our friends or relatives in the hospitals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount Spent and Subsidy Given for Supplements Dispensed to Pregnant Patients at Public Hospitals and Polyclinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health with regard to the health supplements dispensed by our public hospitals and polyclinics, such as folic acid and iron supplements, for pregnant patients (a) in each of the last three years, what have been (i) the amounts spent by patients and (ii) the amounts of subsidy paid by the Government; and (b) how do our medical institutions ensure that these products meet the prescribed levels of supplement required by the patients.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Folic acid and iron supplements are necessary for many expectant mothers and are subsidised under our Standard Drug List. Subsidised patients receive up to 75% subsidy for these supplements, depending on their means.
In the last three years, the average amounts paid by subsidised patients for folic acid and iron supplements over the course of their pregnancy were $3 and $30 respectively. Overall, the total subsidies provided by the Government for the supplements were $11,300, $15,400 and $17,300 in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Whilst a daily dose of 400 micrograms of folic acid is generally sufficient for low-risk pregnancies, expectant mothers are typically prescribed five milligrams of folic acid per day. This is based on the recommended daily dose from preconception to the initial 12 weeks of pregnancy when there is higher risk of the foetus developing neural tube defects.
As for iron supplements, most doctors prescribe routine iron tablets as general supplement from 20 weeks of pregnancy onwards. However, doctors also check for anaemia in the first trimester and also after 28 weeks of pregnancy to determine if a higher dose of iron supplement is warranted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Sale and Use of Hidden Cameras to Reduce Incidence of Outrage of Modesty or Violation of Privacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is a need to regulate the sale and use of spy or hidden cameras so as to reduce cases involving the outrage of modesty and violation of privacy.
Mr K Shanmugam: Offences involving the use of spy or hidden cameras that insult the modesty of a person are taken seriously. Those found guilty are liable to imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.
In this context, the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) has recommended introducing new offences specifically relating to the making, distribution, possession and accessing of voyeuristic recordings. PCRC has also recommended that offenders who make such recordings be liable to imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both, and caning. This is a higher punishment than under current laws. The Government has completed its public consultation on the PCRC's recommendations and will be amending the Penal Code early next year.
It is quite unworkable to try and deal with the problem by banning spy cameras and hidden cameras. Mobile phones also come with cameras, and they can also be concealed to take secret photos or videos. We will increase the penalties and add new offences to try and deter the commission of such acts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Have Taken Up Managing Onsite Vehicular Safety (MOVeS) Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the Managing Onsite Vehicular Safety (MOVeS) programme (a) how many companies have taken up the programme so far; (b) what are the main reasons for companies not embarking on the programme; and (c) what is the Ministry's plan to increase the take-up rate.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Managing Onsite Vehicular Safety (MOVeS) programme helps companies to develop effective traffic management plans and educates them on how to prevent work-related vehicular accidents.
MOVeS is a relatively new programme introduced in 2017. In 2017, the Ministry piloted the programme for 80 workplaces and increased it to 120 workplaces in 2018. There were more companies that could have benefited, but they declined to participate largely because they felt they already had inhouse expertise in vehicular safety. These companies will nonetheless still be subject to Ministry of Manpower inspections. In the event of any accidents, they also remain accountable under the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act as employers or occupiers.
To improve take-up, we will work with the WSH Council and trade associations, for example, the Singapore Contractors Association Limited, Singapore Logistics Association, and the Container Depot and Logistics Association Singapore, to promote the programme among their members and subcontractors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on Singapore's Trade and GNP","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the coming into force of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on 30 December 2018 (a) what will be its near and long-term importance on Singapore's trade and GNP; (b) how can our companies take advantage of the CPTPP; and (c) how does it impact Enterprise Singapore's and Economic Development Board's strategies.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: To date, seven countries have ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which will enter into force on 30 December 2018. CPTPP will expand Singapore's economic space and promote new sources of growth for trade and investment. Singapore's total exports and gross domestic product can each potentially increase by up to 0.2% as a result.1 These gains are in addition to the benefits we enjoy from our extensive network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with many of the CPTPP members. We also expect deeper economic and trade activities with Mexico and Canada, the two CPTPP countries with which Singapore does not have existing FTAs.
CPTPP will make it easier for our companies to do business in the region. It will boost trade and investment flows and integrate the region into a single manufacturing base and market, allowing Singapore companies to operate more seamlessly across the CPTPP countries. There are a number of opportunities for our businesses. First, Singapore-based goods producers will gain from the substantial elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers when exporting to the CPTPP markets. Second, service providers will enjoy preferential market access in a wide range of sectors, such as professional services, telecommunications, transport and energy. Third, investors will benefit from the removal of restrictions on foreign equity, as well as improvements in investment protection. Fourth, enterprises will be able to bid for more government procurement contracts in jurisdictions which were previously closed to foreign companies.
Beyond these direct benefits, CPTPP also establishes a common set of enforceable rules that address modern trade and investment issues. Specifically, setting rules and standards in new areas, such as e-commerce and intellectual property, would foster innovation and the creation of new industries. The Agreement also aims to promote inclusive trade, with specific provisions that support small and medium enterprises, including through capacity building activities.
CPTPP is aligned with the strategies of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), as well as our economic agencies, including Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and the Economic Development Board (EDB). CPTPP provides a platform for Singapore companies to strengthen their export networks and access opportunities overseas, through tariff reductions and ensuring a level playing field across the Asia-Pacific markets. This reinforces our ongoing efforts to enhance Singapore’s connectivity and help our companies grow through internationalisation. With CPTPP, we will be well-positioned to continue attracting companies from diverse and innovative industries to set up, grow and create new businesses from Singapore. MTI is working with ESG and EDB to increase awareness of CPTPP and help companies fully utilise its benefits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: East Asian Economic Review, Ciuriak et. al (2017) Quantifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership."],"footNoteQuestions":["75"],"questionNo":"75"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Express Trains on New MRT Lines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for Transport whether there are plans to implement express trains in new MRT lines.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Express services can reduce travel time for some commuters, but they will require a separate set of tracks and additional signalling systems. This will mean greater land take, pose operational complexities, and cost taxpayers and commuters significantly more. Sharing tracks for express and non-express services is technically possible, but non-express trains have to be held back at stations to allow express trains to pass. This will have significant adverse impact for commuters on the non-express services.
Existing lines are designed to benefit the maximum number of people along their routes. Retrospectively implementing express services is not feasible. We will need to build parallel tracks very close to existing live tracks, which poses considerable operational risks.
For new rail lines which are being developed, we did study the feasibility of including express lines. Specifically, we assessed the option of an express service between Jurong East and Changi Airport for the Cross-Island Line (CRL). However, less than 5% of CRL users will see significant time savings of at least 15 minutes. Viewed against the much higher cost and land take needed to build two additional tunnels for the express service, we did not pursue the option.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimising Inconvenience and Improving Preparedness for Enhanced Security Screening at MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the trial on enhanced security screening at MRT stations (a) how will the Ministry minimise inconvenience and delays to commuters; and (b) how the preparedness of transport operators be further improved in the face of security threats.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Security screening at Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations is not new to commuters. Since 2004, commuters have been subjected to random bag checks at all MRT stations. It is timely to review and update our security measures given that our public transport system has expanded significantly and remains a soft target for perpetrators who wish to do us harm. We are, therefore, trialling person screening using walkthrough metal detectors and X-ray machines. The six-month trial is necessary to allow the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the public transport operators (PTOs) to finetune the security operations and develop the capability to step up our response against heightened security threats when the situation warrants. During this period, commuters at selected stations will be subjected to the new search process.
Security screening will lengthen travel time. This is the balance we have to strike between public safety and efficiency. As commuters become more familiar with the screening process, we expect additional time taken to be kept to a minimum. We have chosen to start the trial over the year-end holiday period so that affected commuters can be sensitised to it before the start of the new year. We are also mindful that there are various groups of commuters whom we need to pay special attention to, including students sitting for their GCE \"A\" level examinations, so that help can be rendered if necessary.
The Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC) constantly reviews security threats to our public transport network and calibrates the security measures accordingly, leveraging technology where applicable. LTA and the PTOs conduct regular security and emergency exercises involving 100% checks to test our preparedness and response against security threats. This year, we conducted two exercises, one at Newton MRT station and the other at Holland Village MRT station. The third exercise will be carried out in December at Hougang MRT station. Such exercises are crucial to ensure the security preparedness of our PTOs and relevant agencies, and to help commuters familiarise with security protocols in the event of heightened security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Community Mental Health Master Plan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the status of the Community Mental Health Master Plan launched in 2017; (b) with the need for upstream prevention to promote mental well being, whether research has been done on the effectiveness of mental health education in countries with mandatory mental health literacy programmes in schools; and (c) whether there is a plan to study the impact of mental health on skills, productivity and innovation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been working with healthcare institutions and professionals to implement the community mental health plan since its launch in 2017. One key emphasis is to make care in the community more accessible for persons with mental health conditions and dementia. As at June 2018, mental health and/or dementia services are available at 10 of our polyclinics. This will increase to 12 polyclinics, or half our polyclinics, by 2021. In addition, 155 general practitioner (GP) partners have been trained to diagnose and support persons with mental health conditions. These GPs are, in turn, supported by 19 trained community intervention teams, that enhance care for persons with mental health conditions through allied health services, such as counselling.
The Agency for Integrated Care has also established a network of 34 community outreach teams, to reach out to persons with depression or dementia. These teams also carry out public education programmes to raise awareness on mental health and dementia conditions. To complement these outreach efforts, we have established six Dementia Friendly Communities to create an inclusive and supportive environment for persons with dementia and their caregivers.
I understand that internationally, mandatory mental health school programmes are still in the nascent stage. Various initiatives have been implemented in our schools to promote the understanding of mental health. For example, the Health Promotion Board offers psycho-emotional programmes in schools to promote mental health literacy.
On the impact of mental health conditions on different aspects of life, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) conducted a study in 2016 to better understand the quality of life of persons with mental health conditions. Persons with mental health conditions surveyed expressed desires for improvement in their psychological well-being, level of independence and social relationships. In particular, a significant number were keen on employment. In the 2017 NCSS Study on Attitudes towards Persons with Mental Health Conditions in Singapore, negative attitudes from co-workers were found to be a major barrier to employing people recovering from mental health conditions. A follow-up study by NCSS found that implementing workplace adjustments, such as increasing work support and supervision, training of supervisors and managers, will facilitate the employment of persons with mental health conditions.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices state that employers should recruit employees on the basis of merit. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) treat workplace discrimination seriously and workers who face any form of workplace discrimination should promptly report the matter to MOM or TAFEP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Doctors Over-servicing Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health what is the extent of doctors over-servicing patients and what measures are in place to address this.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: It is difficult to accurately assess the prevalence of over-servicing. As an indicator, between 2013 to 2017, complaints of unnecessary or inappropriate treatment lodged with the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) averaged 19 each year.
Several measures have been instituted to reduce over-servicing and encourage appropriate care. The Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) has developed a total of 39 guidances to date on what constitute rational accepted clinical practice, and appropriate investigations and treatments. These include guidances on the appropriate usage of selected high-cost medications, treatments and investigations, such as indications for the use of Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-Computed Tomography (CT) scans in managing cancer.
The insurance industry has also started implementing measures to discourage over-servicing. Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers are developing or enhancing their pre-authorisation frameworks, where insurers would approve the medical treatment and estimated bill sizes prior to the actual procedures. This provides certainty to patients on what can be claimed under their insurance policy, while allowing insurers to assess the medical necessity of the treatment. IP insurers are also required to incorporate a co-payment of 5% or more into new IP riders from 8 March 2018. Co-payment in insurance is a key element that will encourage healthcare providers and policyholders to choose medically necessary and appropriate treatments for the patient's circumstances.
When the SMC revised its Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) in 2016, a specific section on Finances in Medical Practice was introduced. The ECEG states that in \"managing patients, a doctor must always place patients’ best interests above his personal interests and any business of financial considerations. The ECEG prohibits doctors from letting business or financial considerations influence the objectivity of their clinical judgement in their management of patients\". In March this year, SMC reminded all doctors about these ethical principles through a circular.
All stakeholders have to play their part to avoid over-servicing and keep healthcare affordable and sustainable for all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing CPF Members to Complete Purchase of HDB Flats By Using Retirement Account Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower what are the circumstances in which CPF Board exercises its discretion to allow its members who have turned 55 and do not have savings above their Basic Retirement Sum in their Retirement Account, to complete the purchase of HDB flats using the monies in their Retirement Account and, in such situations, how much in percentage terms will be allowed to be withdrawn from the members' CPF accounts.
Mrs Josephine Teo: When a member turns 55, a Retirement Account (RA) is created for him. Funds in his Special Account (SA) are transferred to the RA. If the resulting RA balance is less than the Full Retirement Sum (FRS), the shortfall may be made up by a transfer from his Ordinary Account (OA) to his RA. The member could choose to withdraw the amount above the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) if he has sufficient property charge or pledge. Should the member need to reserve monies in his OA to service mortgage repayments, a request can be made to Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to withhold the transfer to RA.
The RA funds earn interest and will eventually be used to provide the member with a stream of income. The OA continues to exist even after the RA is created, earning interest and receiving contributions if the member continues working. The fresh inflows to the OA can also be used for their housing needs.
Members usually take into account their available OA and cash savings when deciding what Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat to purchase. With good planning, most members have sufficient funds to complete the HDB purchase. That said, CPF Board has exercised flexibility in exceptional cases. The Board takes into account member's retirement adequacy and outstanding loan amount in deciding whether an exception can be made. For example, the Board has, upon appeal, allowed CPF members to use their RA savings to pay for their housing, up to the amount that originated from their OA, even if this results in their RA savings are dipping below the BRS.
Overall, we need to strike a balance between allowing CPF members to use their RA savings for housing needs and safeguarding such savings for their retirement, so as not to compromise retirement adequacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Progressive Wage Model Versus Minimum Wage Model for Needs of Low-wage Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how has the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) resulted in more desirable outcomes than the Minimum Wage Model; and (b) what changes are being considered for PWM to address the needs of low-wage workers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) provides a clear progression ladder for workers to earn higher and sustainable wages as they become more skilled, more productive and take on higher job responsibilities. Each PWM is developed through extensive tripartite consultations, taking into consideration sector-specific issues, such as past and prevailing wages, working conditions and the required skills for the relevant jobs.
Over 70,000 resident workers in over 1,600 companies have benefited since PWM was implemented in the cleaning, security and landscaping sectors. Workers in these sectors have seen higher real wage growth than at the median. Between 2011 and 2016, the real median gross wages of full-time resident cleaners, security guards and landscape maintenance employees increased by 5.7%, 6.4% and 3% per year respectively. This was higher than resident median income growth of 2.3% per year.
It is important to recognise that PWM is implemented in the context of a much wider programme of wage support through the Workfare Income Supplement scheme. Workfare reflects our approach of going beyond the debate on minimum wages – one that economists still cannot agree on after decades – to find a way forward that works for Singapore.
Workfare payouts are targeted at those with poor household support, with more going to older workers. It can comprise up to an extra 30% of the worker's monthly income, topping up salaries of low-wage workers and helping them save for retirement. Over the past decade, about 830,000 Singaporeans have benefited from the $5.5 billion disbursed.
Together with Workfare, as well as other initiatives like Silver Support Scheme and Goods and Services Tax (GST) vouchers, PWM has helped uplifted wages and incomes of lower-wage workers while keeping employment levels high and unemployment levels low.
The tripartite partners will continue to review the PWMs in each sector periodically to ensure that they remain relevant in uplifting workers and are aligned with the sectors' industry transformation goals. For example, over the last two years, the tripartite partners in the cleaning and security sectors announced PWM enhancements and are reviewing the PWM for the landscape maintenance employees. The tripartite partners also announced a PWM for lift and escalator maintenance to attract and retain more skilled workers into the sector to build a strong local core workforce in the lift industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional CPF Housing Grant and Special CPF Housing Grant for First-time Buyers of HDB Flats in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether the Additional CPF Housing Grant and Special CPF Housing Grant can be extended to first-time buyers of HDB flats in mature estates as these buyers may wish to live near to their parents within the 4-km radius.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is committed to providing affordable public housing for Singaporeans. Helping families live with or near one another for mutual care and support has also been a longstanding priority for the Government.
To ensure new flats are affordable for first-timer families, we provide the Additional Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant (AHG) and Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG), on top of subsidised flat prices. All first-timer families earning up to $5,000 a month can receive an AHG of up to $40,000, regardless of whether they are buying a new flat in a mature or non-mature estate. The SHG of up to $40,000 is also extended to eligible first-timer families when they purchase 4-room and smaller flats in non-mature estates, to encourage prudence in home purchases.
For those buying new flats in HDB's Build-To-Order and Sale of Balance Flats exercises, we have various schemes that give priority to families who wish to stay with or near one another: the Married Child Priority Scheme, Multi-Generation Priority Scheme and Senior Priority Scheme. For multi-generation families that wish to stay together, we have also introduced purpose-built Three-Generation (3Gen) flats for a more comfortable living environment.
First-timer families buying resale flats are also given significant Government support. They can enjoy housing grants of up to $120,000, comprising a CPF Housing Grant of up to $50,000, an AHG of up to $40,000 and a Proximity Housing Grant of up to $30,000. This is regardless of whether the resale flat is in a mature or non-mature estate.
We will continue to review our housing policies to ensure that public housing remains affordable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of HDB Rental Flats Allocated to Singaporeans who Have Owned HDB Flats Previously","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many and what proportion of HDB rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme are currently allocated to Singaporeans who have owned HDB flats previously; and (b) how does prior home ownership affect the priority of allocation of HDB rental flats compared with applicants who have not previously owned HDB flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 24,000, or close to half of all public rental households, have previously owned HDB flats.
Entry into public rental is on a needs-basis. Rental applicants are assessed based on factors, such as household income, whether they have family support, and their ability to afford other housing options. For applicants who have previously owned a property, the proceeds from the sale of their last property will be taken into account when assessing their housing budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Causes of Double-digit Growth in Healthcare Inflation over Last Decade","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health what are the causes of healthcare inflation which has seen double digit growth over the past 10 years, far outstripping normal inflation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: National Health Expenditure (NHE) is commonly used to track healthcare spending. Between 2006 to 2016, our NHE increased at an average rate of 11% per year. In addition to healthcare inflation, the increased expenditure includes several factors, such as our ageing population, higher utilisation of healthcare services and capital expenditure on the building of more public healthcare facilities in recent years. The NHE figure for 2017 is not yet available.
Over the same period, the Government has provided more support for healthcare. These include the Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life premium subsidies and the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Between 2006 to 2016, the Government’s expenditure on healthcare increased significantly faster by 17% and, consequently, the Government's share of NHE increased from about 30% to more than 40%.
As a result of increased Government subsidies, while the growth in our NHE has been high, healthcare inflation, defined as the growth in prices of healthcare goods and services borne by Singaporeans, has been lower. Between 2007 and 2017, Singapore’s average annual healthcare inflation was 2.6%, compared to 2.3% for all goods and services.
We will continue to monitor healthcare inflation closely and keep healthcare affordable for all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protecting Rights of Self-employed Such As Hawkers and Private Hire Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower what measures are taken to protect the rights of the self-employed, such as hawkers and private hire drivers, who are often required to provide minimum hours of work or fulfill other conditions of service when signing contracts for their trade; (b) under what conditions will such contracts give rise to an employment relationship under the Employment Act; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide guidance to the self-employed on structuring self-employment trade contracts to provide for their welfare and to avoid effecting an employment relationship.
Mrs Josephine Teo: In general, self-employed persons (SEPs) choose who to contract with and can negotiate the terms of their service contracts. To better support SEPs, we launched the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons in March this year. Companies that adopt the Standard commit to discussing and agreeing on the terms of engagement with SEPs prior to the purchase of any services, and to set these terms out in writing. Over time, the Standard will help shape contracting norms and entrench best practices.
SEPs may also seek help from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), their affiliates, such as the National Private Hire Vehicles Association or other SEP associations in their respective sectors. Such groups can help to advance the interests of SEPs with the major service buyers.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) considers a range of factors when assessing whether an individual is an employee or self-employed. There is no single test to conclusively distinguish a contract of employment from a contract for services. The ability to decide on the hours of work is one of the factors considered. Other factors include whether the worker must use the equipment and tools provided, comply with prescribed procedures, follow a fixed schedule, and carry out the work without getting a replacement and so on. Each case has to be evaluated holistically. Any SEP, including hawkers and private-hire car drivers, who thinks that he or she has been wrongly classified should approach MOM so that an appropriate determination can be made.
Our surveys show that the proportion of primary SEPs1 in the resident workforce has remained stable at between 8%-10%. The vast majority of them prefer self-employment over regular employment because of the increased range of work choices that it affords, greater flexibility and autonomy, as well as an alternative source of income. However, for SEPs who prefer to be an employee, the Ministry and our tripartite partners are working to improve their awareness of job matching schemes. Career centres run by Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute can also offer job facilitation services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : SEPs in the survey findings cited refer only to SEPs who operate their own business without hiring any employees, more formally known as \"own account workers\"."],"footNoteQuestions":["86"],"questionNo":"86"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Noise Generated by Pump and Lift Fixtures Due To Design Issues of HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development in the past 10 years, what has been the number of feedback received from residents each year with regard to noise generated by pump and lift fixtures due to design issues of HDB flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are designed to insulate individual flats from noise generated by mechanical services, such as pumps and lifts. For example, in situations where the lift shaft is next to the living room or bedroom of a flat, HDB provides a cavity wall buffer, or a wall with an air gap in between.
As mechanical services are managed and maintained by Town Councils, residents who provide feedback on noise from these systems typically approach the Town Councils directly, and not HDB. The Town Councils will then work with the maintenance contractors of the systems to address the feedback.
For cases where HDB is made aware of the feedback either through the Town Council or from the resident directly, HDB will work with the relevant Town Council to implement measures to mitigate the noise, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children below Age 18 who Are Diagnosed with Obesity-related Illnesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how many children below 18 years of age are currently diagnosed with obesity-related illnesses; (b) whether there are adequate medical resources to cater to their healthcare needs; and (c) what is being done to prevent and reduce obesity among children.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Obesity is a risk factor for developing medical conditions, such as high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and Type-2 diabetes mellitus. Childhood obesity often persists into adulthood, when it can cause adverse health effects.
Overweight children at the upper end of the cohort weight range are at higher risk of developing such medical conditions earlier. About 13% of our children aged 6-18 are overweight. Among the higher risk overweight1 students screened at the Health Promotion Board's Student Health Centre (HPB SHC) in 2016, less than 2% had impaired fasting blood glucose, and about one in three had elevated blood pressure or elevated blood lipids.
To strengthen intervention early through lifestyle management, higher risk overweight children are referred by schools to the HPB SHC for assessment and lifestyle coaching. Those found to have an obesity-related medical condition are referred for specialist care at public sector hospitals.
HPB works with schools to increase opportunities for physical activity and make healthier meals more accessible for students. Student Health Advisors are also deployed to secondary schools to provide counselling to help overweight students change unhealthy behaviours.
To make healthy living a norm, NurtureSG also published a mini booklet on \"Five Habit Hacks for a Healthier Child\" to educate and empower parents with the skills to improve their child's health. The Ministry of Health and HPB will continue our efforts to foster healthy behaviours in our young to improve their physical well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Students with BMI-for-age ≥ 95th percentile."],"footNoteQuestions":["88"],"questionNo":"88"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education on Possible Safety Issues for Water Heaters Connected by Three-pin Plugs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development what educational or other measures will be taken by HDB to address possible safety issues in relation to water heaters connected by three-pin plugs.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Water heaters should be connected to a 20-ampere socket switch instead of a normal 3-pin socket, which can only support currents of 13 amperes. The installation of water heaters must be done by an electrical worker licensed by the Energy Market Authority (EMA).
The Government will do its part to educate residents on the proper installation of water heaters. Currently, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Improvement Programme (HIP) contractors who find water heaters incorrectly installed during the course of their work will advise the residents to address the issue. HDB will also work with EMA on a public awareness campaign to remind all residents of the importance of the safe installation of water heaters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revenue Generated by Contracts that Referred Foreign Patients to Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) how many patients and how much revenue did the referral contracts for foreign patients bring in for the public hospitals during the life of this practice; and (b) whether this had compromised Singaporeans' priority access to public healthcare resources.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The priority of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public healthcare institutions (PHIs) is to serve Singaporeans' healthcare needs. Our PHIs are not allowed to actively market themselves to foreign patients. MOH has also recently asked PHIs to cease any contracts with service providers to assist foreign patients referred for medical treatment in Singapore. Today, none of our PHIs have contracts with such service providers anymore.
There are foreign patients who travel to Singapore to seek medical treatment on their own accord. Between 2013 and 2017, such patients make up about 1.5% of the total inpatient and day surgery attendances at our PHIs. Those whose referrals were supported by contracted service providers constituted about 0.4% of attendances in PHIs that had such contracts. Revenue from such patients made up 0.8% of total revenue in these PHIs.
Singaporeans remained the majority of patients treated in PHIs. Foreign patients have not impacted our PHI's delivery of services and subsidised appointment slots given to Singaporeans. In fact, the median waiting time for new subsidised specialist appointments has improved steadily from 28 days in 2013 to 22 days in the first half of 2018. MOH will continue to work with our PHIs to ensure that meeting Singaporean's healthcare needs remains our priority.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Enrolled in Courses Related to eSports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) in the past year, how many Singaporeans have enrolled in courses related to eSports; (b) what are the career prospects for those in the eSports industry; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to expand professional opportunities for youths who are interested in the eSports industry.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been closely monitoring the rising popularity of esports among our youths. In August this year, the Ministry organised the inaugural Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) youth esports tournament, Hyperplay, to bring together youths of different backgrounds who share a common passion, as well as to promote greater understanding of ASEAN and build friendships across borders.
Sport Singapore (SportSG) has been supportive of the esports fraternity's efforts to establish a National Sport Association (NSA). As with other sports, the NSA is expected to develop the sport's ecosystem. This includes developing athletes, coaches, officials and administrators for the sport. The NSA will also oversee the development of athletes to represent Singapore, should esports competitions be introduced in future Major Games.
We see that there is private sector interest to develop esports in the region, and this could provide more business and career opportunities for Singaporeans. For example, Razer and Sea, formerly known as Garena, are Singapore-based companies that are active in this space, both in Singapore and the region. Singtel also recently organised the PvP esports Championship in October.
There will be Singaporeans who will want to explore opportunities in this growing industry. Our polytechnics and universities offer programmes in design and media, such as in digital animation and game design. In particular, one of the local esports interest groups, the Singapore Cybersports and Online Gaming Association (SCOGA), has been working with Republic Polytechnic to incorporate esports content as part of the school's Diploma in Sport Management.
We will continue to monitor the development of esports as another area which our youths can express their passions and achieve their potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations on E-money Float and Electronic Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) how do Singapore's regulations on e-money float compare to those of the major global financial centres; (b) what is the progress on the consultation on \"user protection measures in electronic payments\"; and (c) how will the Ministry protect consumer interests while ensuring Singapore's competitiveness as an e-payments processing hub.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Singaporeans have a growing range of e-payment options available to them. Besides PayNow, debit cards and credit cards, stored value facilities in the form of e-wallets are gaining popularity.
Currently, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires entities which hold a stored value float in excess of S$30 million in these stored value facilities to safeguard the float with a bank licensed by MAS.1
Consumers will enjoy better protection of their funds held in stored value under the Payment Services Bill (PSB) that is being introduced in Parliament today. It contains two key enhancements.
First, more types of stored value, or e-money, will be protected under PSB. E-money will include not just prepayment for goods and services, such as value stored in transport cards, but also any monetary value that is held for future payment transfers between individuals. This means that the value held in e-wallets that people use to pay merchants or pay one another will also be protected in future.
Second, the threshold of e-money that will be protected under PSB will be lowered from S$30 million to S$5 million. This means that any e-money held by a payment institution will be wholly safeguarded if the average daily float exceeds S$5 million.2 If the average daily float does not exceed S$5 million, the safeguarding measures will not apply, provided the payment institution makes appropriate disclosures to consumers.
We have sought to protect consumer interests while encouraging innovation in e-payments and ensuring Singapore's competitiveness as a payment services hub. This requires that our regulations are proportionate to the risks. To give payment institutions adequate flexibility, MAS will expand the options for safeguarding measures available to Major Payment Institutions, beyond the current requirement of a bank guarantee. Under PSB, a guarantee given by a prescribed financial institution or segregation of customer monies in a bank account will be recognised as alternative safeguarding measures.3
These two key enhancements on the scope of e-money and options for safeguarding measures are similar to those in Australia, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.
To complement the measures in PSB and existing regulations on banking services, MAS has issued the E-Payments User Protection Guidelines (the Guidelines). The Guidelines essentially aim to enhance consumer confidence in e-payments. Financial institutions and e-payment users can look to the Guidelines for (a) their respective responsibilities for ensuring secure e-payment transactions; (b) how liability for unauthorised transactions ought to be apportioned; and (c) simplified error resolution processes when a user sends money to the wrong recipient. The Guidelines were finalised in September after MAS’ public consultation earlier this year. They will take effect in January next year.
MAS will continue to engage both the industry and the public as the e-payments landscape evolves, so that we provide assurance to users without holding back innovations that enhance competition and efficiency in payment services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Under the Payment Systems (Oversight) Act, the holder of a multi-purpose stored value facility (SVF) that holds stored value above S$30 million must be approved by MAS. At the same time, a bank licensed by MAS must also undertake to be fully liable for the stored value and be approved by MAS as an “approved bank” in respect of that stored value facility. In this regard, users of these larger SVF schemes will benefit from the protection on their stored value. MAS does not subject holders of single-purpose stored value facilities to this requirement.","2 : Only Major Payment Institutions may issue e-money with an average daily float that exceeds S$5 million.","3 : Major Payment Institutions that issue e-money will be required to safeguard the relevant e-money float by having the equivalent amount: ","(a) covered by an undertaking from any bank in Singapore or prescribed financial institution to be fully liable to the customer for such moneys; ","(b) guaranteed by any bank in Singapore or prescribed financial institution;","(c) deposited in a trust account in such manner as may be prescribed by the Authority; or","(d) safeguarded in such other manner as may be prescribed by the Authority."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decline in Total Fertility Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister with regard to our total fertility rate (TFR) (a) whether it is a concern that the figure has fallen to 1.16 in 2017; (b) whether the Government's pronatalist policies have been working; and (c) what further measures are necessary or are being considered by the Government to arrest the decline in TFR and to raise it in the long term.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Government takes the issue of our low total fertility rate (TFR) seriously. While marriage and parenthood are ultimately personal decisions, a persistently low TFR can have far-reaching implications on our economy and our society.
The decline in our TFR in recent years is in part due to a demographic shift. A relatively large cohort of young Singaporeans, many of whom are children of \"Baby Boomers\", are just entering the peak childbearing ages of 25-39. Many of these \"echo baby boomers\" are not yet married or have not yet started having children. This is consistent with our survey results, which show that while the vast majority of young Singaporeans want to marry and have children, they often have other life goals as well. Some decide to delay marriage and parenthood in order to fulfil other aspirations like establishing a career or travelling the world first.1 Whether or not they eventually marry or have children will have a significant impact on our TFR.
Therefore, we must continue to support young Singaporeans and families to achieve their marriage and parenthood aspirations. In formulating our policies, we have studied the experiences of different countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, France, Denmark and East Asian countries, such as South Korea. The elements that have made a real difference in raising birth rates include: (a) support for work-life through adequate parental leave, childcare and flexible work arrangements (FWAs); (b) societal norms that embrace children and families, and encourage shared parental responsibility in raising children; and (c) support to defray the costs of raising children.
Singapore's marriage and parenthood policies aim to provide support in similar areas. We have invested significant resources and progressively enhanced the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package over the past 17 years to provide support at each stage of the marriage and parenthood journey.
To enable parents to better manage their work and family responsibilities, we have enhanced parental leave measures and strengthened support for childcare and FWAs.
One, on parental leave, today, working couples can take up to 20 weeks of paid parental leave and two weeks of unpaid leave in their child’s first year.
Two, on childcare, the Government is committed to ensuring that every parent who wants a preschool place for their child will be able to have one, to give parents peace of mind that their children are well taken care of. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been steadily enhancing the provision of affordable and quality infant and childcare, with 40,000 more places to be added in the next five years. ECDA is also reviewing the preschool subsidy framework to improve affordability for parents.
Three, we also encourage companies to adopt family-friendly practices, such as FWAs, and have launched the enhanced Work-Life Grant earlier this year, as well as a Tripartite Standard on FWAs in 2017, to support companies in doing so.
To foster a stronger culture of shared parental responsibility, we have improved leave support for fathers to play a more active role in caring for their children. Last year, we made the second week of Paternity Leave mandatory and increased Shared Parental Leave from one to four weeks. In total, fathers can take up to eight weeks of leave in the child’s first year.
We have also enhanced our policies to address concerns about costs of raising children. From the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, Child Development Account (CDA) and MediSave Grant for Newborns, parents can receive up to $18,000 per child for the first and second child, $26,000 per child for the third and fourth child, and $32,000 per child for the fifth and subsequent child.
We also understand that many couples aspire to own their homes before they start a family. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has worked to provide couples with faster access to housing. Last week, it launched the first batch of 1,100 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats with shorter waiting times of two to three years from point of application. Another batch of 2,000 such flats will be launched in 2019. HDB has also introduced a new flexibility earlier this year to allow deferment of income assessment for housing loans and grants till before keys collection, for young couples who are studying or, in the case of the male, serving National Service.
Together with our heavily subsidised education, public housing and healthcare systems, these measures in our M&P Package seek to provide strong support for those who decide to marry and have children. We will continue to study ways to better strengthen this support.
We are mindful that no silver bullet or single policy intervention alone will boost birth rates. As the experiences of other East Asian societies, for example, South Korea, have shown, encouraging couples to have children requires more than a package of support measures. For a decisive increase in our TFR over the longer term, mindset shifts among couples and the support of the whole of society are critical.
We must continue to encourage young Singaporeans not just to value but to prioritise marriage and parenthood as important life goals. As employers and co-workers, we can foster more progressive workplace cultures where employees, including young parents with caregiving needs, are supported in managing their work and family responsibilities. As a community, we can extend a helping hand or word of encouragement to young Singaporeans as they navigate through their marriage and parenthood journey. It is with such collective efforts from the whole of society that we can build a more family-friendly environment where marriage and parenthood are Achievable, Enjoyable and Celebrated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The 2016 Marriage and Parenthood Survey indicated that 83% of single Millennials aged 21-35 want to get married, and 92% of married Millennials want at least two children. However, the same survey showed that half of the single Millennials, or 54%, indicated that they wanted to focus on their career and studies before marrying, and 77% said that travelling was an important life goal."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Service Salary Structure Review","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) how often does the Public Service Division review the salary structure of the Civil Service; (b) when was the last review conducted; and (c) what are the salary scales for each of the Management Executive pay grades from 2010 to 2017.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Civil Service's pay philosophy is to keep pace with but not lead the market. We will check that our salaries remain market-competitive every year but only adjust salaries where necessary. We have not made any major adjustments to salaries in the last few years.
The last substantive change to the Management Executive Scheme (MXS) was in 2015, where MXS was extended to create a single career scheme for both degree and non-degree holders. Officers with the same potential and performance would be given the same opportunities for advancement and career development, regardless of their academic background.
New officers in Executive roles on the MXS are generally paid a monthly salary starting from $3,100. The monthly salary for senior management Superscale officers, comprising around 1.9% of the Civil Service, starts from around $11,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pipeline of Skilled Local Car Mechanics to Support Hybrid/Electric and AVs Using Automation Technology","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport in view of the greater adoption of hybrid/electric and autonomous vehicles using automation technology (a) whether Singapore has enough skilled local car mechanics in the pipeline; (b) whether the Ministry will be mapping the skill requirements, job prospects, salary and career progression pathways to upskill our car mechanics; and (c) whether the major employers of car mechanics in Singapore have these initiatives in place.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are about 15,000 car mechanics in the motor workshop industry. The Singapore Motor Workshop Association (SMWA) is leading industry efforts to upskill car mechanics in view of the greater adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid vehicles. SMWA is planning to establish a training academy which will offer centralised skills training for mechanics. This will ensure that car mechanics in Singapore continue to have relevant skills in light of changing technologies.
SMWA is also planning to enhance local EV diagnostic, repair and maintenance capabilities. This will be achieved through hosting German specialists to train local mechanics and organising overseas attachment programmes for more advanced training. Workforce Singapore will be providing funding support for this initiative under the Capability Transfer Programme.
Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technology is nascent and mainstream adoption of AVs is still some time away. In the meantime, the Land Transport Authority is conducting trials to better understand AV technology and determine the eventual concept of operations for deployment in Singapore. These trials will provide a sense of the scale and type of repair and maintenance services required to inform our longer-term manpower development plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extra Checks on Reliability of Vehicles Selected for Use as Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport in light of a recent recall of cars over a fault that can increase crash risks (a) whether LTA conducts extra checks on the reliability of vehicles selected for use on the roads, especially for taxis and private hire vehicles; and (b) beyond emission standards, what other checks are conducted on vehicles used for public transport at the point of registration and subsequent use on the roads.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires new vehicle types to be put through a robust type approval regime to ensure that they comply with internationally recognised vehicle safety standards before they can be allowed for use on our roads.
LTA also requires all in-use vehicles to be inspected regularly at LTA-authorised Inspection Centres to ensure that they are roadworthy. These inspections cover key vehicle components and systems, such as brakes, steering, tyres and exhaust systems. Besides these regular inspections, LTA and the Traffic Police also call up vehicles for ad hoc inspections to evaluate their safety and roadworthiness. Vehicles which fail these inspections are not allowed to be used on our roads.
Taxis, buses and heavy vehicles are generally subject to more stringent requirements. For example, only new vehicles are allowed to be registered as taxis, and LTA has stringent safety standards when purchasing new public buses. Taxis and public buses are also required to go for vehicular inspections more frequently and are subject to statutory lifespans of eight and 17 years respectively.
Separately, when a vehicle model is recalled, LTA requires motor dealers and importers to notify LTA and affected vehicle owners promptly and arrange with owners to rectify the affected vehicles. It is an offence for motor dealers and importers to not comply with this requirement. LTA's electronic Vehicle Recall System also allows vehicle owners to check if their vehicles are affected by the recall, as well as the progress of rectification works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Poor Resurfacing of Roads after Completion of Cable/Pipe Installation Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA supervises the resurfacing of roads each time contractors have dug holes in the roads to install wires, cables and pipes and, if so, what is the reason for poor resurfacing of the roads after the works are completed.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: All contractors are required to reinstate roads after their works, based on standards stipulated in the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Code of Practice for Works on Public Streets. These standards include the International Roughness Index which is an international standard that measures the riding quality of roads. However, LTA has observed through its regular audit checks and public feedback, cases where contractors did not carry out these reinstatement works in accordance with LTA's requirements.
In such instances, LTA will enforce against these contractors and require them to rectify their reinstatement works. These errant contractors will also be fined up to $500 per infringement and penalised with demerit points. Contractors who chalk up more than 200 demerit points a month will be suspended from carrying out any new works.
Members of the public can call LTA's hotline to report instances of poorly resurfaced roads.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Number of Public Car Park Lots across All Terminals of Changi Airport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current total number of public car park lots across all terminals of Changi Airport; (b) what is the projected total number of public car park lots across all terminals after the opening of Jewel Changi Airport; and (c) what is the projected total number of public car park lots across all terminals after the opening of Terminal 5.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: There are currently about 5,900 public carpark lots in Changi Airport. The full opening of Jewel Changi Airport will add another 2,500 public car park lots.
Terminal 5 is in the design stage and the number of public car park lots to be provided has not yet been determined.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans for Development and Opening of Hume MRT Station","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the plans for the development and opening of the Hume MRT station; and (b) what is the minimum size and density of the residential population before the station can be opened.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: We open new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations when there is sufficient ridership to ensure that the stations will be well-used. This is to balance between improving connectivity and prudent use of taxpayers’ monies.
While there are some existing residential developments around the Hume station box, they fall short of the ridership threshold to justify the opening of Hume MRT station. However, the upcoming development of the first stage of the Rail Corridor will likely inject additional visitorship to the precinct. The Land Transport Authority is reviewing the ridership projection and business case for opening Hume station. We will announce our decision in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Single-use Plastics in National Day Parade 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Defence (a) what measures are being taken to reduce single-use plastics in National Day Parade (NDP) 2019; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing only reusable items with minimal packaging in the NDP 2019 fun pack.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Since 2002, the National Day Parade (NDP) Executive Committee (EXCO) has worked closely with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to organise a clean and sustainable NDP. In doing so, the EXCO takes into account the varying needs of attendees and participants, including the young and elderly, as well as the need for prudent spending. The general direction is to use reusables when available and cost-effective.
For next year's NDP, paper instead of plastic Bento boxes will be used to cater meals for our NDP participants and each fun pack will contain one larger bottled water, instead of the usual two.
While it is not feasible to have only reusable items with minimal packaging for the fun pack, NDP EXCO will work with NEA to establish collection points to encourage NDP spectators to return unused items, especially ponchos for wet weather, from the fun pack.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance and Compensation to Affected Family of SAF Training Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Defence (a) in view of the recent training accidents, whether the SAF deems the current assistance and compensation as sufficient to the affected family; and (b) how will the army-wide safety timeout on training ensure the prevention of such accidents from happening again.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Ministry of Defence's (MINDEF's) compensation framework tracks the amounts prescribed by the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) but would be generally higher in recognition of the risks borne by our servicemen during military training and operations. For deaths that result from military training or operations, the compensation amount is doubled that of WICA. On top of this, additional compensation may be granted if there are exceptional circumstances or when the serviceman had rendered service beyond the call of duty. Overall, the total compensation amounts disbursed for incidents arising from training and operations are generally two to four times that of amounts provided under the national compensation framework.
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) also provides welfare support through grants disbursed from the SAF Benevolent Fund. These grants are used to meet the immediate needs of the families of servicemen who have passed away as well as provide financial assistance to help the serviceman’s family, depending on the family's circumstances.
Over and above the existing compensation and welfare provisions, MINDEF provides our servicemen with $150,000 of Group Term Life (GTL) and $150,000 of Group Personal Accident (GPA) insurance under the MINDEF/SAF Group Insurance Core Scheme. The premiums for these insurance plans are paid by MINDEF, in recognition of our servicemen’s contribution to national defence and security, and to strengthen our care for them.
The Member has also asked how SAF intends to prevent further training accidents. This will be addressed in our reply to similar questions raised by Members of Parliament in this Sitting. [Please refer to \"Reviews and Changes Made to SAF Training Doctrines Given Recent Deaths\", Official Report, 19 November 2018, Vol 94, Issue 85, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revocation by SAF’s In-camp Medical Officers of Medical Leave Issued by Private GPs to Full-Time National Servicemen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Defence (a) in the last three years, how many cases of Full-Time National Servicemen's medical leave issued by private GPs have been revoked by SAF's in-camp medical officers; (b) what are the main reasons for the revocations; and (c) what are the processes involved prior to the in-camp medical officer's revocation of the medical leave.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) medical officers do not revoke medical certificates (MCs) issued by external medical practitioners. Unit medical officers may, however, conduct a clinical review of the SAF personnel's medical condition and propose an amendment to the MC.
To effect such an amendment, the medical officer either discusses the case with the medical practitioner who issued the original MC or refers the SAF personnel to a relevant specialist who can advise on the proposed amendment. An amendment could include an adjustment to the duration of the MC or exemption from specific activities. Personnel may at any point see the unit medical officer for a further clinical review. Instances of amendments to MCs are infrequent in the SAF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Traffic Accidents at Causeway","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past one year, how many accidents involving motorcycles, lorries and trailers have occurred on the Causeway; and (b) whether the Ministry is reviewing the need to introduce new measures to prevent traffic accidents at the Causeway.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the beginning of this year, there were nine traffic accidents on the Causeway within Singapore's jurisdiction that resulted in injuries or fatalities. Eight of these involved motorcycles, and one of these eight also involved a lorry and a trailer.
The Traffic Police (TP) has put up signs at both checkpoints to remind all motorists entering Singapore to abide by our traffic laws and to drive safely. TP also works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to ensure safe traffic flows. For example, during periods of high traffic, Woodlands Checkpoint deploys special support teams to augment the officers already on the ground, to manage traffic.
The Land Transport Authority has also put in place safety infrastructure, such as clearly demarcated lanes and arrow markings, to guide motorists on the Causeway and the Second Link.
We will continue to monitor the situation and implement additional road safety measures if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Violations by Heavy Vehicle Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the recent island-wide operation against heavy vehicle drivers (a) what are the main violations for issuing the summonses; (b) what is the trend of heavy vehicle violations in the past five years; and (c) what is the Ministry's plan to reduce these violations as heavy vehicles can potentially cause greater damage and loss of life on the roads.
Mr K Shanmugam: The most common traffic violations by heavy vehicle drivers are speeding and red-light running.
Over the past five years, from 2013 to 2017, traffic violations committed by heavy vehicle drivers increased by an annualised rate of 6.7%.
The Traffic Police (TP) has been conducting regular road safety talks and dialogues with heavy vehicle owners and drivers. At these events, TP shares the common causes of heavy vehicle accidents and encourages drivers to adopt good road safety practices.
We will also continue to encourage drivers to refresh their driving skills. For example, SkillsFuture Singapore provides grants for drivers to attend Ministry of Manpower (MOM)-approved training programmes, such as the Crash Prevention Course, conducted by the Automobile Association of Singapore Academy. TP posts its road safety tips for heavy vehicle drivers on its online learning portal.
TP and MOM are working with partners to test technological solutions that can foster safer driving. Examples include devices that can alert owners and drivers to risky behaviour, such as speeding, tailgating and sudden braking. Should these solutions prove to be effective, we will look into ways to encourage wide adoption.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Crimes Targeting the Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is being done to reduce and prevent financial crimes targeting the elderly.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are strong punishments to deter financial crimes against the elderly, which usually involve cheating. Offenders can face a jail term of up to 10 years, and a fine. The Government is also studying ways to strengthen our laws against cheating offences. The Penal Code Review Committee has made recommendations in this area, which the Government is studying.
Besides having strong punishments as deterrence, the Police have also taken steps to educate the elderly. For example, the Police work with the Residents' Committees and grassroots volunteers to spread scam alert messages to residents, through community events like block parties, roadshows, festive events and Community Safety and Security Programmes (CSSPs). One such CSSP focusing on the elderly is the Silver Watch Group. Launched in 2013, the initiative aims to impart to elderly residents on crime prevention knowledge by keeping them informed of the latest crime situation and encouraging them to share the relevant advice with their peers.
The Police have also worked with banks and remittance centres to identify potential victims and advise them to exercise caution when transferring money to unknown bank accounts. To increase public awareness, the Police have also put up anti-scam advisories near to automated teller machines and AXS machines. Members of the public who wish to seek scam-related advice can call the anti-scam helpline at 1800-722-6688 or visit www.scamalert.sg.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Domestic Workers Borrowing from Legal and Illegal Moneylenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Law (a) in the past 10 years, how many reports have been lodged by residents that their foreign domestic workers have borrowed from legal and illegal moneylenders respectively; (b) how many of such residents became the victims of harassment from loan sharks or legal money collectors respectively; and (c) whether there are plans to ban borrowings by foreign domestic workers from legal moneylenders.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Registry of Moneylenders received no public feedback on foreign domestic workers (FDWs) borrowing from licensed moneylenders prior to 2017. The Registry received one case of feedback in 2017 and 38 cases of feedback in the first half of 2018. This reflects an increase in the number of FDWs who borrowed from licensed moneylenders from 1,500 in 2016, to 12,000 in 2017, and to 28,000 in the first half of 2018.
The Police have observed more foreigners residing in Singapore, including FDWs, borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders. The Police have also seen an increase in reports of harassment from unlicensed moneylenders arising from FDWs who took loans or acted as guarantors. From 2008 to 2012, the Police registered no such reports, while 2013 to September 2018 saw about 460 of such reports.
Any employer who is harassed by unlicensed moneylenders should report such activities to the Police. The Police adopt a tough enforcement stance against unlicensed moneylenders and anyone who assists them in perpetuating illicit activities. The Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers have prosecuted errant debt collectors who have violated the law and will continue to take strong enforcement action against such conduct.
Enhancing borrower protections. There are currently several measures to protect all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. For example, the Moneylenders Rules permit a licensed moneylender to charge only the following for each loan: (a) an upfront administrative fee of up to 10%; (b) interest of up to 4% per month; (c) late interest of up to 4% per month; and (d) late fees of up to $60 per month.
The Registrar of Moneylenders have issued Directions to regulate moneylenders' activities. In particular, moneylenders are prohibited from advertising their loans to members of the public via mobile text messages or emails. Moneylenders are also prohibited from conducting abusive practices, such as repeatedly \"rolling over\" existing loans to charge the administrative fee multiple times even though no new credit is issued; or offering split loans so that late fees can be charged multiple times a month.
In view of the recent increase in foreigners borrowing from moneylenders, on 4 October 2018, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) announced two measures to strengthen protections for FDWs and other foreigners residing in Singapore from the effects of over-borrowing.
First, the Ministry will impose aggregate loan caps to limit the total amount that any foreigner residing in Singapore can borrow from licensed moneylenders. The caps were first announced for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents under the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill in January this year: (a) individuals earning less than $20,000 a year may borrow up to $3,000; and (b) individuals earning $20,000 or more a year may borrow up to six times of monthly income. Both caps will be extended to all foreigners residing in Singapore. In addition, there will be a lower cap of $1,500 for all foreigners residing in Singapore who earn less than $10,000 annually.
Second, the Ministry will introduce a self-exclusion framework for all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. Both Singapore residents and foreigners may apply for self-exclusion. Licensed moneylenders will be prohibited from lending to self-excluded individuals. This framework will help individuals to control their borrowing habits and to participate in debt assistance schemes administered by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) which typically require self-exclusion.
Third, on unlicensed moneylenders, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has announced that it will take administrative actions against work pass holders who borrow from unlicensed moneylenders. When a work pass holder is found to have borrowed from unlicensed moneylenders, MOM will inform the employer and revoke the work pass. The worker will then be repatriated and debarred from further employment in Singapore.
MOM will implement this measure against borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders in 2019, after a period of education and communication. MOM will continue to step up educational efforts on money management and the risks of borrowing from moneylenders, for work pass holders and their employers.
These measures will be complemented by existing support channels for work pass holders, such as VWOs, the Migrant Workers' Centre and the Centre for Domestic Employees.
MinLaw, together with MOM and the Singapore Police Force, will continue to monitor the situation closely following the implementation of these measures, and will assess if more stringent measures are necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease Infections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the number of Hand, Foot and Mouth disease infections are on the uptrend; and (b) whether current efforts to break their transmission need to be improved.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The reported cases of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) fluctuate from year to year, as shown in Table 1 below.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE), Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and the People’s Association (PA) to educate and assist preschools to curb and control the spread of HFMD. We provide guidance on personal and environmental hygiene and inspect preschools with large clusters to help them identify gaps. We also provide infection control guidelines to all preschools and work with them to remind parents to play their part by keeping their children home to rest if their children have symptoms of HFMD, such as fever, mouth ulcers and rashes on the palms, soles or buttocks.
During the peak months this year from March to May and July to August, we reminded preschools to be more vigilant in screening children with HFMD symptoms and ensure high personal and environmental hygiene standards. ECDA also stepped up on health visits to preschools with ongoing transmission.
MOH will continue to regularly review our policies and response measures with respect to the control of HFMD transmission.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sign-ups as Dementia Friends through Dementia Friends Mobile App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many people have signed up as Dementia Friends through the Dementia Friends mobile app; and (b) whether the app should be used by concerned members of the wider public who are not specifically trained to help persons with dementia and their families.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Dementia Friends mobile app was developed as part of the Dementia-Friendly Singapore initiative and was officially launched on 25 October 2018. As at end October 2018, over 2,000 people have signed up as Dementia Friends through the Dementia Friends mobile app.
The mobile app was designed for both caregivers of persons with dementia, as well as the wider general public. It allows users to access information about dementia and the available support services, receive updates on upcoming events on caregiving and, most importantly, enlist the help of the community to locate loved ones who might be lost.
When persons with dementia are lost, caregivers can use the mobile app to activate the network of Dementia Friends. These Dementia Friends, who are members of the public, would then receive a notification from the mobile app to help keep a lookout for the lost persons. Go-to Points are listed in the mobile app, so that the persons who are lost can be brought to the nearest Go-to Point by nearby Dementia Friends to be reunited with their caregivers.
We hope that the Dementia Friends mobile app can serve to mobilise community resources to support and respond to caregivers' needs. Members of the public are encouraged to download this mobile app and sign up as a Dementia Friend, and to also share this useful resource with relatives and friends, whether or not they are specifically trained.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Replacement of Analogue TV Signal Systems with Digital TV Starter Kit and Extension of Its Redemption Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether IMDA will render its service to replace analogue television signal systems with the Digital TV Starter Kit at senior citizen corners located at HDB void decks.
19 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Digital TV Starter Kit (DSK) redemption programme can be extended to all households, including those in private estates; and (b) whether the DSK redemption can be given to households who may have an existing cable TV subscription but who may terminate the subscription at a later stage.
Mr S Iswaran: All Singaporean Housing and Development Board (HDB) households who do not subscribe to Pay TV are eligible for the Digital TV Starter Kit (DSK). Singaporean HDB households who terminate their Pay TV subscriptions before analogue signals are switched off on 1 January 2019 are similarly eligible for the DSK.
Singaporean households in private estates with financial difficulties can appeal to the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) for the DSK.
The managing agents for public areas, such as senior citizen corners at void decks, can purchase the necessary Digital TV equipment from major retailers and Mediacorp's partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Share Ownership by Senior Management of Temasek Holdings and GIC in Companies The Sovereign Wealth Funds Have Invested in","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government allows share ownership by senior management of Temasek Holdings and GIC, whether as direct ownership or using nominee accounts, in companies that the two sovereign wealth funds have invested in; and (b) how does the Government ensure that these senior management staff do not benefit from insider information.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: All market participants, including the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek employees, are expected to comply fully with the laws and regulations of the jurisdictions where they operate, including those against insider trading. Any violations will be dealt with in accordance with the law.
Besides compliance with relevant laws and regulations, the Government holds the GIC and Temasek boards accountable for instilling good corporate governance practices in GIC and Temasek respectively. To achieve this, the respective boards set the tone and direction for management, which, in turn, formulates the corporate policies and internal controls, and ensures that these rules are adhered to.
In this regard, GIC and Temasek have internal rules that govern the personal investments of their staff, whether through direct ownership or the use of nominee accounts. GIC and Temasek employees are not allowed to have any personal dealings to benefit from insider information or make investments that may give rise to conflicts of interest with their organisations.
GIC has a Compliance Manual and Code of Ethics, which prohibits all GIC employees from benefiting from insider information. Similarly, Temasek has its Code of Ethics and Conduct, which governs the treatment and misuse of price-sensitive insider information, and the management of potential conflicts of interest.
Disciplinary action will be taken by GIC and Temasek against violations of their respective codes of conduct, including censure or termination of employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plan to Institute a National Volunteer Registry to Provide Big Data for Analysis and Use Across Ministries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there is a plan to institute a national volunteer registry that can provide big data for analysis and use across Ministries, such as those relating to blood donors, pro bono legal aid lawyers, grassroots volunteers, Police volunteers, and corporate volunteers, and which can also provide a personal volunteer portfolio/journey for citizens and residents.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We believe that insights from big data could help us grow volunteerism and allow Ministries to improve their support and partnership with volunteers, as well as make the volunteering experience a more meaningful one.
The Government is, indeed, improving the sharing and analysis of volunteer-related data, with consent from the volunteers to share their information. We are progressively rolling out digital infrastructure to help agencies manage information on volunteers and volunteering opportunities, starting with volunteering opportunities offered by public sector agencies. Volunteers are also able to discover and sign up for volunteering opportunities across participating agencies with ease.
Earlier this year, we launched the SG Cares mobile app with inspiring stories, links to volunteering opportunities, and self-help guides to grow their own volunteer competencies. This is a first step towards a personalised \"digital assistant\" for volunteering that Ms Anthea Ong refers to, and we will continue to seek feedback and enhance the app to make it a more seamless journey for the volunteer and beneficiaries.
In time, these efforts would make it easier for more organisations and individuals to step forward to volunteer and build a culture of care in Singapore together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhanced China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with the enhancement of the China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (a) what is the projected increase in the volume and type of trade between the two countries; (b) how is the Ministry helping Singapore companies to leverage the new opportunities in China; and (c) which are the industries that will be of interest to Singapore companies looking to expand into Central and Western China.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (CSFTA) upgrade completed this month comprises a meaningful package. It is substantive in terms of market access for Singapore's export of goods and services into China, as well as enhancing the rules and investment regime for our companies doing business in China.
Since the entry into force of CSFTA in January 2009, bilateral trade with China has grown from close to S$76 billion in 2009 to S$137 billion in 2017. Our investments in China have also doubled from S$62 billion in 2009 to S$123 billion at end-2016. The upgraded CSFTA will promote greater bilateral trade and investment flows between China and Singapore.
For example, the improved rules of origin will allow more petrochemical and plastics exports from Singapore to qualify for tariff savings. Singapore companies in the legal, construction and maritime service industries will be able to expand their footprint and no longer be subject to ownership caps in various parts of China. Singapore investors investing in China can also look forward to enhanced investment protection through a more robust Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The upgraded CSFTA also includes rules in new areas, such as E-Commerce, Competition and Environment, to keep abreast with new business developments.
At the regional level, Central and Western China present opportunities for Singapore businesses. There is significant demand arising from urbanisation and the growth of the middle class. The Chinese government has also placed emphasis on policies to develop industries, such as infrastructure, urban planning, and transport and logistics, areas where Singapore companies have significant strength and interest. Notably, the China-Singapore Connectivity Initiative's (CCI's) New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor is an important complementary economic route connecting Western China and Southeast Asia. Together with the upgraded CSFTA, companies can leverage increased connectivity to access opportunities in Central and Western China.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Enterprise Singapore will continue to work with Trade Associations and Chambers and reach out to Singapore businesses to help them utilise the upgraded CSFTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Income of Foreign Spouse of Singaporeans in HDB Housing Loan or Grant Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether the income of a foreign spouse who is married to a Singaporean is taken into consideration by HDB in deciding the quantum of housing loan or grant that the applicant would be eligible for.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Housing grants are means-tested and pegged to the monthly household income of all working members of the household. In particular, the grant quantum for the Additional Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant and Special CPF Housing Grant is tiered based on monthly household income, while the quantum for the CPF Housing Grant is tiered by flat type.
With regard to housing loan, the Housing and Development (HDB) determines the loan quantum based on the flat owners' income as they are the ones who are borrowing and need to service the mortgage. Nevertheless, HDB exercises flexibility and considers appeals to use the occupiers' income for the computation of the loan amount on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Sellers of Residential Properties Who Paid Seller's Stamp Duty Year on Year since Implementation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what has been the number of sellers of residential properties who paid Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD) year on year since SSD was implemented; (b) of these numbers, how many of them are Singaporeans who own only one residential property; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider exempting Singaporeans who own only one residential property from SSD.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since the Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD) was implemented in 2010, only about 5% of all transactions in the secondary market, or approximately 5,000 transactions, were liable for SSD. Out of these, approximately 40%, or 2,000 transactions, involved sale by Singaporeans owning only one residential property.
SSD is intended to discourage short-term holding of residential properties and is part of the Government's measures to ensure a stable and sustainable property market. This principle applies to all sellers of property, regardless of the number of properties they own at the point of sale.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for Home Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current take-up rate for the Home Protection Scheme (HPS); (b) whether it can be made compulsory for all HDB home owners with outstanding housing loans to take up HPS regardless of whether they are using their CPF to service the loans; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to create more awareness about the importance of HPS and similar schemes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 80% of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat buyers in 2017 used Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies to service their loans. These buyers are covered under CPF Board’s policy which mandates compulsory take-up of the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) for those who use CPF monies to repay any instalment of a housing loan taken to buy an HDB flat. An additional 12% of recent flat buyers used cash to service their loans and took up HPS voluntarily. Effectively, this means that around 92% of recent HDB flat buyers with outstanding loans are covered under the HPS policy or have voluntarily taken up HPS.
Besides HPS, some home buyers may have purchased mortgage-reducing insurance (MRI) products from the private sector. We do not have detailed records of such purchases, but many commercial banks offer such MRI products as part of their loan financing package to home buyers. So, the overall insurance coverage may well be higher.
HDB will continue to work with CPF Board to further encourage voluntary take-up of HPS. For example, besides conducting regular informational talks and distributing HPS booklets to home buyers, HDB will also explain to all flat buyers the benefits and coverage of HPS at the point of flat purchase. We will continue to monitor the situation and assess whether to implement further measures if the need arises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status of Backlog of Unsuccessful Applications for 2-Room BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the backlog of unsuccessful applications for two-room BTO flats; (b) how many of these applicants are singles; (c) how many more two-room BTO flats will be available in the next three years; and (d) how does the Ministry plan to increase the supply of two-room BTO flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From 2015 to 2017, the proportion of applicants who were invited to book a 2-room flexi flat increased from 52% to 84%.
For singles, their application rate has come down steadily from 8.5 in 2015 to 4.4 for the Build-To-Order (BTO) launches in 2018 so far. This improvement was made possible through the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) efforts to increase the supply of 2-room flexi flats in non-mature estates, from 320 in 2012 to an average of about 4,000 per year from 2014. HDB will continue to offer this same level of flat supply in 2018. Beyond that, HDB will continue to finetune its 2-room flexi flat supply to meet the demand from singles.
Besides buying a flat from HDB, singles can consider the option of buying a resale flat on the open market. The wide range of resale flats available, and housing grants totalling up to $60,000 for eligible buyers, will help singles to find a suitable flat within their budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Situation of Landed Eastwood Estate with Cracks and Structural Issues Probably Caused to Public Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can review the situation facing a number of residents in the landed Eastwood estate off Bedok Road who have seen cracks and structural issues appearing at around the same time, so as to provide them with a single point of contact with a lead agency to assess the issues and advise them, given that the problems could have been caused by works done by different agencies in the vicinity, such as PUB's canal-widening project and LTA's MRT tunnelling.
Mr Lawrence Wong: With regard to the situation in Eastwood estate, we understand that affected residents have contacted the Public Utilities Board and the Land Transport Authority, and that the agencies have followed up and responded accordingly. For cases where structural safety concerns were raised, a Professional Engineer has inspected the buildings and found them to be structurally safe.
Where there are potential building structural safety issues, members of the public and building owners can contact the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). BCA will investigate the feedback, consult relevant agencies, and respond accordingly. BCA can also help to facilitate discussions between the owners and project parties to resolve issues, as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Shorter Period of Closure for Repairs and Renovation of Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA can consider a shorter period of closure for the repairs and renovation carried out for hawker centres so that the hawkers may have better options to continue their operations.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Cyclical repairs and redecoration (R&R) works are carried out at hawker centres by the respective Town Councils or the National Environment Agency (NEA) every five to seven years. This ensures that hawker centres are well-maintained, to provide patrons and hawkers with a pleasant and hygienic cooking and dining environment.
R&R works are typically completed within two to three months, depending on the scope of works and size of the hawker centre. In planning for such works, NEA will seek feedback from the Hawkers Association and stallholders on the preferred closure periods, so that stallholders have ample advance notice and can make their plans accordingly. We also work with contractors to plan for the shortest possible closure period to enable stallholders to resume their businesses as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawker Centres Operating 24 Hours a Day","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many hawker centres are currently operating 24 hours a day; and (b) in each of the hawker centres which are currently operating 24 hours a day, what is the percentage of the stalls which are actually operating 24 hours a day over the total number of stalls in the respective hawker centres.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Of the 114 hawker centres managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and NEA-appointed operators, only the hawker centre at Our Tampines Hub (OTH) operates 24 hours a day. On average, about 20% of its 42 stalls operate 24 hours a day. This was in response to requests from the community for a 24-hour hawker centre. But as the demand from patrons has not materialised, both hawkers and the operator are recalibrating the arrangement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Work Injury Compensation (Workers' Fund)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Work Injury Compensation (Workers' Fund) (a) how many applications has the Ministry received so far; (b) how many workers have benefited from the fund and its payouts since its introduction; and (c) whether there is any plan to increase the awareness of this fund.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Workers' Fund provides financial help to employees or their dependants who have not been compensated by their employers in the event of a work injury. Since 2005, when the earliest records were available, 51 applications have been received and about $1 million has been paid out in 34 cases where employees and their families were either in financial difficulty or victims of long-drawn occupational diseases.
Prior to 2017, the Workers' Fund was targeted at helping those who were in financial hardship. The eligibility criteria were broadened in 2017 to provide assistance to employees and their families regardless of their financial situation. To ensure that those affected are aware of the Workers' Fund, the Ministry of Manpower would inform employees or their dependants who are eligible for work injury compensation but are not compensated to apply for assistance under the Fund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Aged 65 and above with Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) to date, how many Singaporeans aged 65 and above have made their Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA); and (b) how can the Government better reach out to this group of senior citizens to do an LPA, especially with mental distress being on the rise.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, out of 51,000 Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) made, 23,000 were made by Singaporeans aged 65 and above.
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has been working closely with various organisations to raise awareness on the importance of making an LPA among seniors. These include conducting talks and disseminating LPA collaterals at community touchpoints, such as Community Centres, public libraries and Senior Activity Centres. Going forward, we will work with the Silver Generation Office to promote awareness of LPA. We have also promoted the LPA through radio. We will continue to tap on the mass media and social media to reach out to more seniors.
For seniors with no family support, the newly launched Professional Deputies and Donees scheme allows them to appoint registered professionals, such as lawyers, accountants and medical professionals, as their donees in an LPA.
The application fee waiver for Singapore Citizens making an LPA Form 1 has been extended to 31 August 2020 and we encourage more seniors to make their LPAs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost to Make a Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the average cost that Singaporeans have to pay a certificate issuer to make a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA); and (b) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the categories of persons eligible to act as LPA certificate issuers.
Mr Desmond Lee: Three groups of professionals can act as Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) certificate issuers, namely, doctors accredited by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), lawyers or registered psychiatrists.
Most members of the public applying for LPAs use doctors and lawyers, rather than psychiatrists. The 10 most visited accredited medical practitioners charge fees ranging from $25 to $80, with most charging $50 for the LPA certificate issuing fee. The 10 most visited lawyers charge fees ranging from $80 to $400, with most charging $150. There are also not-for-profit organisations that offer subsidised rates to the lower-income and the elderly. Members of the public can refer to OPG's website at www.bit.ly/LPACertIssuers for the lists of 10 most visited certificate issuers among doctors and lawyers and not-for-profit organisations.
Currently, there are approximately 6,200 certificate issuers catering to Singaporeans with different needs and preferences. As demand for certificate issuers is adequately met, there are no plans to expand the categories of LPA certificate issuers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median and Average Monthly Income of Single Unwed Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the past five years, what is the median and average monthly income of single unwed parents (i) below 35 years old, (ii) between 35 and 36 years old and (iii) 36 years old and above, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The median and average monthly income for citizen mothers with non-marital births is in the table below. These figures are derived by dividing their annual income by 12. For those aged below 35, it is likely that quite a number may be working in part-time jobs or only for a few months of the year, contributing to their lower monthly income.
34 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether he can provide an update on the Government's assessment as to whether to raise the cut-off age for the definition of \"young person\" in the Children and Young Persons Act from 16 to 18, for consistency with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore has acceded to.
Mr Desmond Lee: As stated in Singapore's combined 4th and 5th periodic report submitted in November 2017 to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is assessing, as part of its review of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), the timing to include young persons from 16 to 18 years of age who may require care or protection.
MSF has been working closely with our partners on the CYPA review. We will announce details of this review in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Riot at Singapore Boys' Home","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the riot at the Singapore Boys' Home (a) what are the measures and precautions in place to detect, pre-empt and deter such incidences from occurring again; (b) what are the standard operating procedures and protocols when mass disturbances occur; and (c) what is the number of disturbances that occurred over the last five years in the Home.
Mr Desmond Lee: Close coordination between the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is key to ensuring safety and security within the Singapore Boys’ Home (SBH). There were three incidents of mass disturbance where resources from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) were activated in the last five years. MSF works closely with the Home Team departments to learn from these incidents in order to strengthen our standard operating procedures and activation protocols.
Early prevention and intervention are the first line of defence. MSF staff is trained to identify early signs of conflict. Youth management plans are developed to address tensions and to support the youths with counselling or psychological treatment where necessary. This allows the Home to manage conflicts before they escalate.
If an incident of mass disturbance were to happen, the MSF officers have been trained in a series of protocols, which include activating reinforcements, de-escalating the conflict, and physically separating residents to ensure their safety. SPF is also activated as part of the protocol to pre-empt further escalations.
Post-incident, there are after-action reviews so that we can continue to improve the incident management and rehabilitation approach. Where necessary, SPF will undertake investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outreach and Support for People with Physical and Other Disabilities in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms Yip Pin Xiu asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current total number of people with physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and those who are blind or deaf in Singapore; and (b) whether there has been consideration to share the particulars of this group of people, while maintaining a high level of privacy, to VWOs or organisations that can help with outreach and provide support to this targeted group of people.
Mr Desmond Lee: The prevalence rate of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in Singapore is as shown in the table below.
Persons with sensory (blindness and deafness) and physical disabilities constitute half of the disability group. The other half comprises those with Intellectual Disabilities, Autistic Spectrum Disorder and other types of disabilities.4
As part of efforts to better support PwDs, the Ministry of Social and Family Development is working with the Department of Statistics to include disability-related questions in the upcoming population census to be conducted in 2020. Data collected from the census will enable Government agencies to better plan services and programmes for different groups of PwDs.
On the issue of data sharing, we will look into sharing appropriate data with voluntary welfare organisations and other help organisations when the census data is available. However, sharing of personal information with non-governmental organisations will require consent, so as to protect the privacy of individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Ministry of Education. This is based on the number of reported cases of students with sensory impairment, physical impairment, autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. The total student population is put at approximately 460,000.","2 : Source: National Council of Social Service (NCSS). Based on a random sampling of 2,000 Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents aged 18 and above done by NCSS in 2015, the self-reported disability prevalence rate was 3.4% for those aged 18–49 years old. This includes those who acquired disabilities due to accidents and illness. The resident population is put at approximately 3.9 million.","3 : Source: National Council of Social Service. Based on a random sampling of 2,000 Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents aged 18 and above done by NCSS in 2015, the self-reported disability prevalence rate was 13.3% for those aged 50 years and above. This includes those who acquired disabilities due to accidents, illness and old age. The resident population is put at approximately 3.9 million.","4 : Estimated based on the profile of the persons with disabilities who are served under SG Enable’s administered schemes and services (September 2016)."],"footNoteQuestions":["36"],"questionNo":"36"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1541,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181119/vernacular-19 Nov 2018 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Legal Aid And Advice Bill.pdf","fileName":"19 Nov 2018 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Legal Aid And Advice Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1542,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Prof Fatimah Lateef","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181119/vernacular-19 Nov 2018 - Prof Fatimah Lateef - Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism Bill.pdf","fileName":"19 Nov 2018 - Prof Fatimah Lateef - Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism Bill.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}