Mr Speaker: Hon Members. Today, Singapore is in the midst of tackling the COVID-19 threat. We are working hard to keep all Singaporeans safe, pressing on with our efforts to mitigate the risk of local spread and to reduce the further importation of cases. We should remain on guard but never let COVID-19 paralyse us as a society.
Parliament is our nation’s law-making body. As parliamentarians, all of us have pledged to discharge our duties and serve Singaporeans to the best of our abilities. We must remain steadfast in carrying out these responsibilities effectively despite the challenging circumstances posed by COVID-19.
Nevertheless, it is equally important to protect everyone’s well-being even as we conduct our proceedings. We must maintain our vigilance and do our utmost to comply with the necessary precautions as advised by the Government’s Multi-Ministry Task Force.
Hence, beginning today, we have implemented safe distancing measures for all hon Members. During Sittings, Members are seated at spaced intervals – as you can see now – both within the Chamber and extending to the galleries at other levels. Members will also be taking their refreshments in separate groups to further reduce mingling. To complement the maintenance of good personal hygiene, the respective groups will further use separate restrooms.
These steps are aligned to the stricter safe distancing measures which the Taskforce had announced last week to prevent further spread of COVID-19 cases. Over the weekend, the Public Service Division further issued specific guidelines to intensify the implementation of safe distancing measures across agencies.
Let me assure Members that no matter where you are now seated, you can still make your speeches and present your impassioned ideas here in this Chamber. The microphones placed near you will duly capture and record your speeches.
This is the first time ever that we have spread out the seats for Members in such a manner, and over two floors. Members of the public and media at the galleries will also be seated at spaced intervals. It will take some getting used to so thank you, hon Members and everyone here, for your cooperation as we all play our part in being socially responsible.
As we cannot be certain how long COVID-19 will be with us, we will continue to monitor all advisories to see if further precautionary measures should be implemented for forthcoming Sittings.
Beyond Sittings, our measures in Parliament also extend to the staff here at the Secretariat and to all visitors to the House. Since early February, we have steadily stepped up the necessary precautions in line with all advisories issued. The measures include having the temperature of all staff and visitors screened before entry, requiring them to declare their overseas travel history and maintaining a contact list for all visitors.
As the on-going COVID-19 situation evolves, we have been regularly reviewing and updating business continuity plans. Our Secretariat workforce has been split into separate teams, with distancing measures rolled out for all staff. The measures include telecommuting, staggering working hours, splitting shifts and working from separate locations within the House. We have also reduced and set limits on the number of students for our educational tours of the House. We will do our best in ensuring that these adjustments do not compromise the quality of services and operations that remain available and uninterrupted to hon Members and the public.
It is not business as usual as we deal with COVID-19. We will face varying degrees of inconveniences and disruptions to our daily lives, routines and even our economy, which has a very real impact on all Singaporeans. Yet, we must take all precautionary measures seriously and fully comply with them to prevent its further spread.
We have done it before for SARS and H1N1, and such collective social responsibility by Singapore and Singaporeans is how we will ultimately prevail over the spectre of COVID-19. Let us also do this as Singapore (SG) United – by looking out for the most vulnerable amongst us, and supporting and encouraging one another in keeping ourselves, our families and friends, as well as our co-workers in Singapore safe.
Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19 on Singapore International Festival of Arts 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the evolving COVID-19 situation (a) whether Singapore will heighten measures to ensure safety and welfare of participants in the Singapore International Festival of Arts (SIFA) 2020; (b) how will the COVID-19 situation affect the attendance of SIFA 2020 events; and (c) whether there are proposed plans to give further support to the arts community for this annual festival.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, the Singapore International Festival of the Arts (SIFA) is commissioned by the National Arts Council (NAC) and presented by Arts House Limited (AHL).
The top priority of NAC is to ensure the safety and well-being of all patrons, performers and crew involved in SIFA 2020. Given the evolving COVID-19 situation, NAC has decided not to stage SIFA 2020 as planned from 15 to 31 May 2020. This was not a decision taken lightly, but was made because global restrictions on travel, together with our own precautionary and safe distancing measures to reduce local transmission of COVID-19, would have a significant impact on the overall festival experience. NAC will work with AHL towards an exciting SIFA line-up in 2021.
In addition, NAC and AHL will work with local arts groups involved in SIFA 2020 – namely Nine Years Theatre, The Finger Players, The Necessary Stage and Toy Factory Productions – to explore how they can offer innovative arts and culture experiences in the coming months, based on their SIFA works. These could include webcasts, behind-the-scenes profiling, as well as digital conversations.
I encourage the arts community to likewise explore digital-based presentations of their work, so that they can continue to engage existing audiences, and develop new audiences, even in the current situation. For example, the Singapore Chinese Orchestra has made available its \"Dabao\" digital concert series on Facebook. NAC is also engaging potential partners to explore ways to support the online presentation of artworks and productions by the arts community. I urge those who have capability in this area to support others who may not have the same experience and proficiency.
As mentioned during the MCCY Committee of Supply debate on 6 March 2020, the Stabilisation and Support Package announced at Budget 2020 includes support for arts practitioners – both organisations and individuals – during the COVID-19 situation, in addition to broad-based measures such as the Self-Employed Persons Training Support Scheme announced by the Ministry of Manpower. MOF has given notice to table a Supplementary Supply Bill to give greater support to Singaporeans. NAC has been engaging the arts community on these measures, for instance, the Capability Development Scheme for the Arts (CDSA) which will help organisations and individuals upskill their capabilities and position themselves well for the post COVID-19 recovery.
NAC is monitoring the situation closely and welcomes suggestions from our arts community on how we can address the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 situation together.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Terence Ho.
\tMr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. One, in view of the cancellation of SIFA, are there any plans to turn this into a #SGUnited Digital Arts Festival, by making the arts accessible and available? Two, whether more can be done to engage our local freelance artists and arts groups for the future SIFAs and for other art events to make the local artists and arts companies as the preferred choice for programming? Three, can SIFA also explore to work with the Giving.sg to encourage online giving to the arts, such as turning the refund of tickets into donation and that could also apply to other arts companies?
\t
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Ho for the questions. On presenting a digital format of SIFA 2020, as mentioned in my reply, the Festival Director is already in talks with the local production companies on how they could re-purpose or adapt their works planned for this SIFA into a digital format, but probably in different versions because performing arts is best enjoyed live, in front of you on stage, in a live situation, with live audiences. So, we would have to respect how they would think their works can be best presented and we do encourage them to explore innovative ways, including digital means, to showcase their talents and their works to the audiences.
In terms of local talents involved in SIFA, that has been the mandate and vision of SIFA over the years. Being a pinnacle arts festival of Singapore, we would like SIFA to allow our talents to showcase the creativity, their works, their talents, but also the chance to interact with overseas performers and arts groups. So, for example, for the last two editions in 2018 and 2019, we have local artists involved in half of all the productions and programmes, and that will continue to be the case for future SIFA editions.
As to encouraging audiences who have bought tickets for SIFA to donate the ticket refunds to the arts, yes, I think that would be a good suggestion that AHL could perhaps look at in terms of a platform. But giving to Giving.sg is already a platform for all to donate to a cause or a particular beneficiary of their choice. But I would just like to also clarify that, for example, the local productions for SIFA are all local commissions. So, the refund of tickets does not have any impact on the ticketing revenue for these groups. They would already be commissioned works and therefore, AHL – the organiser of SIFA – would already be working with them on their costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Sexual Crime Offenders who Have Escaped Mandatory Caning Due to Age","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, how many persons have escaped the imposition of the mandatory caning sentences upon being convicted for committing serious sexual offences such as rape by reason of them being above the age of 50; and (b) whether the Government has plans to remove the age requirement in order that all such convicted persons, irrespective of their age, will be imposed caning sentences so long as they are assessed to be medically fit.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): There are two serious sexual offences in the Penal Code that attract mandatory caning, namely: aggravated rape and aggravated sexual assault by penetration. In the past five years, 13 offenders above 50 years old were convicted of these offences. Caning was not imposed on them, as they were above 50 years old.
For such offenders, the courts have the discretion to impose an additional imprisonment term of up to 12 months in lieu of the caning.
The Government regularly reviews Singapore’s criminal justice policies, including our policy on caning. We will provide an update if there are changes to this policy.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. I have a supplementary question, but before that, on a point of elucidation, the focus of my question is whether using the age of 50 is a rational and reasonable differentiating measure to distinguish between those who will be visited with a minimum mandatory caning sentence for committing serious sexual offences on one hand, and those who have committed such offences but escape it because they are above 50.
With your leave, Sir, may I be allowed to use the screen on a point of information?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
\tMr Murali Pillai: Obliged. Sir, this is the Criminal Procedure Code in 1900, about 120 years ago, where the stipulation of 50 years is stated at section 278. The life expectancy of persons then, you would see, Sir, was about 48.5 years, in around 1900. So, quite clearly, if I could say it, age 50 then would have been age about 80-plus now.
\t
Finally, Sir, the Criminal Procedure Code in Malaysia; you could see that under section 289(C), males, even though they are above 50 years, but if they are convicted of serious sexual crimes, then they can be whipped, so long as they are medically fit.
So, my question to the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary is, is there still a basis to maintain age of 50 as a differentiating measure?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, the age limit for caning is a colonial legacy passed by the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements. And the Singapore courts have interpreted the age limit as a proxy to screen out those who are likely to be unfit for caning.
I take the point that the Member has made that health conditions have changed since then. The Government, as I have mentioned earlier, regularly reviews Singapore's criminal justice policies including our policies on caning. We will look at the trends and statistics of offenders above 50 years old who commit serious offences and review, among other things, the age limit of caning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternate Long-term Plans for SMEs with Factories in China","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many factories run by local SME businesses are currently based in China, namely Hubei, Zhejiang, Henan and Guangdong; (b) whether the Ministry foresees a need to relocate these factories for the businesses' long-term survival and to address supply chain changes; and (c) for SME businesses that wish to move their operations, whether any assistance is available to them.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Saktiandi filed this question earlier.
The global situation has now changed and the provinces in China mentioned in his question are no longer the places with the highest number of newly infected cases. Nevertheless, the essence of the question is still relevant as the principles and approach that we take can also apply to investments in other countries.
Sir, MTI does not have data on the number of factories our SMEs set up overseas. Singapore's Direct Investment Abroad across Hubei, Zhejiang, Henan and Guangdong contributes about 17% of our total Direct Investment Abroad in China.
The situation in China is stabilising with a progressive return to normalcy. Across China, many companies have gradually resumed their operations. A survey conducted in late-February by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce and Industry in China (SingCham) showed that around 70% of Singapore companies had started resuming operations. We can expect this figure to rise as the situation in China gradually improves. For example, data from middle of March showed that around 80% of Chinese workers have returned to work from their hometowns. The PRC Ministry of Commerce has also introduced measures to support foreign companies, including expediting licence approvals and resolving labour shortages.
Whether Singapore SMEs based in these four Chinese provinces will relocate their factories is a commercial decision that they have to make. Businesses regularly review their markets and supply chains. Given the size and growth potential of China's economy, many businesses are likely to see continued value in keeping some production capabilities close to their final demand markets in China.
SMEs that seek to relocate operations may tap on the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS) to purchase equipment, machines and business premises. SMEs looking to explore new markets may also benefit from Enterprise Singapore's network of Overseas Centres, the enhanced Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) grant as well as the Singapore Business Federation's advisory services on internationalisation.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I would like thank Senior Minister of State Chee for the answer that he has given. It is very reassuring that it is only 17% of production of Singapore companies that produce in China and it is testament to Singapore's diversification efforts in terms of manufacturing. But the reason why I am asking this question is because I am raising concerns about Singapore SMEs' exposure to China production, and as a result of the recovery out of China, my concern therefore, further in terms of my supplementary question is, in terms of supply change shifts and production network changes thereafter, even following this event, whether there will be immediate impact on Singapore companies in the future, and how MTI plans to tackle this issue in terms of supply chain shifts into Indochina, and probably into other areas in the future.
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi for his supplementary question. He touched on a very important point. Indeed, I think even before the COVID-19 pandemic, companies were already asking themselves how they can strengthen the resilience of their supply chains. And partly arising from the Trade War, people are starting to rethink how they want to structure their supply chains, where they want to focus different parts of the production cycle.
With COVID-19, I think many businesses are now going to face even greater impetus to re-look closely at their supply chain management to strengthen the resilience of their supply chains and not have over concentration in one or two areas, in one or two markets. This is something that I am confident businesses will seriously look at and not just in manufacturing, but I think, across different industries.
On the part of Singapore, we have started these conversations with our businesses and this is part of the process of helping them to transform their operations, helping them to emerge stronger after the crisis is over. We need to start doing some of these preparations now. While we tackle the short-term pain and challenges of the crisis, we also want to look at how we can help our companies to emerge stronger when this crisis is over. So, this includes raising productivity, this includes training their workers, how to adopt technology, but it also includes a careful and thorough review of supply chains and markets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Plunge in Crude Oil Rates on Retail Prices at Petrol Pumps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the plunge in crude oil rates (a) whether current retail prices at petrol pumps reflect this trend; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will implement measures to ensure petrol companies adjust prices accordingly.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan Wu Meng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, to get petrol at the pump, the crude oil has to be refined and processed. In addition to the cost of refining, there will also be operating costs, taxes, duties and land costs on the one hand, as well as rebates and discounts on the other hand.
Between 2 January 2020 and 9 March 2020, the Brent crude price fell from US$66 to US$34 per barrel. If this price decrease was fully passed through, or in other words, mirrored in retail petrol prices, then retail petrol prices would have dropped by 26 Singapore cents per litre. The listed price of Octane 95 petrol fell by 20 cents per litre, with a slight lag of six days. This represents a pass-through of over three-quarters of the decrease in crude oil price. Based on an in-depth study on retail petrol prices conducted by the then-Competition Commission of Singapore in 2017, a pass-through of around 70% for both price increases and decreases is typical.
Retail petrol prices are determined by the market. Well-informed consumers are a key deterrent against unreasonable pricing decisions. To help empower consumers, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has launched Fuel Kaki, a retail petrol price comparison website. Fuel Kaki helps consumers compare the effective prices of retail petrol, including various discounts and rebates. This is part of CASE's overall efforts to empower consumers to make better informed decisions.
The Government will continue to ensure well functioning competitive markets and empower consumers to make informed decisions.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have some supplementary questions. I think the general impression, the feedback from residents, is that the decrease in the pump price is always lagging, much slower compared to if it is going up. So, I would like to ask MTI whether this is closely studied? Is there a study commissioned by MTI to see how much is the lag? And if it is true that coming down is always much slower, compared to going up, then maybe MTI should look into how to regulate that. Secondly, there is not much choice; there are only those few oil companies that we have. So, even if you make information available, for those who need to pump petrol, there is not much choice. So, I think MTI will have to come in to help the consumer to make sure that they got the right deal.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. If we look at the research that was done by the then-CCS, what they found was that the pass-through of an increase in the price of oil – and when you compare the increase with the decrease, the pass-through is about the same. The amount that retail petrol price goes up by, and when you compare that with the amount that it goes down by, as mentioned earlier in my answer.
If you look at the amount of time it takes, actually it takes a little bit longer for the price pass-through to go through when it is upwards. So, the prices take longer to go up on average for roughly the same pass-through, whereas when the price goes down for oil, the pass-through happens a bit more quickly.
So, in summary, basically it takes longer for the pass-through on the upward side, but it is faster when it happens on the downward side. That is the first part of the clarification to the Member's question.
The other point that the Member raised, was about helping our consumers and this is something that CASE has been working on with the Fuel Kaki's website. In the past, when you were comparing the retail price at the pump, the availability of information on discounts and rebates is harder to keep track of – because different suppliers, different promotions – and it was not all together in the same portal.
But today, with the introduction of Fuel Kaki, we have a way for consumers to look at the different rebates, look at the different discounts available and that helps consumers make better decisions because when consumers are aware of the actual effective price with the rebates and discounts included, it helps consumers decide better and that helps make the market function in an even more competitive way.
This is something that we will continue looking at – on how to improve and how to keep on empowering our consumers.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answer to Question No 5 on the Order Paper is 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":"Update on Whole-of-Government Response to COVID-19","subTitle":"Statements by Minister for Health and Minister for National Development","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Members. Minister Lawrence Wong and I first spoke about COVID-19 in Parliament in January. And I updated Members again during the COS debate earlier this month. The situation continues to evolve rapidly and we would like to take this opportunity to provide a further update on the latest situation and our strategy going forward. As the task force involves multiple Ministries, may I have your permission, Mr Speaker, to invite the relevant Ministers to respond to clarifications on their respective responsibilities?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of yesterday, there are more than 370,000 COVID-19 cases and over 16,500 fatalities from the disease worldwide, and the epicentre has shifted to Europe and, perhaps, United States. The number of deaths in Italy alone has exceeded that in China. World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March.
How the outbreak develops globally will depend on the strategies and efforts of countries around the world. WHO has advised that we can still change the course of the pandemic if all countries take the necessary actions to contain the outbreak.
Otherwise, we will continue to see the number of affected countries and cases rise rapidly. Regions such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, had experienced a reduction in the number of cases a few weeks ago, but have started to see increases in new cases in the past few days driven by imported cases, arising mainly from residents returning from abroad. We face similar challenges.
Currently, in Singapore, we have 558 confirmed cases, of which two have passed away; 155 have been discharged and most of the rest remain stable or are improving. From late-January to February, Singapore saw an initial wave of imported cases from China. Some of these resulted in several local transmission chains, such as the Life Church and Missions and Grace Assembly of God combined cluster which resulted in 31 cases.
However, in recent weeks, we are seeing a second wave of imported cases. In the past week alone, the number of cases in Singapore more than doubled, from 266 to 558 cases. Almost 80% of these new cases were imported, all from countries other than China even though we continued to see around 1,000 residents and long-term pass holders return from China in the past week. The top three sources of importation to Singapore are the United Kingdom, the United States and Indonesia.
And over the coming weeks, the number of cases will continue to rise, as some of our around 200,000 overseas Singaporeans return home from all over the world.
We have slowed the local spread thus far through a three-pronged approach: first, reducing importation; second, detecting and isolating cases early; and third, emphasising social responsibility and good personal hygiene habits.
To reduce the risk of importation, we have stemmed the inflow of travellers by imposing border controls and issued travel advisories to advise Singaporeans to defer their travel plans until the situation around the world is under control. Minister Lawrence Wong will elaborate on this later in his speech.
We have also strengthened checks at our borders to detect and isolate cases before they come into contact with the Singapore community. For example, since January, we have progressively put in place temperature screening, health checks and swabbing at all our checkpoints. All who meet the suspect case definition are conveyed directly to the hospital, while all symptomatic travellers as well as some selected travellers are swabbed as a precautionary measure.
Beyond our checkpoints, we have also put in place a system to detect cases early, through surveillance at hospitals, polyclinics as well as Public Health Preparedness Clinics.
We have re-activated Public Health Preparedness Clinics just over a month ago and today, we have more than 900 clinics offering subsidised consultation and treatment for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents with respiratory illnesses. Singapore residents have benefited from more than 267,000 subsidised attendances at these clinics thus far, on top of that at our polyclinics.
To date, we have done around 39,000 tests for COVID-19. This translates to about 6,800 tests per million people in Singapore, compared with around 6,500 in South Korea and about 1,000 in Taiwan. These tests are important in helping us to detect as many cases as possible and as early as possible.
The moment a case is confirmed, we activate contact tracing to identify close contacts and quarantine them as soon as possible, so as to reduce further spread of the disease.
The Government has put in place many measures to reduce imported cases, and to trace and isolate any such cases as soon as possible to prevent spread. But every one of us needs to play our part in practising good personal hygiene, social responsibility and safe distancing to further reduce the risk of local transmission. We announced several safe distancing measures yesterday. Minister Lawrence Wong will elaborate on these later. I hope that Singaporeans will support these measures and keep up good hygiene habits which will play an increasingly important role in our fight against COVID-19.
During the COS debate, I mentioned Singapore's efforts in developing research and knowledge on COVID-19 and sharing these with other countries. There is an article today in today's paper about an innovative rapid test kit being developed by A*STAR's researchers. We hope they will go to trial soon and give us an additional weaponry against COVID-19.
For treatment, a COVID-19 therapeutic workgroup comprising members from various hospitals across different disciplines as well as Health Sciences Authority or HSA, has been set up to work on guidelines for repurposed drugs with antiviral activity, such as Lopinavir-ritonavir, Interferon Beta-1B and hydroxychloroquine, to treat infected patients in Singapore.
The National Centre for Infectious Diseases or NCID, and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, together with Singapore Blood Blank, have initiated donor recruitment to collect convalescent blood plasma from recovered patients to treat other COVID-19 patients. Our doctors have also been participating in international clinical trials, with collaborators such as the US National Institutes of Health.
For vaccines, scientists all over the world have successfully isolated and cultured the virus, which will aid the development of a vaccine. The international community is also working together to identify vaccine candidates and conduct clinical trials. For example, some institutes such as Moderna Inc have already started human trials as of last week. In Singapore, Duke-NUS Medical School is working with Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI, and international partners to develop a clinical trial for a vaccine, with plans to start testing sometime this year. With all these on-going efforts, WHO estimates that the earliest a vaccine will be ready would likely be sometime next year.
We do not know how long the pandemic will last, but we have to plan on the basis that COVID-19 will be with us for a long while, maybe till the end of the year or longer and ensure that we have the resources and capabilities to see us through. COVID-19 has also taken a toll on our economy. The impact will extend way beyond the pandemic. Many Singaporeans and businesses will need to make adjustments as this is not something that will be over quickly. The measures we announced yesterday will impact many businesses and workers. The Government will introduce greater support for the economy and our workers in response to this situation.
Members of Parliament have asked about healthcare capacity. We will ensure that we have sufficient capacity to meet our healthcare needs not only for COVID-19 patients but also for other patients.
We had invested significantly in the past to ensure that we have sufficient healthcare capacity to manage infectious outbreaks. The 330-bed NCID was purpose-built with spare capacity and can be further increased to over 500 beds if need be.
To preserve capacity and resources for those who most need it, clinicians at our public hospitals had earlier reviewed their patients and deferred non-urgent appointments and elective procedures where clinically appropriate to do so. They have continued to see patients with higher needs to ensure that they receive timely care. When appointments had to be deferred, the public hospitals have worked to ensure that patients received sufficient supportive care.
We are also exploring collaborations with private hospitals for some non-COVID-19 patients to be cared for there instead. We already have on-going collaborations with some of them and some of these can be stepped up so that we can preserve capacity in our public hospitals to manage the outbreak. Patients transferred to these private hospitals through such collaborations will continue to pay similar rates they would have paid at our public hospitals.
The most important resource, actually, is our healthcare staff. They have been working tirelessly to make sure that our patients, COVID-19 or otherwise, are well taken care of. I want to take this opportunity to thank our healthcare workers once again for their dedication. [Applause.]
We recognise the heavy workload and stress that our healthcare workers face every day. The surge in patient load due to COVID-19 means that some are taking on longer shifts, while others are required to take on additional roles. To ensure the well-being of our healthcare workers, institutions will make sure that their staff are well-rested and have put in place a series of measures to reduce staff burnout, such as counselling services and peer support programmes.
Most importantly, every case we can avoid will help to lighten their load. Hence, each of us can help by doing the right thing to reduce the risk of transmission.
I also want to also thank Singaporeans for your resilience, your understanding and support in adapting to these new measures and changes quickly and putting up with inconveniences and disruptions to your daily lives for the sake of other Singaporeans and our community. With the global situation still evolving and the number of cases rising rapidly worldwide, we must prepare to see more cases here too in time to come. Yesterday, we had 17 local cases in addition to 32 imported ones. We must work together and do what we can to keep the number of local cases down.
With a significant number of imported cases from returning residents and visitors, we have progressively put in place travel restrictions and placed returning residents on the Stay-Home Notice (SHN) and quarantine, but there is still a risk of them leading to more localised transmissions.
As more clusters emerge, our contact tracing, quarantine and healthcare resources will be stretched. If the clusters grow too large, such as those we see in the Life Church and Missions and Grace Assembly of God or SAFRA Jurong, if we have a few of them at the same time, it will be very difficult to contain them effectively, and the pressure on our healthcare system will increase. While we still have sufficient capacity in our healthcare system today, we cannot be complacent and we will need to preserve our buffer capacity.
Previously, all confirmed COVID-19 cases, regardless of severity, were admitted to our hospitals and remained there until they were tested negative for the virus twice, over a period of 24 hours, and this takes up our capacity. We took this conservative approach earlier on in this epidemic, as there was little knowledge about the severity of the disease and we wanted to find out more.
However, we now know that about 80% of COVID-19 cases were mild to moderate. That means many of the COVID-19 cases in our hospitals experience mild symptoms, no more than that of flu. They only require limited medical care and what we need really are isolation facilities to prevent them from infecting others, until they are free of the virus.
Therefore, MOH is tapping on private capacity and setting up community care facilities, such as the collaboration with Concord International Hospital which started accepting well and stable COVID-19 patients last Friday and Mount Elizabeth Hospital which saw its first patient on Monday. We are also converting some Government Quarantine Facilities, starting with D’Resort with a maximum capacity of about 500, for this purpose. As per public hospitals, Singaporean residents and long-term pass holders transferred to these facilities will continue to receive free-of-charge testing and treatment, except for those who have travelled overseas despite the travel advisory and contracted the infection while overseas.
Patients at these facilities will continue to be quarantined and closely monitored, so there is no risk to the general public in the community. Similar to cases admitted to hospitals, patients will be closely monitored and repeatedly tested for the virus.
Only when they have fully recovered and tested negative for the virus twice over a duration of 24 hours, will they be discharged back into the community. At this point, they will no longer have any risk of transmitting the virus to others as they have fully recovered. We will continue to explore the use of such isolation facilities for our well and stable COVID-19 patients. This way, we can focus our critical hospital resources on the seriously ill, to minimise the number of fatalities. But rest assured that any Singaporean who requires medical care, whether for COVID-19 or other illnesses, will receive the necessary treatment and care.
Let me take this opportunity to explain our strategy going forward and share what we can expect.
While we implement plans to ensure sufficient healthcare capacity, it is equally important to prevent new local clusters in the first place. This way, we can try to avoid an exponential growth in the number of infections, which could quickly overwhelm the healthcare system, as we saw in Hubei and Italy; and increasingly so, in many other countries.
Singapore's strategy is to slow down the infection rate and maintain it at as low a level for as long as possible. A lower infection rate will help us to better conduct epidemiological investigations, contact tracing and quarantining of close contacts, so as to prevent further spread of the disease in the community. It also preserves healthcare capacity to care for the more severe cases. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display a slide on the LCD screen to illustrate this point?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we do nothing, the number of cases will shoot up, like what happened in several cities and countries recently. Then, our only hope is that most of the population get infected and become immune quickly, and the rate of infection will start to slow down as more become immune, or a vaccine or a cure is found. That is when the curve starts to trend downwards.
This scenario is very attractive, we get over with it very quickly, but there are unfortunately, two major risks. First, an uncontrolled spike in the number of cases in a short period of time, like the purple curve, will overwhelm the healthcare system, easily resulting in high mortality rates, and there is no turning back once you are on this track. The second risk is that it is not certain yet that this immunity will be effective or sustained.
So, one alternative, is to introduce stringent safe distancing and other measures to slow down the infection curve, to slow down the infection rate. The number will still grow but if we do it right, we will end up with a lower peak. This is commonly known as flattening the curve, as Members can see, on the blue curve.
But by flattening the curve, we may actually stretch out the pandemic. So, Members see a long tail, meaning it will take much longer for the pandemic to be over. So, for Singapore, today, we are still at the start of the curve, so we have a chance, we have a chance to do neither. We hope, that if we do it right, we can significantly slow down the growth as much as we can, until the whole pandemic is over, without either a sharp peak or a long tail. This may sound impossible, because this are the two curves that have been established by academics. But, impossible as it may sound, we have to try our best to do so.
To achieve this, we have to continue to strengthen our efforts to detect cases early to initiate the contact tracing process as soon as possible to reduce the risk of the infection spreading. In preparation for the expected surge in cases in the coming weeks, we have expanded our contact tracing capacity, from three teams when we started out, to 20 teams today, thanks to manpower support from colleagues from Public Service agencies, including the SAF. We can now trace up to 4,000 contacts each day and will continue to scale up our contact tracing capacity as needed.
We are also leveraging technology to supplement our contact tracing efforts. For example, last week, MOH and GovTech launched the TraceTogether app, which will capture data on whom you have come into contact with for some time. This will be useful if you have come into close contact with a confirmed case which you do not know.
By downloading and activating this app, the contact tracers will be able to inform you early so that you can isolate yourself and protect your family, or receive early treatment if you are already unwell. For those who are concerned about privacy, I would like to assure you that the app does not track your location, so where you go, does not matter, the app does not know. It uses Bluetooth to detect if you have been in close proximity for more than 30 minutes with someone else with the app switched on. I urge Members and all Singaporeans to download the app to protect yourselves and your families.
I have spoken multiple times about the importance of social responsibility, here in Parliament as well as publicly. The Government will continue to put in place measures to protect Singaporeans as I have shared earlier, but the daily actions of each one of us will go a long way in winning this war. If you have been issued with a quarantine order or Stay-Home Notice, please stay at home and abide by the requirements of the order or notice. If you violate them, there will be penalties and the heaviest penalty is that you may infect others, including those you love. If you are unwell, please wear a mask and see a doctor immediately. If you have been given a medical certificate, please stay home for the whole duration covered by the medical certificate. Wash your hands with soap regularly and do not touch your face. It is literally in our hands to contain this outbreak.
In Singapore, we saw a few local clusters emerge where individuals who were feeling unwell or were issued a Medical Certificate but did not minimise social contact and continued to attend work or social activities. We have encouraged employers to support employees to spend the necessary time away from the office so that they can recover.
Studies on COVID-19 have shown that for each ill person who behaves responsibly, we can protect two to three others from being infected. It is not just about ourselves, but those around us too, including our loved ones. For the young and healthy among us, we may get away with a mild cold or cough, but for the more vulnerable loved ones around us, the disease may prove to be more serious. So, we must not take social responsibility lightly.
We have been progressively putting in place safe distancing measures, especially for the vulnerable groups. For example, after the SAFRA Jurong cluster arose, we suspended all senior-activities at Community Centres, Residents Committees, Senior Activity Centres and others. While some Members of Parliament, I think, Ms Denise Phua, asked me at the last Sitting whether we can resume some of these activities, I was very happy to say yes, then. Now, I am afraid it will be a while longer before we do that, to protect the seniors.
Seniors are of particular concern to us. MOH introduced an enhanced set of measures last week together with a set of guidelines to protect our seniors. We encourage seniors to maintain good personal and environmental hygiene like everyone else and engage in more home-based activities rather than joining group activities. For example, they can exercise at home with TV and online exercise programmes, as well as enjoy broadcast programmes covering singing, so they do not need to join karaoke groups, but they can join TV programmes and sing-along; cooking and other programmes by celebrities and People's Association trainers.
Do not go out except for essential activities such as work or to buy food and supplies. Family members and care-givers of seniors should also take precautions such as washing hands with soap and water before interacting with seniors and refraining from visiting seniors if one is unwell.
Each of us needs to play our part to take care of our seniors. With these added precautions in place, seniors can continue staying active and healthy.
The measures we have put in place are extra \"brakes\" to slow down the transmission of the virus, prevent our healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, help bring the number of cases back down over time, and protect, particularly, our seniors.
Sir, let me conclude. While we should keep a wider physical distance between ourselves and others, we need to close the emotional distance between us. As Prime Minister pointed out, this is as much a psychological battle as it is a medical one. To win the battle, we must close ranks while keeping a safe physical distance. We should not stop caring about fellow Singaporeans or build walls between ourselves. On the contrary, we need to be more united than ever so that we can ride through this crisis together. We can show our appreciation to our frontline workers who are working very hard to keep Singapore clean and Singaporeans safe, and show our support to colleagues and friends who have acted responsibly and isolated themselves when they feel unwell.
The months ahead will be challenging. We need to be prepared for disruptions to our daily lives and changes to how we do things. But I am confident that if we stay united, with a whole-of-society effort, we can get through this together as a nation – SG United. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: The Minister for National Development will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members raise points of clarifications on both statements after this statement. Minister Wong.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health has given an update on the global and local situation and explained the public health measures that we have taken so far, as well as how we are managing our healthcare capacity. Let me now elaborate on the other aspects of the work of the Ministerial task force.
As Minister Gan mentioned just now, we experienced an initial wave of imported cases from China, which resulted in some local transmission and local clusters. Now, we are facing a second and much bigger wave of imported cases from the rest of the world, especially from America and Europe. It reflects how quickly virus is spreading around the world outside of China. The number of cases is doubling every four to six days. There are more cases outside China than in China now.
We are not alone in facing this new wave of imported cases. Many places in Asia – Hong Kong, Taiwan are in a similar situation. That is why we have been rapidly adjusting and updating our measures to respond to this new challenge.
We have progressively tightened our border controls and travel restrictions, based on the rapidly changing situation. We started with restrictions, as Members would recall, for travellers from China; we extended the restrictions to other epidemic centres – initially to Republic of Korea, Italy, Iran, then France, Germany, Spain; and later UK, Switzerland, Japan and the ASEAN countries. Eventually, we did not have to do country by country, we covered the whole world.
Earlier this week, we decided to disallow short-term visitors from entering or transiting in Singapore and to limit returning work pass holders to only those providing essential services like healthcare and transport. These are very significant moves for a small open economy like Singapore, where we have always been connected to the world. But these are extraordinary times, this is an unprecedented crisis and we had to move decisively to keep our borders safe.
Importantly, we want to focus our resources on the large number of returning Singaporeans coming back from overseas. We identify those coming back with symptoms as early as possible, right at the airport. We are testing as many as possible and we are expanding our testing capacity. But the numbers are large. Just from UK and US alone, we are getting about 1,200 Singaporeans coming back every day. Every day.
We also know that we cannot rely on tests alone, because someone who tests negative at the point of entry may simply be incubating the virus and could develop symptoms over the following days. That is why it is important to also isolate these returnees and have all of them have to serve a 14-day Stay-Home Notice. They have to stay at their place of residence and avoid contact with others even within the same household.
We now have 38,000 residents on Stay-Home Notices. That is a very large number. And the numbers will rise with the growing number of returnees.
Many are understandably concerned about the risk of the Stay-Home Notice returnees infecting their family members. So, we have just tightened the regime with additional precautions. We are focusing on returnees from the US and UK, given the higher risks, and we are now arranging for them to be transported from the airport directly to designated hotels to serve out the 14-day self-isolation period. These returnees have to stay in their rooms throughout. They cannot use any of the hotel facilities, swimming pool or gym; fourteen days in the room and we will put in place tight security arrangements to ensure this. For those who have already returned and are presently still serving the Stay-Home Notices at home, they, too, can apply to stay in these designated hotels if they so prefer.
This is a huge operational and logistical undertaking, given the volumes of people we are receiving everyday. We are able to make use of the empty bed spaces in hotels but we still need to ramp up manpower to enforce their self-isolation. And I want to acknowledge the hard work of all our public officials who did an excellent job in getting this ready within a very short period of time.
There is no telling how long this current wave of returnees and imported cases will last. There are more than 200,000 Singaporeans overseas. With more lockdowns imposed in countries elsewhere, more may want to return here to Singapore. And we should welcome them. So, we have to be prepared for more returnees and have arrangements to ensure that they are self-isolated for the full period before they can be brought back within our community.
At the same time, we do not want Singaporeans to travel overseas at this time and to compound the problem. That is why we have raised our travel advisory to the highest level to defer all travel. Previously, it was \"non-essential\". But I think people regard many things as essential. So, we say now \"defer all travel\". Those who choose to do so will have to pay full costs should they need treatment for COVID-19 when they return. Likewise, they will be subject to a full 14-day self-isolation at the hotel which they will also have to pay in full.
Despite our best efforts at controlling these flows at the borders, we have to be prepared for more cases to emerge, especially given the large number of returnees. That is why it is critical to quickly identify and isolate these cases and their close contacts through our on-going efforts at contact tracing and quarantine. Minister Gan spoke about this and how we are going to ramp up our capacity to do more contact tracing. This is essential because the minute you give up on contact tracing, then you are no longer able to manage the virus outbreak. This is the situation that many countries are facing now – they are no longer able to contact-trace the cases as well as their close contacts. So, we want to continue to maintain contact tracing and put all the close contacts under quarantine.
As of last night, there are around 2,500 persons under quarantine, be it in their homes or in Government Quarantine Facilities. The numbers give you a sense of proportion. We are talking about 38,000 Stay-Home Notices because of the large volume of returnees. But within Singapore, the close contacts, we have 2,500 under quarantine.
We will continue with the tough enforcement for both Stay-Home Notice and quarantine cases, including through all the various means we have put in place –remote monitoring, video calls and random house visits. We have put in place also very strict penalties for those who breach the requirements. They can be fined up to $10,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both. But as Minister Gan said just now, the biggest penalty is not just a fine or even a jail sentence but the costs that you impose on others if you were to breach these rules.
We have an excellent detection system to pick up COVID-19 cases through our contact tracing procedures. One Harvard study called our contact tracing system the \"gold standard\". But even then, our detection rate is not 100%. It will never be. No system can be 100%. That means that the virus continues to circulate in our population and there are still cases out there in the community which will pop up.
That is our greater concern. We monitor very closely the number of locally-transmitted cases, especially the ones that are unlinked – \"unlinked\" meaning that they are new, they are popping up and we do not know where they originate from. We are seeing more of such cases in recent days. That is why we need to put in place a whole range of additional public health measures to slow down the spread of the virus within Singapore itself. We can think of these additional public health measures at different levels.
First, we have baseline measures which we are already doing. What is \"baseline\"? Things like daily temperature taking, seeing a doctor if you are unwell and staying at home and not shaking hands. Now, in true multiracial Singapore style, we have different ways of doing it. You can do the “Salam Mufti”, traditional Chinese style or Namaste. I think all of us are practising this in our daily lives now. We uphold good personal hygiene; wash our hands regularly and do not use our hands to touch our face and we uphold better public hygiene standards. We are stepping this up through SG Clean, a whole-of-nation effort that Minister Masagos is overseeing.
All of these measures should be continued for a sustained period. In fact, some ought to be new permanent norms, like upholding higher hygiene standards and using common serving utensils instead of double dipping. So, even after the COVID-19 outbreak is over – and it will be over after a while – we should continue to practise some of these new norms as a permanent part of our lives. I am not sure about the not-shaking-hands part. Frankly, at some point in time, we might want to get back to having some physical contact, but certainly not now. So, many things we will do on a sustained basis, some on a permanent basis even.
But beyond the baseline measures, we need to rely on additional measures and that is what we call social or safe distancing. We can think of these measures as extra \"brakes\" that we apply to slow down the spread of the virus. Last Friday, we introduced a first set of safe distancing measures. We suspended senior group activities; we pushed for telecommuting and staggered hours at workplaces; we limited large events to less than 250 persons, and we said seats have to be apart, like what we are doing now in Parliament; and we wanted a 1-metre spacing in public spaces and F&B outlets.
These measures are progressively being implemented. For example, public sector agencies are now pushing very hard on telecommuting. Where it is not possible, for example, for frontline and operational units, the agencies have implemented split teams by location or shifts, as well as staggered work hours, wherever it is practical. But the efforts on telecommuting must go beyond the public sector.
All workplaces must go on telecommuting as default wherever they can. More employers are doing this, but some are still resistant and want their staff to be physically present in their offices when they can actually work from home. So, we will get all employers to push more aggressively on telecommuting. This is the only way to allow Singaporeans to continue working while minimising their movements and contacts outside and it is also how we can reduce the load on our public transport system, especially during peak hours.
The measures introduced last week have brought about changes. There are fewer crowded venues. When you go out, you can see that perceptibly. We now see alternate seats marked in dining venues, including in hawker centres and coffee shops. So, people are seated further apart.
But we have to move faster, much faster. We still hear anecdotes of people going to discos and night clubs, and gathering in large groups. Our big worry is that these can become super-spreader events, spawning new clusters and potential runaway outbreaks. That is why we have proceeded with another set of brakes yesterday – even tighter safe distancing measures with the aim of limiting gatherings outside of work and school to less than 10 persons.
Let me explain briefly the rationale for making these moves. In schools and workplaces, we have been taking precautions. For schools, for example, Minister Ong Ye Kung and the MOE team have put in place a range of measures to keep students safe. They sit further apart in classrooms. CCA activities and inter-school activities are suspended. So, we do not allow intermingling of students outside of the classroom.
In workplaces, too, we are getting employers to take precautions, getting their staff to be seated separately and, as I have mentioned earlier, pushing harder on telecommuting.
But outside of schools and workplaces, we continue to see many gatherings of people and that is what we want to minimise. That is why we are suspending all entertainment venues like bars, clubs and cinemas. We are suspending religious congregations and services. We are suspending tuition centres. Even though the numbers may be small, but children coming to these centres come from different schools and they intermingle. So, we are suspending that. We are cancelling and deferring all events and mass gatherings and we are putting restrictions on retail malls, museums and attractions where they have to reduce the density of people moving in these areas and ensure no coming together of groups of more than 10 persons. These measures will take effect from Thursday, 2359 hours, and will be in place for at least a month until the end of April, that is, two incubation cycles.
With this significant slowing down of activities and movements, we hope we can break the potential transmission chains that may be happening. These are very major moves to slow down the spread of the virus. We recognise the inconvenience and disruption that these measures will bring to people’s lives and to businesses, but we have no easy options. That is the reality that countries everywhere are facing in tackling the virus. The more we try to stop or slow down the virus, the steeper will be the damage on our economies. So, we have to do what is necessary from the public health point of view first to save lives, slow down the virus and then, thereafter, do our best to manage the economic consequences. In the last few days, even as the Task force was deliberating over these measures, we have been sharing them, updating the MOF and economic teams working on the package of measures which Deputy Prime Minister Heng will be announcing tomorrow.
So, I urge all Singaporeans to cooperate and take the latest set of measures very seriously. Our main message to everyone is this: minimise your non-essential activities and your contact with others during this period. You can talk about all the suspensions, different settings, but simple message – everyone minimise your non-essential activities and your contact with others during this period. We must all do our part to stop the spread of the disease and ensure that we do not end up with a major outbreak of new local clusters.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now at a critical phase in our fight against the virus. The latest measures may help to slow down the spread of the virus. But it is also possible that despite these measures, the number of infected cases will continue to rise. If so, we will need more drastic measures and that would include suspending of schools and closure of some workplaces, aside from those providing essential services.
So, we will keep the measures under constant review. If the situation worsens, we will apply extra brakes. If the situation improves, we may be able to ease off a little bit but not go back to baseline; perhaps to a less stringent set of measures because the pandemic will probably still not be over for quite some time.
Given that we have been tightening our measures recently, I can understand why Singaporeans may also be concerned about the availability of essential supplies. In fact, we have been planning for potential disruption of supplies, be it food or medical supplies, over many years through stockpiling, local production and diversification of our overseas sources. Minister Chan Chun Sing and the MTI team are overseeing this work and they have been steadily ramping up their efforts across all fronts.
Here, too, we need Singaporeans to cooperate. If many people start to build up their own individual stockpiles at home unnecessarily, it will lead to an apparent shortage on the supermarket shelves and deprive others who may have more urgent need for food and other essential supplies. Such a perception could precipitate more panic buying, which can quickly spiral out of control.
There was, indeed, some concern initially when Malaysia imposed a Movement Control Order earlier this month. But the situation has now stabilised. The flow of goods and cargo, including food supplies, are largely continuing although we still have to be prepared there may well be disruptions along the way. As far as people movement is concerned, we have quickly found accommodations for the Malaysian workers who decided to stay in Singapore and this has allowed essential services like public transport to continue without interruption.
Going forward, the Singapore-Malaysia Special Working Committee, co-chaired by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and Senior Minister Dato Sri' Ismail Sabri on the Malaysian side, is discussing a joint mitigation plan to ensure the safe and sustainable movement of people, goods and essential services between our two countries. In fact, if you have been following the news, Malaysia has now just extend its movement restrictions to 14 April, a few more weeks.
If and when the Movement Control Order in Malaysia is lifted, we cannot go back to business as usual and have large groups of people moving across our land checkpoints on a daily basis. That will be too dangerous from a public health point of view. So, we will need extra precautions on both sides, which are being worked out, so as to minimise the spread of the virus across our land borders.
Mr Speaker, I have summarised some of our key strategies in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Singapore.
Underpinning all of these efforts is the need for all Singaporeans to take individual and social responsibility. The fight against the virus cannot be done by frontline workers or Government agencies alone. Each and every one of us has to actively do our part. And there are many things that we all can do, which Minister Gan mentioned earlier: upholding good personal hygiene; taking of temperature daily; seeing a doctor if you are unwell; staying at home if that is the case; and if you have just returned from overseas, ensure you self-isolate for 14 days, even from your family members; and minimising of non-essential activities and contact with others during this period. All of these measures we will try to enforce but ultimately it is about individual responsibility, individual actions to comply with these guidelines.
We are all enlisted in this national effort to slow down the spread of the virus and if we are disciplined about this, we will have a chance to control the situation and to protect ourselves, our family members, and the people around us.
In these difficult times, we see the best of Singapore and Singaporeans at work. We had young people from the Youth Corps conducting door-to-door visits to share personal hygiene and safety tips with the elderly. We have had many volunteer groups like the Singapore Red Cross stepping up their befriending calls to many isolated seniors. We had many individuals and volunteers also packing and donating care packs and items like masks, hand sanitisers and thermometers to the elderly and vulnerable groups.
In these difficult times, we see Singaporeans from all walks of life working flat out to fight the virus.
We have healthcare workers on the frontline making many sacrifices and working tirelessly to care for patients.
We have our public officials working very hard, too, across all the agencies – not everything they do is visible to the public eye. But I can tell you that they are working round the clock and it is incredible what they have been able to achieve, especially given the quick turnaround times. We are literally making new measures every other day, putting in place adjustments to measures almost on a daily basis and so this impacts on communications. We have a huge team working night and day to put out public communications materials to inform the public of all of these updates. We have a huge team on the operational side, be it at immigration or security, going all out to adjust to these changes and ensuring smooth implementation.
From time to time, there will be public feedback, there will be public complaints – they take all of this in their stride. If there are lapses, they try to rectify them as quickly as possible. And I hope the public will cooperate, too. We welcome feedback but you can do your part by ensuring the accuracy of your feedback so that the agencies do not have to waste time and resources to check on each and every information.
There are many more unsung heroes all over the island – in areas like cleaning, security, airport management, media, hotels, F&B, transport and many more providing services to Singaporeans – all still going strong, keeping their spirits high.
And there are many Singaporeans who have stepped up in their own ways looking after one another and caring for our fellow Singaporeans. Words are not sufficient to express our appreciation. Mr Speaker, words are not sufficient to express our appreciation for all of those who are —
Please give me a minute.
Let me just repeat what I said just now. Words are not sufficient to express our appreciation for so many Singaporeans going all out to fight the virus. And I just want to say a big \"thank you\" to everyone who is doing their part. [Applause]
We recognise that there is a growing uncertainty, anxiety and fear amongst Singaporeans. People are asking many questions – how long will this last? How safe will we be? How will our businesses survive? I receive many suggestions and feedback all the time, every day. Some want more drastic measures. Some say we are doing too much and there are too many restrictions. I appreciate all of the feedback. I cannot reply to each one of them, individually, but the team is looking at all of them and we take all of them into consideration as we develop and update our measures.
In some cases, there are no clear answers and solutions because the situation is so uncertain – so fluid and changing rapidly by the day. But one thing is clear – we are all in this together and we will continue to work through the challenges together, every step of the way.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been more than two months since our work on COVID-19 started. It almost seems like a life time ago, but in fact, we are only at the beginning of a very long fight. This will continue for many more months till the end of the year and, perhaps, even beyond.
The coronavirus is, without a doubt, the biggest threat the world and Singapore has faced for decades. So, let us rally together and rise to this challenge because as SG United, we can beat the virus together and we will emerge stronger and toughened after this crisis. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Points of clarifications. Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I thank the Ministers for their heartfelt statements. It looks to be obvious – the COVID-19 outbreak will be long drawn. Singapore's next General Election must be held by April 2021. However, Dr Tan Cheng Bock has suggested that the President can exercise her soft power and form a caretaker government with some of the current Members of Parliament. Then, Dr Tan says, call fresh elections when COVID is no longer a crisis.
In my view, having a caretaker government is not an answer to the long drawn crisis.
So, my question is: from the standpoint of the Constitution, what is the Government's position on such a caretaker proposal?
I have a second question: should the GE be held while COVID-19 is still in Singapore, what measures can be put in place to ensure the safety of Singaporeans during the election?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, the terms of reference of the Ministerial task force does not include consideration of the General Election. Perhaps, I can invite Senior Minister Teo to speak on this topic.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard from Minister Gan and Minister Lawrence Wong on what the situation is. It is a global pandemic and an unprecedented global crisis. It is a difficult time for everyone. In Europe and the US, the virus is still spreading at an exponential rate.
We have twin crises: health and economic. A global recession is imminent. Financial markets are in their worst turmoil since 2008. Hence, on 14 March, Prime Minister Lee warned that we face a grave and extended challenge. The pandemic “is likely to last at least this year, and quite possibly longer”. Even after we deal with this pandemic, the economic repercussion will last longer, with significant and longstanding impact on both lives and livelihoods.
In Singapore, the Government took early and decisive action to protect our people. We have managed the COVID-19 situation for now, with tremendous effort and cooperation from everyone. But the situation remains very serious and continues to develop quickly. We are starting to see another wave of imported cases – mainly from returning Singaporeans. The Multi-Ministry Task Force has introduced measures to deal with this. But the situation may get worse, before it eventually gets better.
Our focus now, of this Government, is on being prepared for the long haul, through the end of this year and beyond, and focus on solving this problem with Singaporeans and for Singapore.
Mr Speaker, the term of the 13th Parliament will end on 14 January 2021. An election must be held within three months of that, which means on or before 14 April 2021.
Ideally, we would like to conduct elections in normal conditions. The present situation is not ideal for holding an election, but that does not mean it makes an election impossible.
As the Prime Minister said, no decision has been taken yet on the timing of a GE. In making such a decision, the overriding concern is what is best for Singapore and for Singaporeans.
Some have suggested only holding elections when we see the \"tail-end of the virus spread\". And this is, indeed, the dilemma that we face. The Prime Minister has laid out the choices clearly. We can hope and pray that things stabilise, but we do not know when the COVID-19 situation will stabilise – whether it will do so within the next year, by January, or by April 2021. But what we do know is that an election must be held, must take place by 14 April 2021.
The longer we wait, the more unpredictable, difficult and dangerous it could be. Compounding this will be the uncertainty that comes with when the election will be held as we go through the year, trying to face this crisis together.
Alternatively, the country can go for early elections, settle who will lead the country through this major crisis, and give the Government a clear and fresh mandate, a full term ahead and legitimacy to take major decisions, tough decisions in the interest of Singaporeans.
Today, more than ever, we need a government that the people has expressed confidence in, to take us through this unprecedented health crisis, stabilise the economy and safeguard our people's lives and livelihood.
Mr Speaker, Sir, when you are sailing into a storm, you want to be certain who your captain is and that he will not be changed halfway. You want to make sure that he is there together with you, working with you, guiding you through the storm.
It is not a good idea to place all our hopes in the situation improving before April 2021, and add the uncertainty of when an election will be held to the uncertainties that are already ahead of us. However, we should not close off any options.
We have been upfront and open with Singaporeans about the challenges we face, the dilemmas, considerations and different possibilities so that Singaporeans will understand why there might be a need to go ahead.
However, some suggestions about this issue have been misleading and unhelpful. For example, the suggestion to delay the elections beyond the required time-frame of April 2021 until the crisis is over and to have the President form a caretaker government consisting of some of the current Members of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have sought the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on whether this can be done. The advice of the AGC is that to delay an election beyond the required date in such a manner is unconstitutional. The only circumstances when the election can be put off beyond the required date is when a state of emergency is declared.
Mr Speaker, Sir, although Singapore has weathered many crises since our Independence, we have never extended a Government's term beyond the constitutional limit. Singapore is one of the only newly independent Commonwealth countries to regularly hold elections and has never declared a state of emergency since 1965.
Declaring an emergency and putting off elections indefinitely is not a precedent we should set lightly. A President's power to declare an emergency can only be exercised on the advice of the Cabinet. Even if the President proclaims an emergency, given that the incumbent Cabinet remains in office during an emergency, there is no legal basis or practical need for the President to form a new government.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not helpful to mislead people into thinking that such an option exists to put off elections indefinitely and for the President to form a new government when this goes against the Constitution.
Even if there is a caretaker government under a state of emergency, it would by definition be a caretaker. It would be hobbled by the fact that it lacks the explicit mandate of voters and would therefore not be in a position to take major decisions on behalf of Singaporeans. This is the reason why constitutional convention requires that a caretaker government not make any far-reaching or long-term measure.
So, this is the fundamental problem. Just when we need a government with a clear mandate to pull out all the stops in a crisis to implement strong mitigation measures, to mobilise our resources and reserves to implement strong economic stabilisation measures to save jobs and livelihoods, and to steer the country through the COVID-19 crisis, a caretaker government would not have a mandate to do so.
How can this be in the best interests of the country and our people?
Sir, to suggest this shows a disregard for or lack of understanding of the Constitution. Putting forward constitutionally unworkable proposals at a time of serious national crisis can only confuse and mislead Singaporeans, to the detriment of Singapore and Singaporeans.
This discussion on the impact of COVID-19 on our elections is an important one. It goes to a matter of principle.
This Government is ever mindful that what is at stake are jobs, businesses and lives. Our decision must be based on what is in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans, and how we can move forward together.
On Mr Christopher de Souza's second question – he asked about holding elections safely amidst the COVID-19 outbreak.
The safety of all Singaporeans is of utmost importance. To combat the virus spread, we have implemented comprehensive measures over the past few weeks at every level. We have heard Minister Gan and Minister Wong – travel restrictions, quarantines, social distancing measures, strengthening our healthcare institutions, workplace measures, protecting our students in schools and supply of essential goods. Even if the election takes place, it will not disrupt any of this. All these necessary measures will still be maintained.
But COVID-19 has created a new normal. Whether elections are held early or later, we will still have to work on the basis that the next election will necessarily be different from past elections. This means that the necessary extra safeguards and precautions must and will be taken, whether the elections are held early or held later, at every step – nominations, campaigning and voting. We will have to make all the necessary arrangements to ensure that parties can campaign effectively and people can vote safely. For example, for campaigning, we can have live-streaming of speeches on the Internet and adequate television time for candidates. For voting, we already have special express lanes for seniors and those who need them. We can also have social distancing while queuing, proper hand hygiene for voting paraphernalia and hand sanitisers for voters. We will learn from the experiences of other countries that are holding elections even during this on-going COVID-19 outbreak.
All these measures and precautions are required to protect Singaporeans. Whatever measures taken will affect all political parties equally.
As the Prime Minister said, no decision has been taken yet on the timing of the General Elections, but we have to plan on taking such additional measures to safeguard the health of Singaporeans. And I stress that these precautions and measures will be needed whether the election is held early or later. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification. I think most Singaporeans are following the Government's advice very closely. However, there may be a small group of Singaporeans who disregard the Stay-Home Notice. Instead of staying home, what we learn from some of the chat groups, is that those who returned went out clubbing. So, my question is, how do we deal with those who fail to comply with the Stay-Home Notice.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. This is a very important question and it is an issue that we are addressing and that we are paying a lot of attention to. For the enforcement of the Stay-Home Notice, we have help from the Home Team, so may I ask the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam to respond.
Mr Speaker: Mr K Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, the stay-at-home framework was first issued to persons who were returning from specified countries, countries that we thought were higher risk. But since then, of course, the COVID-19 situation across the world has grown considerably worse.
So, on 22 March, we announced that all short-term visitors will not be allowed to enter into Singapore or transit through Singapore. So, in other words, no more tourists. No short stays. Singapore residents and long-term pass holders, they will obviously come back and they will be placed under a Stay-Home Notice (SHN) from 23 March.
And it works this way: it means that Singaporeans will not be stranded overseas. They can come back. They can get access to our healthcare system. But those who are served with an SHN also have a responsibility. They should not put the wider community at risk.
A Stay-Home Notice means exactly that – they have to remain in their place of residence at all times during the 14-day period and that is a non-negotiable condition. Persons on SHN are required to monitor their health closely. They have to minimise contact with others, even at home. They have to avoid having visitors. They cannot leave the house and they have to seek immediate medical attention if feeling unwell.
This is because persons under SHN carry some risk of having the virus by virtue of their travel history or by virtue of their contact with others who may have had COVID-19.
To ensure compliance with SHN, we conduct enforcement checks. They include surveillance using SMS, web-based solutions, mobile applications; and people are expected to be at home and contactable, obviously. Those who do not respond to the messages will be called and there are also house visits, unannounced, by enforcement officers.
There are serious consequences for non-compliance. You have section 21(a) of the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA). If you breach the SHN, that could expose others to risk of infection, a first-time offender could face a jail term of up to six months, a fine of $10,000, of both. For repeat offenders, they face a jail term of up to 12 months, a fine of $20,000, or both.
MOH will be setting out new regulations under the IDA, specifically focusing on penalties for SHN breaches. The jail term could be up to six months, a $10,000 fine, or both. If you are not a Singapore Citizen, but you are a Permanent Resident, a long-term visit pass holder, a dependent pass holder, a student pass holder, where appropriate, we will not hesitate to revoke these passes, shorten their validity and also bar re-entry into Singapore. So, the passes could be cancelled if you are short-term visitors and you could be asked to leave Singapore immediately and barred from re-entry forever.
Foreign employees could have their work passes revoked and repatriated. For students, action can be taken by schools, including suspension or dismissal.
Where there has a breach of the SHN and we knew about it, action had been taken. Members may recall when the SHNs were first introduced. There was a 45-year-old Permanent Resident, he was served with such a notice. He arrived at Changi Airport. He had a travel history to mainland China at that point, failed to respond to our calls. When enforcement checks were done, he was not at home and then, he was seen at Changi Airport, wanting to leave Singapore. It is clearly a breach of his SHN. So, his application for renewal of his re-entry permit was rejected by ICA and his PR status therefore was effectively revoked, and he has been barred from coming into Singapore. So, these are quite serious penalties.
We have another case. NIE terminated a foreign student from his postgraduate course, again for breaching his SHN and for repeatedly providing false information to NIE regarding his travel movements. His student pass was also terminated.
I think Er Dr Lee's question may have been prompted by some of the messages that many of us have seen going around about recent returnees, particularly from the United Kingdom, that they are going out to eat local food, they hold birthday parties in their homes, they interact with friends, they go to clubs, bars and so on, while they were under SHNs. And many Singaporeans get upset when they hear about this.
I think, either today or yesterday, another case was reported on an online site, Mothership – a Singaporean returning from Myanmar was apparently issued a SHN but he went out to have \"bak kut teh\" and posted about it on his Facebook page. I have asked for that case to be investigated.
We are trying to verify some of these messages on SHNs being flouted. If anyone, a member of public, if you have information about such behaviour, please give it to the Police. We will follow up and we cannot allow such behaviour. So, I have given very clear instructions where these cases are verified to be true, we will charge them in Court.
The second point is, when people are required to declare their travel history, there has to be honesty. Where false information is given, in order to avoid SHNs, there can be prosecution. Section 182 of the Penal Code carries a jail term of up two years or fine. Section 57(1)(g) of the Immigration Act also carries a jail term of up to 12 months, up to $4,000 fine, or both.
But there is a wider duty that each of us owes to control the spread of COVID-19 and, really, not to endanger others and expose them to infection.
One story going around – again, we are trying to verify – is that an individual is said to have gone for a holiday in Italy, developed symptoms of COVID-19 with a cough, fever and breathlessness. And this person apparently hid his symptoms and travel history in order to get on to a plane to come back to Singapore. And later, in Singapore, the person was admitted to the hospital, fell very ill, found to be carrying the virus.
If this is true, the conduct is highly irresponsible. If he knew that there was a significant risk that he was infected but kept silent and went on the flight, then, he did so knowing that others could be infected.
I can understand, as a Singaporean, he is anxious to come home, to his family. He is confident about our healthcare system, he wants to be here, but not at the risk of endangering other people's well-being. He should have declared his symptoms at check-in. Then, the airline would make a considered decision whether to allow the person to fly, and if so, with what sort of precautions. There cannot be this sort of unacceptable risk of infecting others.
We have also received feedback from healthcare workers that some people are not truthful with their travel history when they see their GPs. Again, highly responsible. Our healthcare professionals, as Mr Gan has said, are our key asset in this fight. They are in the frontline; we all have to support them and not expose them in this way.
So, on 23 March, ICA has announced that travellers into Singapore will have to fill in electronic health declaration from 27 March onwards. ICA will share this information – the electronic health declaration – with MOH so that they will know if a person has travelled to a high risk country. That information would allow us to identify persons who may be at risk, take precautions and provide them with the appropriate medical care.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has put in place strict regulations and a strong enforcement framework. But regulations and strong enforcement are not going to be enough on their own, if people continue to insist on being irresponsible. All Singaporeans have to do our part, exercise social responsibility, protect ourselves, friends and family and fellow citizens.
We are doing our best. The public officials – you have heard Minister Lawrence – have been working around the clock. And it has really been quite an exhausting few months for them. And this is a common fight. Most Singaporeans – you see it from the reaction – a vast majority of Singaporeans are responsible, understand this and have come together and acted admirably. But there will always a few who are irresponsible in every society and they risk undoing our efforts and put other people's lives at risk.
So, if members of the public know of SHNs being flouted or breached, please tell the Police. We will take action against them. We have to take action against them. When we come together as a people, looking out for one another, we will prevail and we will overcome this COVID-19 situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you. Mr Speaker. The two Ministers, the co-chairs the Multi-Ministry Task Force, thanked many people. But I think we should also thank the members of the Multi-Ministry Task Force for their leadership in the last two months in guiding us through this crisis. Thank you to the Multi-Ministry Task Force team.
I have three supplementary questions. The first is, under what circumstances will we consider a complete lockdown of the country. Many people have mentioned this and referred to other jurisdictions. But what are the implications to our country if we should adopt this measure.
Secondly, there are many Singaporeans who are still overseas. I know of many who are attempting to come back to Singapore, but with increasing lockdowns and travel restrictions, what assistance are we providing to Singaporeans overseas who are attempting to come back to Singapore?
The last question is in relation to the fact that Singapore is a pluralistic society, we are multi-religious and there are four major religious festivals coming up. We have Qingming Festival, Clear Bright Festival, Good Friday Easter, Ramadan as well as Vesak Day coming up on our calendars in the next two months. What are the advice and guidelines that religious institutions as well as believers should follow as we come close to these festivals in terms of gathering together and celebrating?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, where it comes to whether or not more drastic measures are needed, people use the word \"lockdown\". But let us look specifically at what additional measures we are contemplating, and I mentioned that just now.
We have already put in place quite strict measures recently. The next step, if it is necessary, would be, as I mentioned, suspension of schools, which has to also go together with closure of some workplaces, aside from those providing essential services. They go together because if you were to suspend schools, many parents will need help looking after their children. And if they have to go to work, it will not be practical. It will be very difficult for them to do.
So, the next step if we have to consider, what would be the considerations for that? It is not just the overall number of cases. We have to drill deeper to understand the reasons for these cases. If we continue to see more cases coming in and a lot of them are imported cases, and we are able to contain and ringfence and isolate them, we may not need to trigger the additional measures. But if we see more local transmitted cases, particularly unlinked ones, and that continues to rise, despite all that we are doing with strict safe distancing measures, then we may well need to activate the next set of brakes in order to slow down the spread of the virus.
On the many Singaporeans who need assistance, we remain open to welcoming them. So, I think that if there is a need to, MFA and the overseas missions are reaching out to them. Flights have come down but commercial flights are still available for many of these countries.
So, I would imagine people are making their own arrangements. Some have decided to stay and then some will decide to come back. And when they come back, we welcome them but we take the necessary precautions to make sure that they self isolate for the full period and do not cause any infection within our own community.
For religious gatherings, we have made very clear there is a suspension of all religious congregations and services for the next month. The religious places of worships may remain open for people to go; individuals who need to get help from their religious leaders, that remains. So, the venues themselves remain open. Religious organisations, different faiths may want to do smaller groups. But if they do so, then we ask them to abide strictly by the guidelines. Each group less than 10 persons; and even within that grouping, make sure precautions are taken. So, minimise physical contact as much as possible and then, make sure that no one there is unwell. If anyone has been overseas recently, make sure that they are isolated. They should not be there to begin with. So, these are all precautions that religious organisations, in fact, every organisation should take. No more large gatherings. If there is a small group, keep it less than 10 and even then, take all the necessary precautions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. First, I would like to declare my interest as a director of two SGX-listed companies. My work also requires me to advise SGX-listed companies. With the latest measures, SGX-listed companies will have to hold virtual meetings; and the attendance at virtual meetings will be much smaller than the usual shareholders' meetings, first, because there is no more buffet and the second is that among the less tech-savvy, they may not be so comfortable participating in the virtual meetings.
Sir, some corporate actions, such as schemes of arrangements require minimum number as well as percentage of stakeholders to vote in favour. So, with the latest measures, will there be legislative amendments to allow such corporate actions to be passed during this period?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, MAS and SGX have already put out some guidelines on how companies listed entities can go about conducting their AGM and other activities during this period, precautions that they can take and we will continue to study if additional measures, including legislative measures, may be needed, if necessary.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister for Health. First, it is concerning the lethality of the virus. Earlier, he mentioned that if persons are young and healthy, even if they catch the virus, they are likely to get away with mild symptoms, such as a cough. And to get a sense of perspective, there have been some leaders overseas who have given a rough figure to say that 95% of the population need not worry about serious complications from COVID-19. It is just a 5%.
So, I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that based on the experience we have had in Singapore, that this 95% to 5% proportion is also what we have seen in Singapore, meaning that only 5% who encounter the virus are likely to have serious complications.
The second clarification is, could he give some information on the profile of the ICU patients with COVID-19? We know so far that the two deaths have concerned those who are elderly and with pre-existing conditions, but are there also significant numbers of patients in the ICU who are younger and do not have pre-existing conditions?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. Let me first stress that all of us must take COVID-19 seriously. It does not mean that the young do not have to take the disease seriously. Because there is always a risk that if you have more people, even young people, getting COVID-19, you may pass it on to the old people around you, including those with chronic diseases. And families as well.
It is true from our data that those older patients and those with underlying chronic diseases, like cardiovascular diseases, tend to have more serious disease outcomes. So, it is important for us to enhance our protection for the elderly but we must not take the disease lightly.
From our own experience in the ICU in our hospitals, we do see some young people who develop serious diseases. Part of the reason – I think I have explained during the last Sitting – is because of their auto immune system overreacting to the disease and therefore, it causes damage to their organs. We do have one or two patients in our ICU who are young and who happen to have very serious disease outcomes.
But it is, I think, generally correct to say that this disease is likely to affect the seniors more severely and especially those with underlying chronic conditions. So, we have to pay particular attention to the seniors among us, but as the Prime Minister commented just now, even if young people get it, there is a risk that you pass it on to your family members, including the seniors in your family. So, we must always be careful.
MOH has issued a set of guidelines for seniors as well as for young people when you interact with seniors. Do not just leave it to the seniors to protect themselves and we happily go to their homes to say \"Hello\" to them and share a dinner with them. We may be the vector, we may be the cause of their infection. So, do take precautions if you want to visit your seniors. I think it is not possible to ask ourselves to stop visiting seniors. We have to continue to visit them, but when you do so, exercise caution and practise a high level of personal hygiene, particularly when you are dealing with seniors.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I would like to thank both Ministers for their update and also for their leadership on the task force so far. Two clarifications for the Minister for Health. First, I was very happy to hear of this new move to decant some of the less serious cases to community facilities. I would just like to ask whether considerations have been made to do what some other countries have done and allow the milder cases to self-isolate. Because if we do see larger numbers, that may even exceed the capacity of these community facilities. That is the first clarification.
The second is that I was also very happy to hear the very high level of testing in Singapore. Because there have been some comments over the past weeks that perhaps Singapore has not been testing as much as other countries. So, I was very happy to hear of the very high level of testing that we have had. The clarification concerns whether we should consider testing those who have completed their QOs or the SHNs. Because there have been some concerns raised by certain experts that these people have been quarantined, could actually have developed very mild forms during that period – the 14 days. And maybe they did not notice it. It was not picked up. So, it could be that they could still be carrying the virus at the end of the 14 days or they may even become symptomatic after the 14 days.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We do have plans if the situation warrants to allow the milder cases to self isolate at home. We will serve them home quarantine or stay home notices to allow them to recover at home. But at the moment we do not need to do that because we still have community facilities that we can tap on, but it is part of our options.
Secondly, on the level of testing. So far, we have a relatively high level of testing. But also we do very targeted testing. Because testing is not only laborious, it also requires resources to be put in place; not just for the testing but for the laboratory resources as well. So, it is very important for us to ensure that we are very targeted and focus on those who are at higher risk of infection. Therefore, for those who are under the Quarantine Orders or SHN, we also do risk assessment. For those who have a higher risk of exposure, we may do targeted testing for them. But we do not do blanket testing because that will first create a lot of false negatives, which give a false sense of assurance that \"You are okay\", and then, they go around spreading the virus. So, you should be always careful and mindful. Even for those who have been discharged, you must continue to be careful because if you are not infected, after you have left the quarantine facility, you may get infected. It does not ensure that you have lifelong immunity because you have never been infected before.
So, therefore we must be very careful. We must assume that everyone has a potential of being infected, so we take the necessary precautions.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one question for Minister Wong. This pertains to the new and heightened restrictions announced yesterday evening by Minister, which were also the subject of his speech today. Since the release of the Electoral Boundary Review Committee report, I think it is quite apparent to a lot of Singaporeans that political parties have stepped up their political outreach. The concern in view of yesterday's announcements is that some of this these outreach activities can easily lead to the formation of large social gatherings in excess of 10 individuals, in close proximity to each other.
Does the Minister not agree that such continued outreach could potentially interfere and contradict the directives of the task force, particularly yesterday's new directives? Because to quote the Minister, there was a concern that the safe distancing measures were not being taken seriously and that the public was generally too slow to respond to the new COVID-19 situation.
So, to that end, can I confirm if the task force will be announcing some measures that all political parties can take into cognisance so that everybody is on the same page with regard to the task force's announcements vis-à-vis social distancing in other other measures?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the task force is quite clear in putting out these measures that we want to restrict any form of activity that brings about congregations of more than 10 persons. That is a rule or that is an advisory and a guideline that we put out to all organisations. And all political parties in this House, outside of this House will therefore have to abide by these guidelines and make adjustments to their activities.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I have four clarifications. Two for the Minister for Health, two for Minister for National Development. For Minister for Health, are there any plans by the Government to provide housing support to frontline healthcare workers who request it. That is because we have heard that there are some cases of healthcare workers, who out of caution, they want to isolate themselves from their families and they may or may not have the means to do so. So, that is the first.
The second question is there are some reports elsewhere that indicate quite a high proportion of cases actually have no symptoms. For example, I think about half of the cases from The Diamond Princess cruise ship were non-symptomatic upon being diagnosed. So, are there any plans to investigate this in Singapore, for example, through voluntary random testing or something, to see whether we do in fact have quite a few people who were exposed and infected but there is nothing, no consequences there? Because this could help to inform our strategy going forward.
For Minister for National Development, in the event of more strict control measures, what resources will be deployed to ensure that daily necessities can be distributed to the public, especially for those who are more vulnerable and in need because they may not be able to leave their home or may be very cautious about doing so. We do not want a situation where people cannot access daily necessities in the event of more strict measures. The other question on more strict measures is, currently, what are we doing to define essential services and to work with workplaces, employers and so on, so that everybody understands what is essential and what is not. Because I think we are seeing in many other countries, there is a lot of confusion about how this is being worked out on the ground. And I think if we have more strict measures and we rush to inform everybody, you are essential and you are not, we will have a lot of confusion and that could be too late. It might be good to start early.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Just to answer the first two questions. First, on the housing support for our frontline workers. We do have a scheme to help frontline workers. If they have this requirement, please let us know and we will try our best to help some of our frontline workers are staying in rented houses or rented apartments – we do want to appeal to the landlords to allow them to continue to stay in these apartments. In the hospital, they are given protective gear so they are safe, so allow them to continue. Let us not segregate them. Let us not ostracise them. We ought to be inclusive. That is the key message. But for healthcare workers who do need housing support, we have been working with the Clusters' management to extend our support to them.
The second question on the asymptomatic cases. We do have asymptomatic cases. That means people who are infected that do not have symptoms or they have mild symptoms or their symptoms are so mild that patient themselves do not know that they have such an infection. But it is also professionally assessed that for those with very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, they are unlikely to spread because the spreading requires the projection of your droplets and so on. So, those require quite significant symptoms.
Studies have shown that for the mild symptom cases, the risk of transmission is significantly lower. It is not that there is no risk at all, but the risk is significantly lower. So, that is the status.
We are carrying out studies on surveillance and as well as serological tests to determine whether there were underlying cases that were not detected. So, some of these experiments and surveys are on-going.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we are very mindful that in the event of stricter measures we want to ensure that the vulnerable groups have access to essential supplies and services. Even under today's environment where we put in place the range of measures that we have already announced, we were mindful of that and that is why we are still allowing F&B outlets to operate, people still need to go out to eat. But if they do so, then the setting is such that it is safe, it is separated and the F&B outlets remain open, the kitchens remain open, because food manufacturers, kitchens still need to generate the food and some of that can be ordered for take-out.
So, these are things we are very mindful of and if indeed stricter measures are imposed, we will ensure some of these outlets remain open, in order for people to access food and essential supplies, and we can also mobilise volunteers who can help with the delivery of such items to vulnerable groups.
Second, on the question on the framework for essential services, we do have such a framework in place and we will engage the key stakeholders. Of course, when the announcements – if and when announcements are made for stricter measures including closure of workplaces, aside from those doing essential services, then that would be announced. I think the Member's point is by the time you announce and put out the framework, people may well be scrambling and the reaction time may not be fast enough and there may be a little bit of anxiety at that point in time. We recognise that. We will do what we can and we are doing what we can to engage these firms. I think the firms who are tagged as essential services know who they are. The ones that do not, probably do not quite know and may think that they are essential even though they are not part of the framework. But we will be reaching out to more firms so that they are mindful and if additional measures are needed, we can ensure a smoother transition.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I deeply appreciate all the efforts that have been put in so far. It is so good to be a Singaporean. I have a supplementary question. Given the call for heightened vigilance and enhanced measures for various reasons amongst which is also to reduce the risk of infection to innocent others around us, I would like to ask what would be done to enforce or curb behaviours that may pose risks to the public health of others and whether our laws and our current tools are sufficient to do so?
Let me give one example. In my constituency, there is one man who has been very recalcitrant. What he did was that he lined his fingers with his saliva and just touched all the lift buttons. There would be saliva left behind on the panel. The CCTV footage caught that but NEA cannot prosecute him because it is not spitting. And so, currently, it is being looked into. However, there is concern to the public health of other residents who have to share the lift. So, I would like to ask whether we are adequately equipped to take action on such a very inconsiderate individual.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Member can give us the details and we will follow up on this particular case. I think the Minister for Home Affairs has already talked about those who fail to comply with our Stay-Home Notices and Quarantine Orders. Those, we will take care of. Even those behaviours that endanger the health and safety of the public, we have sufficient legal powers to go after them. So, I will encourage members of the public – if you come across any of these actions that put public safety or health in danger, do let us know and we will go after them. We need everyone to play their part to keep Singapore safe and healthy.
Mr Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank both Ministers for the Ministerial Statements. I especially appreciate Minister Wong's sharing. I have got three clarifications.
The first one is: what are we doing with the safe distancing measures in public transport? I am a public commuter so I have not seen any changes in that regard.
The second is: if Minister Gan can also share what is the number of infected cases or, in terms of its tipping point where our healthcare capacity will start to be under burdened, what is the number of infected cases that would actually get us to that tipping point?
The third point is relating to the communications on the advisories that are going out. It is very rapid, it is also changing as what Minister Wong says, every other day. Some of the elderly folks have shared with me they are not able to keep up with what is going on. I am just wondering if there could be — well, first, I would like to understand how we are actually getting the information out to the different segments of the society; and secondly, if there is a central agency that is managing this in the form of FAQs or handling queries from citizens when they are not sure about is nine persons in terms of gatherings okay; and if a gathering is for community work instead of social gathering, is that okay? There are a lot of questions that are coming out and I wonder if there is a need for a central agency to handle that.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Let me address the question on healthcare capacity and the burden on healthcare facilities. I will leave it to Minister Wong to talk about public transport as well as the advisory. I should also take this opportunity to thank Minister for Communications and Information, Mr Iswaran, who is always in the background. But his Ministry and him have been very crucial; they play a very vital role in managing our public communications, the WhatsApp that you receive from Gov.sg came from the Ministry, so we want to thank MCI for their hard work.
On the healthcare facilities. We always try to have a benchmark beyond which we turn on the switch or turn off the switch. But in the healthcare system, we do not operate like that. We look at the whole scenario and disease pattern, and we adjust as we go along. So, even today, if you ask me, we are under pressure too. Our resources are stretched but we make adjustments to accommodate the trend of the growing number of cases. If the cases continue to grow we will continue to adjust. As I mentioned today, we have started to send patients to private hospitals and we are sending patients with mild and stable conditions to our community isolation facilities. These are our strategies to keep our healthcare system moving and still maintaining certain buffer capacity, in case there is a surge.
Unfortunately, I would not be able to give you a single number because it is really a whole set of conditions and we adjust as we go along. I think we have sufficient flexibility in the healthcare system.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the issue of public transport again cannot be looked at in isolation because it has to be considered together with measures we take, for example, at workplaces. In order to reduce crowdedness and in order to reduce volumes on public transport, particularly during the peak periods, it is vital that companies take action and employers take action to do two things: one, get as many of their employees and staff to work from home; and second, for those who really have to come to the office, put in place staggered hours. We have issued the advisories; the Public Sector is going all out to do it. But, as I mentioned earlier, we know that more still can be done and has to be done.
So, MOM, Manpower Minister Josephine Teo, MTI, we are all reaching out engaging employers and getting them to step up and do more. We have to go more aggressively on telecommuting in order to bring down the loading on the public transport system during peak hours.
On communications, as Minister Gan said, we have a whole-of-Government approach. MOH is the front because you see the statements, advisories, they are all put out under the banner of MOH. All of the information is on the MOH website, but really behind the scenes is a whole-of-Government communications team coordinated by Minister Iswaran and the MCI communications team. A lot of people are working day and night because of the rapid – the nature of the work is such that we are putting out new information so rapidly, so they are constantly generating infographics, materials in different languages and pushing them pushing them out through multiple platforms.
We can continue to improve. I think the team will always look at ways in which it can do better, particularly reaching out to segments that may not be accessing the information so readily and we will always look at different ways where we can put up more information. So, that work is continuing. We know it is a vital work that has to be done and we are sparing no effort to ensure that the information is put out in a timely and accurate manner.
We will also, during this period, be able to leverage on resources outside of the Public Sector. In fact, there is spare capacity out in the private sector. There are call centres, there are people who can be enlisted to help us in this outreach and so we are also looking at leveraging on these resources, so it need not and should not be a Government effort alone. We really need a whole of Singapore effort in order to fight the virus.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Ministers for their statements, especially Minister Lawrence Wong earlier for the reassurance that Singaporeans who are returning to Singapore after spending some time overseas, will be able to come back to the haven that we all call home.
My question is on outbound travel, Mr Speaker, and that is, I understand that we have been more and more stringent with outbound travel moving from advisory that says only for essential travel, and now moving to all travel. But my question is, in light of the fact that the situation is more heightened, will we be even stricter with the travel of our Singaporeans and Singapore residents overseas, knowing full well that if they travel out, a significant proportion of these outbound travellers will then have to come back? So, will the Government ever consider limiting travel, perhaps, requiring outbound travellers to seek unique and special permission, and then when they come back, how would we propose to manage these cases differently from those returning cases of people who have already been out for some time?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, we have already highlighted some of the deterrence that we are putting in place for outbound, new outbound travellers, including the fact that they have to pay full cost when they come back and should they need treatment. And the fact that when they are returning, upon returning they have to serve the full self-isolation period of 14 days and pay full cost for that as well.
We will continue to see if other measures are needed. I am just very mindful that for every new measure we put in place, there is a requirement to have new operational requirements, new processes, new staff work to be done and all of this takes up resources. So, at the end of the day, this is about looking at how we allocate resources to areas of urgent needs and priorities. So, we will first monitor the volume of outflows. It is already coming down and if the measures we have are effective in bringing the volumes down further, I think we should be all right.
In any case, I think there will still be some people who might very well need to travel, for whatever reasons – maybe there is a bereavement, that somebody had passed away in the family, outside of Singapore and they really need to go and I can understand why.
So, I do not think the numbers will fall to zero but if it comes down to a number that we are able to manage, we should be okay. But if the numbers continue to persist and do not come down further, then, indeed more measures will be necessary and we will consider what additional measures at that stage will be introduced.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.
Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): I thank both Ministers for sharing what efforts are being taken by the Government and on daily basis, through the press conference.
Several clarifications. The contact tracing is also done by our Police officers from Singapore Police Force. Just wanted to seek clarification on whether their policing work is impacted by the amount of the time they are spending with the contact tracing? Four thousand contact tracings done per day. So, how much of this is impacting the Police work?
And secondly, is on misinformation. I thank MCI for the dedicated timely pushing out of information daily. The question is on misinformation with regards to things like live telecast of Prime Minister's speech that was circulated on WhatsApp, call for volunteers at MOH call centres, impending lockdown and so on. A lot of the misinformation is sent on private messaging platforms and timely clarifications are posted on MOH website and various other websites. Is it worthwhile considering setting up just a microsite just for all these clarifications to be posted so that people can have a one-stop place where we can see what is being circulated and timely responses are posted and we can always refer to it as a first touch point.
And third on social distancing on public transport, I hear Minister Lawrence Wong's comments. I think it is very important to encourage telecommuting amongst our workforce to reduce the travellers commuting at peak times and so on. But the point is, if you go to public transport sites – bus stations, MRT stations and so on – even at the escalators, people are just lining up back to back of each other. That is not just during peak hours but also non-peak hours. So, how can we implement safe distancing within bus stations, within MRT stations and also on the bus itself we can have one seat beside each other to be vacant, we can actually Implement some sort of measures even on the MRT trains to have one seat in between each other. So, I think more thought can be given on that because if you are encouraging safe distancing everywhere and we have public transportation where a lot of people are moving in masses —
Mr Speaker: Keep it short, please. Thank you.
Mr Mohamed Irshad: It is an area we can look at. I have two other clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Can we keep it tight?
Mr Mohamed Irshad: Okay. We have a policy of people coming back from overseas to be issued Stay-Home Notice but however, Singaporeans who want to visit their relatives who just came back and visit the houses, how can we discourage them from doing so? Because there have been cases where they go and visit the people who are staying at home, even though they limit the exposure time but it is still exposure. These are some clarifications to be sought.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I will answer on behalf of Minister for Home Affairs on Police work. First, I want to thank the Police for helping us to do contact tracing. Of course, there are also others, including the SAF who are helping us as well. But I want to assure you that despite the involvement in the contact tracing, their duties as a Police Force has never been diminished. And for criminals who think that they may have an easy time during this period, perish the thought.
On the misinformation, I will ask Minister Iswaran to respond in a while. I will ask Minister Wong to answer the rest of the questions.
Mr Lawrence Wong: I will address the question on public transport. Mr Irshad is right that we should have safe distancing measures even within the public transport system. But the first priority has to be just to reduce the numbers. If the numbers are still high, having safe distancing within a train or bus will mean the queue goes up somewhere else. It would be in the bus stop, it will be outside the train station, there will still be a congregation. So, I think before we talked about measures within a train, in the escalators, stations and all that, all necessary, we have to bring down the sheer volume. The only way to do that, as I said earlier – telecommuting, staggered hours, all employers must push harder on this.
Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I think the Member has made an important point about the need to address misinformation swiftly and decisively. Let me just say that first, our emphasis has been on ensuring that information is put out accurately by authoritative sources. So, for a start, the Multi-Ministry Task Force co-chairs together with, usually the Director for Medical Services as well as other Ministers as appropriate and other officials as appropriate, have been conducting regular press conferences. And this has been an important part of our effort to ensure that there is regular communication and also regular representation – faces associated with the communications – so that Singaporeans have a point of focus and a point of assurance in this entire effort.
Secondly, there have been regular background briefings that are being conducted by the Director for Medical Services and various other officials from time to time. This occurs as I have said, in the background, but it is a very important part of ensuring that the media understand the context of the decisions that are being made and the rationale, so that, when they report and convey those decisions, they can contextualise these correctly.
Thirdly, the Member has raised specifically the point on misinformation, we have had to deal with it through a variety of measures. Of course, in the most extreme circumstances, we have had to use some of the powers available to us under the newly enacted POFMA legislation. I think Members will be aware of that. We have also tried to use other channels to push out information proactively but also sometimes reactively. So, in some of the instances that the Member has cited, for example, when there was a information passing around about Prime Minister's impending address to the nation and all kinds of rumours associated with it, we did push out something through the gov.sg WhatsApp. For Members' information, today, we push out on a daily basis, something of the order of magnitude of over 900,000 messages each time and that is in the four languages – English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil.
The last point I want to make in response to the Member's comment that, whilst we can consider things like microsites and so on, as a kind of inventory of some of these clarifications that we put out, the crux of the matter really is in being able to counter such misinformation quickly. And I think we can do that in two ways.
The first is, of course, on the part of the Government in terms of how we are able to put out the information, the correct information through all the channels available to us and we will continue to work at it and improve on it.
The second is – I think this is largely the most important point – what Singaporeans can do ourselves and I think it has been salutary to see how Singaporeans now – often I get a lot of these messages and I am sure Members do too – the first instinct is ask: is this correct or is this fake? And I think that instinct is the right one, not to immediately press forward and pass it on to all our chat groups. But, to first verify, understand, before we share. I think if we do that, that will be the strongest defence against misinformation.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask Minister for Health on MOH's capacity in coping with serious cases of COVID-19 in terms of adequacy in respirators and in our ICU beds. Am I correct to say that already half of NCID's ICUs are taken up? What will happen when it reaches its full capacity? And may I also ask the Minister, so far, what is the average length of stay of patients in our ICU beds by COVID-19 cases?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I thank Dr Lily Neo for her very important questions, always. The capacity of ICU in NCID, we still have capacity and we have room to expand the capacity. But, I must say that the main constraint is not so much in the physical capacity, but on the manpower. Because we do want to make sure that our healthcare manpower are properly deployed in the most impactful place. Many of them are very stretched and very tired, and some of them have fatigue. We try to support them as much as we can, but what is most important is all of us do our part to keep the numbers low, to keep the cases low, to help prevent transmission. In this way, we will do our part in helping these healthcare workers. We do have flexibility to expand our ICU capacity, if necessary.
In terms of average length of stay, it is very difficult to have average length of stay for ICU because each case is quite different. There are some cases who went in for a few days, they are able to recover. If their lung function has recovered, we will discharge them to normal wards. But there are some who have been in there for quite some time, some may be more than a month. So, it is not very meaningful to have average length of stay in terms of ICU because it does differ from patient to patient.
Generally, for those who go into ICU, they tend to stay a bit longer because the conditions are more serious. We do keep a lookout for them, we try to provide them with as much support as possible, because in the end, for infections like COVID-19, we depend to a large extent, on their own immunity system to take over, to fight the infection.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two questions. My first question is for Minister Lawrence. Could I ask the Minister to shed some clarity on the rationale behind the action to be taken in the event that a there is an infected staff or pupil in a school. For example, what is the rationale behind decisions, for example, in deciding whether a school should be closed for the day for cleaning or should be close for two weeks or whether Stay-Home Notices should be issued to pupils and staff. I think some parents would like to know more details of this.
My second question relating to our manpower needs. I believe I have asked a Parliamentary Question relating to this. I would like to ask, perhaps, the Minister for Manpower or any Minister, what is the status of the reported 30,000 Chinese workers who were at home much earlier, during the Chinese New Year period. How many of them have returned and if they have not returned, when are they expected to return?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, on the first question on the rationale for whether or not if something were to happen, whether the centre, pre-school or school is closed for day for cleaning or for longer periods of time, it really depends on the particular instance, the incident, the person who is infected, and then, the contacts that that person may have had with people around him or her. And this is done through the MOH team – they go down, they assess, they make a very thorough investigation. If the finding is that there is no exposure at all for that individual with other people around the infected person, then there may not be a need for an extensive closure. And then, you just closed for one or two days, make sure everything is disinfected, cleaned, and then, you can proceed. But, if the assessment is that there is a broader range of context within that particular environment and potentially more people may be impacted, then, they will give the advice to the centre that it is better to close for a longer period of time. So, there is an objective and very thorough assessment made in each and every case.
The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I believe that Mr Dennis Tan was referring to the initial estimate of the number of PRC workers that were out of Singapore when we started imposing travel restrictions on them returning to Singapore.
A good number of them have not returned. Because, right now, we are requiring approvals before any one of the work pass holders can re-enter Singapore, if they are outside. Actually, that number that is flowing through every day has been slowed to a trickle. In order not to burden our healthcare system, we have prioritised Singapore Citizens as well as Permanent Residents and Long-Term pass holders coming back. Whereas, for foreign work pass holders, we have asked them to stay out of Singapore for the time being and then, when the situation enables us to facilitate their return, we will do so.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statements. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Second Reading of Bills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Second Reading of the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill, Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill and the Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill be taken on 25 March 2020\".
The Second Reading of these Bills were deferred to a Sitting on or after 1 April 2020. This motion will enable Parliament to debate these Bills today.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Second Reading of the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill, Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill and the Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill be taken on 25 March 2020\". (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Hindu Endowments Act was enacted on 1 May 1969 and provides for the Hindu Endowments Board to administer Hindu religious and charitable endowments. At present, the Board administers four temples, namely Sri Mariamman Temple at South Bridge Road, Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple at Serangoon Road, Sri Sivan Temple at Geylang East and Sri Vairavimada Kaliamman Temple at Toa Payoh.
This Bill contains three amendments to section 20 of the Hindu Endowments Act, which relates to the appointment of the temple management committees of the four temples under the Hindu Endowments Board. Let me take Members through the amendments.
The first amendment in section 20(2) of the Act will allow each temple management committee to comprise up to 12 members, an increase from the current eight members. By ensuring a broader mix of expertise and experience, the temple management committees will be better positioned to meet the heavier demands of temple management.
The second amendment is to section 20(3), the quorum at all meetings of the temple management committees will be increased from four to six members, so that we keep the same proportion to meet quorum as we increase the committee's membership size.
The third and final amendment is to section 20(4) of the Act, which will allow members of the temple management committee to serve a longer term of office of up to three years, instead of the current two years. This will provide members more time to contribute meaningfully and see through their plans to improve the temple and the well-being of its worshippers.
In sum, these three amendments will ensure that the temple management committees will continue to be effective in discharging their responsibilities in today's operating environment. Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Hindu Endowments Act in the manner that I have just described. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I propose that we resume Sitting at 4.35 pm. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, my journey in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act or WABA, started more than 14 years ago, before I became a Member of this House. On 13 March 2006, the media published my letter in which I said, \"It would seem that there is much ambiguity in the Wild Animals and Birds Act and perhaps, it is time to improve and amend the law to make it a more effective tool in the protection of wild animals.\"
In the past 14 years, we have focused on strengthening other animal-related legislation, including the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act or ESA, the Animals and Birds Act or ABA, and the Parks and Trees Act or PTA.
The WABA has not been substantially amended since 1965. I am glad that it is now time to amend this Act and align it with other animal-related legislation that we have already strengthened.
Sir, I am happy to introduce this Bill on behalf of the people and the animals. This Bill drafted by people, and based on feedback and suggestions from the people. This journey and this Bill has been made possible by the work of the Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee or WALRC. I am proud to chair this committee of passionate individuals. It feels like it was just yesterday, but we held our first meeting in February 2018, more than two years ago.
In the process of developing our recommendations, we recognised that different segments of society hold different views about wildlife protection and human-wildlife co-existence. Interest in animal welfare and nature conservation is growing and many regard the preservation of wildlife as a matter of critical importance. But there are others who are less comfortable with wildlife or who are primarily concerned about wildlife matters only as they relate to public health and safety. We tried our best to capture as many of these views as possible.
We started with the composition of the committee itself, which comprises a wide cross-section of society. We not only have representatives from the nature and animal welfare community, but also from the Singapore Pest Management Association, the Pet Enterprise and Traders Association of Singapore, the Singapore Buddhist Federation, the academic and legal community, and the Nee Soon East Youth Network.
To supplement the committee's passion and expertise, we also conducted extensive public consultation. Our goal was to hear from the people themselves and to gauge the level of support for our proposed amendments. The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): A point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps, we should give some time for more Members to come in, because I do not believe we have a quorum.
Mr Speaker: I have sent a message out for them. I understand.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: The first public consultation was a face-to-face session in May 2018. It was then followed by an online session on REACH from June to July 2018. We received over a thousand responses in our online consultation. We took extra time to consult groups that had particular interests in some of the proposals. We held consultations with pest control companies in June 2018 and with religious organisations in June 2019. Our final face-to-face public consultation was held in August 2019. There, we shared the proposed amendments and also explained why we did not proceed with some of the earlier proposed amendments.
In January 2020, we met with the MND Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members to obtain their feedback on the proposed amendments. Finally, this month, we published a post-consultation summary on REACH and on my Facebook page.
This two-year journey of public consultations has taught me and the other committee members a great deal. Through sharing and, most importantly, listening, we have reached a set of proposed amendments that, I believe, strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife for the purposes of maintaining a healthy eco-system and safeguarding our public safety and health.
The Bill will amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act by, first, renaming it Wildlife Act, from WABA to WA. I think we now have a piece of law with the coolest name.
With that, I will now outline the key features of WA.
Sir, let me first declare my interest as the Chief Executive of ACRES. In the past 19 years, I have worked closely with NParks and previously, the AVA. We have worked hand-in-hand to protect animals in Singapore and safeguard their welfare and public safety.
I saw first-hand the gaps and how it was affecting our wildlife, public safety, the work of NParks and AVA officers, and NGOs.
The feeding and release of wildlife is a good example. Sir, some years ago, we received reports of a person feeding a monkey in our park. Feeding wild animals in our parks is illegal and we advised her to stop, especially as the monkey had turned aggressive and started attacking other park users. NParks issued her with a warning letter. However, instead of stopping, she started feeding the monkey at the apartments beside the park, where it was not illegal to feed wild animals. The Parks and Trees Act does not cover areas outside the parks and nature reserves.
There was little NParks or ACRES could do to stop the feeding. She continued feeding the monkey and soon, residents started to complain, and eventually, we had to remove this wild monkey.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case and the feeding of wildlife happens regularly. Too regularly. It is also not just monkeys but a wide range of other animals, including wild boars and birds.
Sir, feeding wildlife causes at least three types of problems.
First, it can alter wildlife behaviour, thus affecting public safety. Again, for example, macaques who are used to being fed by humans can get aggressive if they think you are holding their next meal. Second, it can increase wildlife populations and cause disamenities. Anthropogenic food provisioning is a key driver of pigeon growth in urban areas. Third, it can cause ecological issues. Wild animals can get addicted to sugary human food. This is not only bad for their health but also leads them to neglect vital ecological roles like seed dispersion.
For birds in particular, outside of parks and nature reserves, our law prohibits only the feeding of pigeons, and not other birds. This gap makes it harder for us to address the root of the problem when it comes to human-wildlife conflicts.
Let me now turn to the release of wildlife. Sir, over the years, I have personally seen the problems that arise when animals are released back into the wild without proper safeguards. We have rescued so many animals who had been released. I cannot count the number of pig-nosed turtles that have turned up dead on our shores. Many think they are marine turtles who live in the sea but they are actually freshwater turtles. They go through a very painful death when released into the sea.
While we do our best to rescue these animals, many do not survive. The animals pay with their lives.
In my speech on the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill, I shared my concerns about the current legislation and proposed to prohibit the release of animals anywhere, on land or in water, in Singapore. I proposed that we should not restrict these prohibitions to only certain areas. Specifically, I said, \"Animals are not stationary and have the freedom to travel from unrestricted areas to nature reserves. Hence, I see little rationale in creating demarcations when prohibiting the release of animals.\"
Sir, the release of animals poses many concerns as well.
First, it is harmful to animal welfare as released animals who are not properly rehabilitated often do not survive in the wild. Second, it can create health issues for both humans and the animals as released animals could introduce diseases into the environment. Third, it can pose a problem to public safety, in the case where dangerous animals like stingrays are released. And fourth, it can imbalance and threaten eco-systems as invasive species can harm our native populations.
Today, there are existing controls in the PTA on the feeding and release of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. The new sections 5(a) and 5(b) in the Wildlife Act extend these by prohibiting the release and feeding of wildlife throughout Singapore, unless approved by the Director-General, Wildlife Management.
We acknowledge that the majority of people who feed or release animals do not do so for malicious reasons. In fact, it is often the opposite. They do so out of compassion and a genuine desire to help animals. Thus, the solution cannot only be to rely on the law to regulate behaviour, but to first help them understand that the feeding and release of wildlife causes more harm than good, so they are internally motivated to change.
We consulted the relevant stakeholders, particularly religious groups, on how to achieve this. For instance, we discussed alternatives to mercy release with local Buddhist organisations. We can build on and scale up what a Buddhist temple has practised by inviting pet owners to get their animals blessed and animal welfare charities to stage an adoption drive for strays.
The temple's spiritual director said, \"Buying and releasing animals is actually not good for the environment, so it's much better if we can feed and re-home strays.\"
Other ideas raised were volunteering at animal shelters or tree-planting. I thank the local Buddhist community for their inputs. The WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding feeding and release of wild animals.
Next amendment, wildlife traps. One of the most common questions I have been asked over the past two decades is, \"Singapore got wildlife meh\". We do. Plenty of wildlife and our biodiversity in Singapore is amazing.
Our wildlife lives in our parks and nature reserves where they receive protection under the PTA. But those who live outside parks and nature reserves also need similar protection as they can be targeted by poachers.
The WALRC contemplated the need for stronger controls on nets and traps outside parks and nature reserves. We were concerned about both the deliberate poaching of wildlife as well as incidental harm inflicted on wildlife caused by the inappropriate use of nets and traps. In recent years, we have seen cases of our beloved otters being killed in traps near Changi Sailing Club and along Marina Promenade.
Currently, NParks can prosecute poachers for taking, or attempting to take, wildlife. But it is still challenging for NParks to enforce against poachers as traps are often left unattended, or may simply be abandoned.
So, instead of only focusing on how to catch and prosecute people, we asked ourselves: what more can we do to mitigate the harm to the public and wildlife caused by nets and traps?
One solution to this is the new section 10A, which empowers NParks to dismantle and dispose of unattended or unauthorised traps in any place. If the place is owned or occupied, NParks will need to give reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier before conducting its checks. This is meant for more routine inspections.
However, if an offence is suspected, such as if NParks receives a specific tip-off that poaching activities are being carried out on a private property, NParks will be empowered, under the new section 11A and 11B, to enter without notice to search for and seize the trap.
We also wanted to more strongly deter the use of snare traps. Snare traps use trigger-activated nooses to trap wildlife, often maiming or killing them in the process. These are dangerous not only to wildlife but also to humans, especially young children.
The existing section 9 of WABA sets out higher penalties for wildlife traps that may also harm humans, such as spring guns or pitfalls. We have updated this provision, which is now in the new section 7, to include snare traps, so that those who use them will also be liable to higher penalties.
Another issue that the WALRC grappled with was whether all wildlife species should be equally protected under the Act. This debate got quite interesting.
One day, I received a call informing me that the people keeping ants were very angry with me. To be honest, I never knew people kept ants as pets. But actually and technically, I, too, keep ants as pets. My three little angels at home drop crumbs and food everywhere and we now have a fair number of ants living with us and lovingly fed by my daughters. I do tell my daughters ants are our friends.
I was told the people were angry as I was proposing amendments to the law that will make the keeping of ants illegal. That is not true.
Ants are invertebrates and we had a huge discussion on how invertebrates should be treated under the Act.
On one hand, there are threatened invertebrates like horseshoe crabs that should be protected. But on the other hand, it seems excessive to disallow people from killing animals like cockroaches, or trapping and keeping insects for leisure or educational purposes, such as ant-keeping or teaching kids about animal life cycles.
Let me assure everyone that we will not make the above practices illegal.
The Bill provides for a calibrated approach to be taken in cases like this. The new section 20 empowers the Minister to exempt any person, place or wildlife, or any class of persons, places or wildlife, from any or all provisions of the Act by order in the Gazette. This means that some activities that do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection could be carved out.
Using section 20, I understand that MND will exempt pests and non-threatened invertebrates from protection against killing and trapping.
However, we should not exclude invertebrates from the Act altogether. For example, we should not allow the unregulated import or release of dangerous or invasive invertebrates, such as the venomous bulldog ant or invasive fire ants, which could wreak havoc on our eco-system and cause harm to the public.
There will be additional safeguards to ensure that threatened invertebrates are adequately protected. Most of these threatened invertebrates are already living in our parks and nature reserves, and today, it is already an offence to kill or trap them under the current PTA.
The Bill additionally empowers the Minister to prescribe a new list of \"protected wildlife species\". Selected threatened species, including invertebrates, can be put on this list, such that they can be protected beyond our parks and nature reserves. I will elaborate more on this later.
In summary, you can keep ants as pets and you can trap them outside of parks and nature reserves. But if you plan to import, trap them within nature reserves or trap selected threatened invertebrates, you will need NParks' approval.
Ninety percent of respondents on the REACH consultation agreed with this broad approach and felt that at least threatened invertebrates should be protected from killing, keeping or capturing without a permit throughout Singapore.
That said, we are aware that some may accidentally or unknowingly violate the rules, especially if they are less familiar with wildlife. The WALRC and NParks will work with stakeholders on public awareness campaigns, and I trust that NParks will enforce the law fairly and reasonably.
We move on now to the question of penalties. The penalties under the current Act are far too low to deter would-be poachers and traffickers. Illegally trading in exotic pets is only punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act. Some of these animals fetch much more on the black market.
Clauses 7, 9, 10 and 12 thus introduce higher penalties for all offences to bring the Wildlife Act on par with more updated animal-related legislation, namely the ABA, ESA and PTA.
Clause 7 also introduces heavier penalties for animal-related businesses that kill, trap, take or keep wildlife. This is necessary because first, these businesses are capable of causing much more harm than individual offenders, as in the case of a wildlife management company illegally killing or trapping wildlife.
Second, these businesses have a stronger duty of care towards animals.
Third, businesses are generally more financially capable of paying fines, so a higher fine quantum is needed as a stronger deterrent.
The definition of \"animal-related business\" is the same as the one in ABA, which also includes animal welfare groups like ACRES. There will also be higher penalties for repeat and recalcitrant offenders. The proposed penalty structure has two tiers, with one tier for first convictions, and another tier for second and subsequent convictions.
We saw a further need to more strongly protect certain native threatened wildlife species, similar to how the ESA more strongly protects globally threatened species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Take the Sunda pangolin, for example, which is both CITES-listed and native to Singapore. Poaching and selling it locally would only be liable to a fine of up to $1,000 under the existing Act, whereas illegally importing a pangolin which was poached elsewhere could be penalised by up to $50,000 and/or two years' imprisonment under the ESA.
Clause 2 thus introduces \"protected wildlife species\" to be prescribed by the Minister. I understand that MND intends to take reference from the CITES Appendices and the Singapore Red Data Book in putting together this list of protected species.
But this is not to say that every species found in those lists will automatically be prescribed on the protected wildlife species list. I understand that MND and NParks will develop a robust selection criteria. The general principle will be that the protected wildlife species list will contain native species that are domestically threatened.
I hope that the list will be progressively refined and amended in consultation with experts and the nature community.
Clauses 7 and 9 set out that killing, trapping, taking, keeping, selling or exporting these protected species will be punishable by the highest penalties under the Act – up to $50,000 in fines and/or two years' imprisonment, on par now with the ESA.
Sir, beyond the WALRC’s recommendations, in 2018, I raised in Parliament that there was a gap in the enforcement of certain conditions imposed under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework.
Take, for example, a development project that is near a known wildlife habitat. If the developer had deliberately killed a wild animal to make way for works, it would be an offence under the existing WABA. If the animal was killed in a nature reserve, it would be an offence also under the PTA.
In addition, as part of the EIA requirements, NParks might have required the developer to install hoardings to prevent wildlife from venturing out onto the roads. However, if the developer failed to do so and the wild animal walked onto a road straight into the path of an unwitting motorist, there is currently limited recourse under the law.
I am glad to share that after discussions with MND and NParks, we will have a new section 10 that will empower the Director-General, Wildlife Management to issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system.
The relevant wildlife-related EIA conditions can thus be formally issued as directions, and contravention of these directions would constitute an offence punishable by up to $50,000 in fines and/or six months' imprisonment. This would give the EIA process additional \"teeth\" and serve as a stronger incentive for developers to comply with EIA conditions.
Finally, Sir, to ensure that the WALRC's recommendations can be effectively implemented, we saw a need to strengthen NParks' enforcement powers.
Clauses 10 to 15 would largely align NParks' powers under the Wildlife Act with those under the ABA and ESA. This includes allowing NParks to direct people to pay the costs of repatriating smuggled wildlife in a way that ensures that the wildlife is properly cared for. This is so the Government does not have to bear the costs of repairing the damage caused by smugglers, and is similar to the existing powers in the ESA, for dealing with smuggled wildlife species.
We also propose a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. The risk of losing their vehicles would serve as a stronger deterrent to would-be smugglers.
Nonetheless, we recognise that there must be safeguards to expanded powers. The Court may not order the forfeiture of very large conveyances or aircrafts or trains used for regular passenger service to and from Singapore, as well as conveyances that were used unlawfully without the owner's knowledge or consent.
Sir, let me end by once again thanking members of the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee for all their hard work, for helping to draft all the proposed amendments in this Bill and for their unwavering commitment towards protecting our wildlife and nature spots in Singapore.
My heartfelt thanks to: Karen Sim, the Secretary of the committee; Kalai Vanan from ACRES; Daryl Yeo from the Nature Photographic Society; Kerry Pereira from the Nature Society Singapore; Wong Jin Feng from the Nee Soon East Youth Network; Joseph Chun from the Faculty of Law at NUS; N Sivasothi from the Department of Biological Sciences at NUS; Matthew Lim from the Pet Enterprise Traders Association of Singapore; Venerable Shi You Guang from the Singapore Buddhist Federation; Ng Say Kiat from the Singapore Pest Management Association; Jaipal Singh from the SPCA; the late Subaraj Rajathurai from Strix Wildlife Consultancy; Jessica Lee from the Wildlife Reserves Singapore; Ria Tan from WildSingapore and my team of Legislative Assistants.
I would also like to thank NParks and MND for their views and suggestions. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC. This helped us better plan out which wildlife protection outcomes would be better achieved via legislation and which should be done via other means.
We worked to ensure that the proposals were practical and could be implemented on the ground by NParks later on. MND and NParks also made some suggestions for additional amendments, some of which are contained in this Bill.
I also want to specially thank Minister Desmond, Minister Lawrence and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Xueling for all their guidance and support for this Bill.
Last but certainly not least, a big thank you to members of the public for speaking up, for your thoughtful suggestions and constructive criticisms. Thank you for joining us on this journey together.
Mr Speaker, we all hope that the Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will be an important step in strengthening wildlife protection legislation in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In the recent Netflix documentary series \"Night on Earth\", actress Samira Wiley narrates the episode on the impact of urban development on wildlife. In episode 5, she describes Singapore as \"one of the most wildlife-friendly cities on Earth\".
Wildlife is the beloved otter families in Bishan and the Marina Bay It is the long-tailed macaque that call our nature reserves home, and even the hornbills that have recently be seen perched on balconies in our homes.
Some have great affection for these wildlife creatures. Others find them to be a nuisance or have a sense of suspicion and fear. This can lead to great conflict as we have seen in the cases of bird feeders against their neighbours.
Other times, our affection for wildlife may lead to greater harm and nuisance to both animals and humans when our affection is expressed in uninformed ways. This happens, for instance, when individuals feed wildlife inappropriately or capture animals for amusement and enjoyment without concern for what is natural for the animal. Sugar gliders, pangolins and hedgehogs come to mind.
Wildlife should be integrated into our society and be part of what makes us uniquely Singapore, and not create conflict.
The new Wildlife Act is not just about telling us what to do or not to do in relation to wildlife. More than that, it is about learning how to interact with and enjoy our natural environment in a respectful and humane way.
I support the Bill and I have just a few comments.
First, I have two clarifications relating to the new sections 5A and 5C which set out the offences of feeding, releasing, killing, trapping, taking or keeping of wildlife. In relation to the new section 5A which makes intentional feeding of any wildlife without approval an offence, I find that the use of the word “intentional” may be a challenging one to enforce, as it puts the burden on the state to prove intent. I could imagine people using excuses of feeding \"domestic\" animals as a means to excuse themselves from this ruling. It might be a small loophole, but a loophole nonetheless.
The new section 5C makes it an offence to intentionally kill, trap, take or keep wildlife. Currently, section 5(1) of WABA makes it an offence for any person to kill, take or keep wildlife without a permit. The new offence requires the additional element of intention which, as before, the state has to prove. This is a high bar, as one could be trying to trap a pesky rat but, inadvertently, catch a Southeast Asian Shrew, a rare forest native.
The intent of the matter is hard to prove and we should consider removing that requirement. Instead, we should educate our people to not trap, hunt or kill wildlife, and instead call upon professionals to get it done. As we inevitably encroach into the spaces of wildlife, they, too, will move into ours. How we structure our laws will help to protect one from the other.
The intent of the two points above is not to nitpick at language but, rather, to find a specific set of actions we want to discourage, as we learn to share our common spaces with wildlife and put clear boundaries on what should and should not be done.
My second clarification relates to the offence of importing living wildlife without approval under the new section 9(1). Currently, section 10(1) provides that \"[n]o person shall import into Singapore any wild animal or bird whether alive or dead, or any part thereof\" except with written authorisation. This, too, is a loophole. In the past, illegal wildlife parts like bearclaws, pangolins and other wildlife were part of folk remedies and traditional supplements and cures. It is my strong belief that we should retain that as a deterrent to anyone who might want to reignite such practices. We should adopt the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and regulate not just the trade of live animals but also that of animal parts and animal-based products in order to ensure that wildlife species are not threatened to extinction by trade.
It is vital that we continue to find new ways to interact with our environment. As we build up new housing estates, new places of leisure, we need to learn to share these spaces with wildlife that was indigenous to that space. A strong set of laws and regulations will help to clarify the boundaries in which we can interact and share experiences with our rich and diverse wildlife. These clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Singapore is home to many rare species. It is also a popular transit point for migratory birds. Even to this day, scientists and naturalists are finding out more and more about the treasure we have living among nature in Singapore. I wish to commend Mr Louis Ng for tabling this Bill in Parliament.
In the Southern Islands, there are sandy white beaches; there is an eco-system of coral reefs. There are fascinating sea creatures, such as sea sponges and sea horses. On land, rare birds and animals have been spotted in places like the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Some examples are the great slaty woodpecker and the mousedeer.
This piece of legislation shines a spotlight on the importance of wildlife to humanity, here in Singapore.
Firstly, the Bill makes the Wild Animals and Birds Act more comprehensive. One of the ways it does this is by regulating, not just vertebrates, but also invertebrates, through clause 4. That clause amends the definition of “animal” to include, among many others, invertebrates. But there is a risk that the law becomes over-inclusive. For example, would it hamper or prevent the extermination of pests, such as termites, cockroaches and silver fish? I certainly hope Singaporeans will not be prevented from exterminating pests and rodents.
Having said this, this change has also provided for the important inclusion of invertebrates, such as star fish, sea cucumbers, horseshoe crabs and sea sponges – all creatures that inhabit Chek Jawa on Pulau Ubin. I understand from news reports that the Singapore Pest Association has been consulted in the process of drafting this Bill. My question to Mr Louis Ng is, has the Director-General also been consulted? I hope that in and amongst these changes, Singaporeans will still, indeed, be permitted to exterminate pests, such as termites.
Another way in which the Bill makes the Wild Animals and Birds Act more comprehensive is by including trapping under the law. This is good. It is to be commended. Currently, under section 5, the Act includes taking, killing and keeping, but not trapping. It is good that this gap is being plugged.
Additionally, this Bill makes the enforcement of the Act more robust. Not only are there enhanced penalties across the board, there are also enhanced penalties for subsequent offenders. There are also enhanced penalties for animal-related business owners if they were to kill, trap, take or keep wildlife without written approval. It is good that, along with the increase in potential punishments under the offences of the Act that directly impact wildlife, the Bill also increases the punishment for certain offences that hinder certain investigations. Under the current section 12(3), failing to comply with a request for a name and address or for giving a false name or incomplete address to the officer could lead to a fine of up to $1,000 upon conviction. The Bill increases this 10-fold to $10,000 and even adds on a possible custodial sentence of up to six months. This is to be commended.
If I may, Sir, I wish to seek clarification that the authorised officer in the new section 12K in clause 13 is intended to refer to an authorised officer who is authorised by the Director-General to compound offences and is not referring to authorised officers generally. The reason why I am asking this is because there is an argument to be made that enforcement officers interacting with and arresting the accused and investigating the crime should not be the same ones with the power to compound.
In\tconclusion, Sir, I\tthank\tmy\tcolleague\tMr\tLouis\tNg\tfor tabling this Private Member's Bill. My congratulations to him.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I join the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza in congratulating the hon Member for Nee Soon, Mr Louis Ng, for leading the efforts to review the Wild Animals and Birds Act and moving this amendment Bill. Mr Louis Ng highlighted a 14-year journey in his speech delivered in his characteristic passionate style. I applaud the fact that he and his members of the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee had conducted extensive consultation over two years before tabling this Bill. This is a phenomenal ground-up initiative. I support the Bill in principle and would like to raise three points for clarification.
The first point is on a possible overlap between the Animals and Birds Act and the amendment Bill. Under Rules 10 and 17 of the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules enacted under the Animals and Birds Act, it is an offence to feed stray pigeons. The punishment upon conviction is a fine not exceeding $500. The proposed section 3(1)(a) in this Bill preserves the operation of the Animals and Birds Act. \"Pigeons\", it appears, may satisfy the definition of \"wildlife\", too, under this amendment Bill, in which case, the feeding of pigeons will be an offence under the proposed section 5A in this Bill. The punishment is a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a first offender and $10,000 for a subsequent offender. If my understanding is correct, may I please ask: what are the circumstances in which the different provisions would be invoked? I can see the attraction of using the powers under this amendment Bill because there would be no need to distinguish between the birds which will satisfy the definition of \"wildlife\" and there will be less enforcement issues on the ground as well.
Second, the possibility of imposing community-based sentencing. I note from the amendment Bill, as currently worded, that the feeding and releasing of wildlife is punishable by sentences or fine. I do appreciate, as Mr Louis Ng mentioned, that the proposed fine quantums are higher. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, community-based sentencing orders, such as Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTOs), may not be made in respect of fine-only offences.
There is a carve-out for Community Work Orders (CWOs) though. This may be a good sentencing option in some cases, particularly for those who caused disamenities, such as making public places dirty. Some feeders may have underlying psychiatric conditions. Unfortunately, it does not appear that they can be imposed with MTOs such that the underlying causes of the offending behaviour may be treated so as to reduce the risk of them re-offending. I will be grateful for clarification on the sentencing policies for such offenders.
Lastly, acts of kindness. I support the criminalisation of feeding and releasing of wildlife. Mr Louis Ng again eloquently explained the raison d'etre for this. There are occasions, however, where a person's feeding or releasing of wildlife is an act of kindness. Take the case of a person who comes across a wounded eagle which crashed into a glass door. The person, out of concern for the eagle, may feed it and then release it thereafter. This is a real life example.
Such acts would not change wildlife behaviour, nor would it cause disamenities or ecological degradation. That is the mischief that Mr Louis Ng highlighted in relation to criminalising acts of feeding and releasing wildlife. But, technically, these persons may have committed such offences, granted the prosecution may exercise discretion not to prosecute. But such people may eventually not take a risk of offending. So, this may not be consonant with the aims of this Bill.
I note that under the proposed section 5(1) of the amendment Bill, the Director-General will have powers to give written approval generally to a class of persons. May I please ask if the Director-General will consider issuing general written approval to such classes of persons intervening to help wildlife so that they do not run the risk of committing offences? And, if so, what would be the conditions? Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I want to commend Mr Louis Ng for moving this Bill. He spent the last two years working with the Wild Animal Legislation Review Committee on the Bill. The Bill is actually highly relevant to the current COVID-19 crisis because novel coronaviruses are known to be endemic to many wildlife populations. We know there are real risks of disease transmission between wildlife and humans. So, maintaining the right balance between wildlife and human activity is not only good for the environment, it is also good for ourselves.
I have two broad concerns about the Bill. The first concerns the practices that harm wildlife or the eco-system, such as the feeding and release of wildlife and trafficking. For this, my questions are on whether the penalties proposed in the Bill are appropriate and how will enforcement be carried out. The second concerns the Bill's granting of powers to the Director-General to direct development or works to implement measures to safeguard wildlife. My questions are on how we can achieve the right balance between the protection of wildlife and eco-systems and the need to develop land and natural resources for the benefit of society. I will direct questions on the principles behind the Bill to Mr Louis Ng, and questions on policy implementation to the Ministry.
I will start with the feeding and release of wildlife. The proposed section 5A addresses feeding wildlife. Today, I think the public is generally aware that feeding wildlife threatens the eco-system. It also poses a risk to public health and safety if wildlife is encouraged to interact with humans through feeding. The question is whether the penalties in the Bill and the enforcement framework are proportionate. The maximum fine is $5,000 for the first offence. Could Mr Louis Ng explain his thinking about whether the offence should be compoundable and what he thinks should guide sentencing if a case happens to be prosecuted in Court? In what circumstances does Mr Louis Ng think the Director-General should grant written approval for feeding wildlife?
For the Ministry, I wish to ask to what extent feeding wildlife will be regulated in practice. Will issuing summons for feeding wildlife be part of regular enforcement activity, or is it more a measure of last resort against people who cannot be convinced to stop feeding wildlife?
Next, the proposed section 5B governs the release of wildlife. This is a sensitive issue because some people release wildlife as part of celebrations or religious practices. Mr Ng has shared his many discussions with religious groups on this matter. The potential harm that such releases cause also depends on what wildlife people are releasing and where they do it. Could Mr Ng share his thinking on how we can use this Bill to sensitively address this issue of wildlife release in religious practices? There may yet be other groups out there whom he has not been able to reach out to yet.
For the Ministry, I wish to ask what we have learnt from existing enforcement efforts on wildlife released in nature reserves and how this will be extended to wildlife released in other areas after this Bill is passed.
Next, the proposed sections 11B and 12C grant powers of seizure and forfeiture over articles and conveyances connected to offences under the Act. These powers are not strongly limited. Only very large vehicles are exempt from forfeiture, as Mr Ng pointed out. What I am concerned about is that this puts operators of vehicles for hire at risk of having their livelihood seized. For example, a private boat operator who transports wildlife for unauthorised release in the sea could face a risk of having his boat seized and forfeited.
I wish to ask Mr Ng how he thinks these powers should be limited for the seizure of conveyances. The seizure of vehicles involved in smuggling – I think that is a widely accepted principle. But does Mr Ng intend that if someone were to drive their car to feed or release wildlife, should their car be seizeable under the Act?
In addition, how should vehicles hired out for passengers or cargo be treated? In particular, would Mr Ng agree that passenger or cargo hire vehicles should not be seizeable or forfeitable unless the owner or operator was reckless or abetted offences under the Act? If he agrees on this, then does he think that the Bill, as currently written, really limits the powers of seizure and forfeiture sufficiently? I know Mr Ng has noted that owners of vehicles are not at risk if the offences were committed without their consent. But the question is: what is the burden of proof here? It may be impractical for many vehicle owners to thoroughly investigate the intention of their hirers. So, I believe that providers of small-scale passenger or cargo services are actually in need of statutory protection from seizure or forfeiture under this Bill. To me, it is actually somewhat odd that protection is to be given to the large vehicles, which I do not think would be in our public interest to seize, but not to the smaller vehicles at all.
Next, the proposed section 10 of the Act will grant the Director-General power to issue directions to require development works to implement measures to safeguard wildlife, public safety or the eco-system.
Sir, my first concern here is on whether section 10 applies to the Government or grants any private rights of action. Government development projects, such as the Cross-Island Line, could significantly affect the eco-system and wildlife if measures are not taken. Does Mr Ng think that section 10 grants private parties the right to sue the Government to issue directions on development works, whether carried out by other private parties or by the Government itself?
Second, I am concerned there is no proportionality in section 10. There is no requirement in the Bill that the Director-General consider the actual costs of remediation, the likely benefits to the eco-system and wildlife, and the relative social and ecological value of the wildlife. Should we actually put in the same effort to protect common pigeons as we do pangolins?
So, I wish to ask Mr Ng why there is no proportionality clause and on what principles he thinks the Director-General should proceed in issuing directions under the Act. Section 10(4) does allow a person to refuse to comply with a Direction if they have a reasonable excuse. Does Mr Ng think that this is sufficient protection against an unreasonable direction and what principles determine whether an excuse is or is not reasonable?
Sir, in other countries, private suits against development works have been brought using similar wildlife protection laws and these suits have even halted Government development works in those countries. I do not know if the amended Act is capable of being used as such. But, to me, this seems a bit too important to leave to judicial interpretation alone.
Let me also ask the Ministry how, in practice, the Director-General will exercise section 10 powers. Does the Director-General have a staff that is capable of conducting environmental cost-benefit analysis? If not, will that staff be created and trained to exercise these powers? How will the Director-General engage stakeholders, such as environmental interest groups as well as developers, to ensure that any directions issued respect both environmental concerns and development matters?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the intent behind the Bill. However, we must ensure that the public agrees this Bill's measures, when enforced, are fair, reasonable and proportionate. We must also acknowledge that with limited resources, we have to balance protecting wildlife and the eco-system with human development. It is very fashionable to say that we can have both, but that is actually a fantasy unless we can change how we define human development to mean that we should reduce our footprint and our impact on the natural world. That could mean halting or reversing our population and consumption growth. I do not think we have a consensus on that yet as a society.
The concerns I have raised are in some areas quite substantive, particularly on the section 10 powers of the Director-General to issue directions on development works, and on sections 11B and 12C powers of seizure and forfeiture of conveyances. I look forward to Mr Ng's clarifications. But, with respect, I am not sure they can all be addressed without altering the legislation. My preference is that we should send the Bill to a Select Committee rather than pass it immediately. However, I remain open to hearing Mr Ng and the Ministry's replies to my concerns.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments made in the Bill as it seeks to strengthen the protection, preservation and management of wildlife.
I have previously filed a Parliamentary Question about the illegal smuggling of pet birds and also spoke at length about the caged birds trade during MND's Committee of Supply last month. I have asked MND to consider adopting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List to regulate the caged bird trade as well as touched on stiffening the penalties in the illegal wildlife trade. I am glad that the proposed amendments include enhancing the fines for offenders as well as closing some technical loopholes.
Sir, while most animals, such as cats and dogs, sold as pets are bred, pet birds are caught from the wild. Moreover, cats and dogs are domesticated species and are perfectly happy living alongside humans.
On the other hand, most birds are caught from the wild by poachers deploying very inhumane methods. One of the destructive techniques they engage involves applying tar glue on tree branches, which ends up trapping other birds or female specimens of target species.
So, while MND has introduced micro-chipping for dogs to improve traceability and in order to prevent illegal puppy mills, so far, these measures have not been introduced for birds sold as pets. The lack of measures encourages the illegal import and smuggling of birds as the culprit knows that once placed into a bird shop, it is impossible to differentiate a bird imported legally versus another imported illegally. I would like to urge MND to introduce micro-chipping or other similar measures to improve traceability for birds sold as pets.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the typical Singapore consumer has a much higher purchasing power than those in our regional countries. As Uncle Ben said to Spiderman, \"With great power, comes great responsibility.\" What we allow our consumers to buy affects the wildlife in our region. Our demand for wildlife fuels the supply.
Sir, another area which I think we can help wildlife through regulating our consumer demand is to curb the import and sale of juvenile fish. I go to the wet market regularly and am shocked to see baby pomfrets, which are smaller than the size of my palm, being sold – and I do not have big palms. Without giving the chance for juvenile fish to grow, it can only result in the eventual depletion and extinction of many fish species.
Sir, I know that this is not a problem which Singapore can unilaterally solve. A longer term solution will require us to engage our regional neighbours and they would need to get the necessary buy-in from fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. But, Sir, we can harness our relatively higher purchasing power and turn it into a force for good. By disallowing the sale of juvenile fish, we are sending a strong signal and reducing the incentive for the catching of such juvenile fish.
Sir, unfortunately, human beings have become the most destructive species on earth. As a nation, we can set an example of how we can make the world a better place for all species.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill, which will help to better balance how we and the many species of birds and animals in Singapore will coexist. We can certainly do more to protect wildlife here, preserve our natural heritage and ensure their survival. This is necessary for a healthy, flourishing eco-system. I have been most assured by the involvement of the public and various stakeholders, including concerned nature- and pet-lovers and even pest control companies, who provided their valuable feedback and suggestions for this Bill. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act, particularly the new section 5A. This part stipulates that unless permission was given by the authorities, no person will be permitted to intentionally feed any wildlife in any place. Otherwise, he will be deemed guilty of an offence. If it is a first offence, the fine will not exceed $5,000. As for a second or subsequent offence, the fine will not exceed $10,000. I would like to ask the Minister to share the details of how the relevant department will enforce this legislation.
In our garden city, it is natural to have birdsong and the fragrance of flowers. But there are many wild birds in my constituency. I have received complaints from many residents that they are faced with the problems of noise and bird droppings caused by large flocks of wild birds. Stopping the feeding of wild birds should reduce the food supply for them and hence, reduce their numbers. But how effective this provision will be is still unknown. May I ask if the Minister can do more to solve this problem?
In addition to punishing those who deliberately feed birds, serious penalties should also be given to residents and businesses who litter and treat food waste carelessly, as these foods are an important source of survival for wild birds and pests. I call on the Minister to curb the over-feeding of wild birds in residential areas, to address their pollution problems and to reduce the risk of possible transmission of diseases.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act have been a long time coming for more stringent measures needed to give more protection to wildlife beyond nature parks and reserves, and for more severe enforcement to deter offenders of abuse, exploitation and killing of wildlife.
Urban wildlife continues to face challenges with unabated development in Singapore. But I am heartened that we have become more considered in promoting nature-based solutions and increasing ecological connectivity within urban spaces in recent years. The recent Budget announcement by Minister Desmond Lee that Singapore will evolve from a City in a Garden to a City in Nature with another 200 hectares of nature parks added to act as complementary habitats and to buffer nature reserves from urbanisation is to be rejoiced. This Bill is, therefore, timely and welcomed in back-boning this City in Nature vision with appropriate legislative interventions. I would like to seek clarifications in three areas.
The first relates to the definition of \"wildlife\" in relation to marine species. I note clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of \"wildlife\" in section 2 of the principal Act which also \"includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish or invertebrate, whether of wild nature or otherwise\". Can the Member confirm that the definition of \"wildlife\" does, indeed, extend to all wild marine animals?
I understand that wild marine animals are traded and exchanged freely by SEA Aquarium Singapore. The re-enacted sections 8 and 9 of the Bill prohibits the sale, including offer for sale, or export of any living or dead wildlife or import of any living wildlife respectively without the Director-General's written approval. Can the Minister clarify if sections 8 and 9 will be imposed on the trading of wild marine animals by commercial aquariums when enacted? Under what circumstances will the Director-General give the approval for importation and trade, and will this approval come only after a board is consulted or will it come about through absolute veto power?
Whilst we are on the prohibition on trading of marine wildlife, dead or alive, Mr Speaker, I would like to also take this opportunity to raise the issue of importation of shark species.
Our existing Harmonised System (HS) classification of goods does not include enough differentiation on shark species being imported. A 2017 report on sharks and ray trade in Singapore by Traffic, a leading NGO working globally on trade in wild animals and plants in the context of both biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, found that the shark commodity categories that are reported to the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) do not completely match with the Singapore Trade Classification, Customs and Excise Duties (STCCED) codes for shark products.
In the spirit of our progressive stance on wildlife protection, will the Ministry align with relevant Ministries to ensure collection and reporting of accurate sharks and ray trade information by Singapore as a key importer/exporter be made transparent and traceable, and will the Ministry recommend a review of the existing HS codes to MEWR?
Mr Speaker, my second point relates to greater clarity on the extent of citizen empowerment which I believe is also the intent of the Bill and is captured in the re-enacted section 10 which empowers the Director-General to direct a person known as \"the authorised officer\" to implement wildlife-related measures to manage or mitigate the impact of the person's developments or works in relation to wildlife.
For avoidance of doubt, can the Member confirm that the \"authorised officer\" referred to in section 10A could also include any ordinary citizen so authorised and given power to remove and dismantle traps that they find in keeping with the spirit of citizen empowerment?
In addition, it is not clear if offenders will be subsequently prosecuted if they are confronted at the scene by the authorised officer. Can the Member and Minister please clarify?
Last but not least, Mr Speaker, my third point relates to the alignment of this Bill with the Parks and Trees Act. Section 10(1) of the Bill states that the Director-General may direct a person to take wildlife-related measures to safeguard the health and safety of any wildlife, public health or safety in relation to wildlife or the health of the eco-system. Given the proposed provisions, in the event that a nature reserve is de-gazetted in order for the land to be used for development, can the Minister clarify if section 10(1) will come into effect to halt the development?
In a 2019 study on the protection of nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act, the question on the depth to which nature reserves are protected was raised. Given that the building of the Cross Island Line runs 70 m deep under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR), would section 10(1) be able to safeguard the CCNR and other nature reserves should the interpretation of the Parks and Trees Act come into contention?
Mr Speaker, I think there has never been a better opportunity than with this Bill to remind this House of the alarming report released by the UN just last year of the rapidly declining wildlife and plant populations around the world. The report said, I quote, \"Humans are transforming Earth's natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction.\"
This Bill is a great green leap forward in the right direction for wildlife protection and legislation in Singapore. Wildlife belongs to no one; any exploitation and abuse by anyone should not be tolerated.
For the last few weeks, a mummy yellow vented bulbul built her nest on my tall cordy plant in the little garden outside my HDB flat and laid two eggs which I hope have birthed into two healthy little hatchlings. I have left them alone and have, in fact, tiptoed around them so they feel safe! This might be a glimpse of living in our City in Nature that Minister Desmond Lee envisioned.
Mr Speaker, we have a diverse trove of wildlife species that are so precious to our biodiversity, one that we must safeguard with as much zeal and commitment as our human diversity. Because the wildlife and its habitat cannot speak, so we must. I look forward to the clarifications from the Member and the Minister.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ms Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Louis Ng and the Wild Animals Legislation Review Committee (WALRC) for their work in reviewing and proposing enhancements to our wildlife legislation. NParks served as a resource panel to the WALRC, and we are glad for the opportunity to also engage with the community.
Despite our small size, Singapore is home to a wide range of flora and fauna. Our efforts to nurture a City in a Garden have allowed biodiversity to thrive. Many Singaporeans delight in seeing once-rare wildlife, such as otters, in Singapore's rivers and canals.
As Minister Desmond Lee shared during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this month, we will enhance and extend our natural capital across the island to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. Besides intensifying nature and greenery in our parks and gardens, this will also include efforts to conserve important plant and wildlife species in Singapore.
We will implement these plans together with Singaporeans. I am heartened to see that Singaporeans of all ages and walks of life are becoming more passionate about nature conservation. Many have stepped forward to volunteer with NParks.
Mr Louis Ng's Private Members' Bill to amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act complements MND's plans for the next bound of greening Singapore and conserving our biodiversity. I hope that those who responded to the WALRC's public consultation exercise will also similarly lend their support to our City in Nature initiatives.
MND notes that many members of the public expressed broad support for the WALRC's proposals, but there were also differing views. For example, how best to rationalise the need for strong legislation, while avoiding being excessively harsh to people who may be unaware or well-meaning? This means that we must take a balanced approach and build awareness among Singaporeans on how to co-exist harmoniously with animals, including wildlife. I am happy that Mr Ng has taken this on board in developing his Bill.
Let me now address some of the points that Members have raised on the operationalisation of the Wildlife Act and other animal-related policies.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how NParks will enforce the prohibition against intentional feeding of wildlife and curb the over-breeding of wild birds in residential areas. NParks will monitor feeding hotspots and take strong action against recalcitrant feeders who remain unresponsive to engagement, advisories as well as warnings. I believe this also addresses Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question on the enforcement of section 5A of the Wildlife Act. To further clarify, NParks can already enforce against the feeding of wildlife in parks and nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act. The Wildlife Act extends these powers beyond these areas. This allows NParks to address the disamenities and ecological impact brought about from wildlife feeding in a more comprehensive manner across Singapore.
As for wild birds that cause disamenities, we agree with Mr Gan's observation that reducing anthropogenic food supply, whether from intentional feeding, littering or food waste, will help prevent these birds from being attracted to residential areas and moderate their population.
In this regard, NParks has already been working closely with other Government agencies and Town Councils on measures to reduce feeding of birds. We will continue to take a balanced approach, involving a range of measures spanning from education and outreach to enforcement action, to address these issues comprehensively. NParks conducts public outreach events and puts up advisories and notices, in order to raise public awareness of the issue. NEA works with food centres and coffee shops in HDB estates to enforce against littering and to ensure proper management of food waste.
On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the possible overlap between the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules and the Wildlife Act. MND will be repealing the feeding and release rules of the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules. The feeding of wildlife, including wild birds, will be regulated under the Wildlife Act.
In addition, Mr Murali asked about the sentencing options for feeding and releasing wildlife. As he noted, this comes under the Criminal Procedure Code, and we will need to study this together with MinLaw. Nonetheless, NParks is already aware that some feeders may have underlying conditions or face certain circumstances. I would like to assure the Member that, today, NParks adopts a community-based approach to directly engage pigeon feeders to encourage them to cease feeding. This is done in collaboration with partners, such as Town Councils, grassroots leaders and social service organisations. We agree that beyond the legislative lever, there are various solutions to managing disamenities due to feeding, such as identifying and addressing underlying conditions. We will continue to take a reasonable, multi-pronged approach to manage such issues.
Mr Murali also asked whether the Director-General (Wildlife Management) could issue a general written approval to people who feed and release wildlife as an act of kindness. Instead of issuing a blanket approval, let me again assure the Member that NParks will take a reasonable approach to assess each situation. I will also encourage members of the public to call NParks' wildlife hotline when they come across wildlife in distress. While we appreciate the kindness behind trying to help wildlife, sometimes, feeding or releasing them may cause even more harm to the animal.
Let me address Assoc Prof Theseira's question on the lessons learnt from existing efforts to prevent wildlife release in the nature reserves and how these can be applied to regulating wildlife release in other areas.
From NParks' experience, strong engagement of stakeholders is an important means of effecting behavioural change. For instance, it has been working with PUB on the annual Operation No Release to discourage people from releasing animals into ecologically sensitive areas like nature parks, nature reserves and reservoirs. Moving forward, NParks also plans to work with religious communities to explore alternatives to mercy release, such as tree planting and volunteering at animal shelters. So, NParks intends to continue with this approach of engagement and education as a key complement to legislation.
Assoc Prof Theseira also asked when the Director-General may grant written approval to feed wildlife. As mentioned, each situation will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For instance, based on his assessment, the Director-General may grant approval to feed wildlife in situations, such as research and professional wildlife rehabilitation.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing spoke about the pet bird trade and how NParks ensures traceability of these birds. I agree with Mr Yee that stopping the illegal import and smuggling of pet birds is important. That is why NParks has a suite of measures to detect and enforce against the illegal import and smuggling of birds today. For example, NParks works closely with Singapore Customs, ICA and international partners to prevent instances of illegal bird imports at our borders. And NParks’ measures do not stop at ensuring that pet birds are not smuggled into Singapore illegally. Pet bird shops are licensed by NParks, and are required to comply with licensing requirements. As part of these licensing conditions, pet shops are required to ensure that each bird in the shop is accounted for. The source, date of arrival and date of purchase of each bird must be available. Furthermore, the pet shop must also have CITES permits for any CITES-listed species which is regulated by the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. Finally, NParks also conducts checks on the shops to check for compliance.
Mr Yee also spoke about curbing the import and sale of juvenile fish. As Mr Yee has noted, this is not something that Singapore can address on our own. While Singaporeans can be persuaded not to buy juvenile fish through public education, it is really up to individual countries to manage their own fish stocks sustainably. In addition, we should also be conscious about the trade-offs in imposing additional regulations on our food supply. This is something that MEWR and the Singapore Food Agency would be better placed to address.
Ms Anthea Ong asked about how the Wildlife Act relates to the trade of wild marine animals. To clarify, commercial aquariums, including the SEA Aquarium, are currently regulated under the Animals and Birds Act and Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. NParks will continue to use these Acts to regulate trade in a manner that ensures animal health and as required by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES for short. The Wildlife Act will complement the existing regime, especially with regard to non-CITES wildlife. The Director-General will consider factors like public safety and potential impact to our domestic eco-systems when making decisions on restricted activities pertaining to trade.
Ms Ong asked for a review of shark and ray trade information that is collected by agencies. As mentioned, our approach is to regulate wildlife trade in line with CITES requirements. Singapore is a signatory to CITES, which is the main international agreement that aims to ensure that trade in wildlife does not threaten their survival. Thus, when species are listed for protection under CITES, we create product codes accordingly. Species-specific product codes are used for tracking the import and export of those species to ensure that there is sustainable trade. Product codes for all the 41 species of CITES-listed sharks and rays that are permitted for commercial trade have been created. As for the FAO’s shark commodity reporting categories, we understand that CITES already takes them into account and into consideration in formulating its lists. As such, we will continue to review the collection and reporting of wildlife trade information in line with CITES requirements. To Miss Cheng Li Hui’s query, I hope that this also clarifies that we are already abiding by CITES requirements in the regulation of wildlife trade – both imports and exports, and not just of live animals but also of parts and derivatives of animals.
Assoc Prof Theseira and Ms Ong asked a number of questions about the proposal to empower NParks’ Director-General (Wildlife Management) to issue wildlife-related directions to developers. MND and NParks were involved extensively in the development of this proposal.
Assoc Prof Theseira asked if the amended Act grants private parties the right to sue the Director-General to issue directions on development works, perhaps with the aim of derailing large-scale Government development works. Let me clarify a few matters.
First, the Act does not bind the Government. The amendments introduced by the Bill do not change this existing position under the Act.
Second, the Director-General may issue directions to both private entities and public agencies.
The Wildlife Act does not mandate that the Director-General must take action under section 10(1). The power may be exercised by the Director-General “from time to time” and “as the occasion requires”, as is stated in the explanatory statement of the Bill. Thus, the Act does not confer private parties the right to sue the Director-General to issue directions to any party.
To address Assoc Prof Theseira’s concerns, allow me to further put this provision in context. Today, we already have a robust planning evaluation process in place for new developments. Regulatory agencies assess issues, such as public needs, economic and social considerations, and the impact on the environment, traffic, maritime navigation and so on. We consider a wide range of factors, including the impact on the environment, in weighing the costs and benefits of any development project.
Development projects near sensitive nature areas are subject to additional scrutiny through an in-depth consultation process with relevant technical agencies, including NParks. Through this, we may require developers to undertake thorough environmental studies and implement monitoring and mitigation plans.
All environmental impact assessments include an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), which comprises recommendations for specific measures that developers should undertake to manage potential impacts. Developers are required to implement the EMMP, the specifics of which, including the costs and benefits of the measures, are discussed between the developers and the technical agencies. This Bill closes a gap in the enforceability of some of these mitigation measures. Currently, NParks is unable to enforce against developers that fail to comply with certain wildlife-related mitigation measures. Under the amended Act, NParks would be able to issue these requirements as formal directions and there would be penalties for non-compliance.
Assoc Prof Theseira asked about the element of proportionality. We will take a sensible approach to imposing conditions under the EIA process. The Director-General will not unilaterally jeopardise development projects by imposing costly pigeon protection measures, for instance. Some more realistic examples of common wildlife-related conditions include requiring developers to install hoarding or limit works to daytime hours in certain areas to minimise impact to nocturnal wildlife.
We recognise that developers may have reasonable excuses to not comply with the Director-General’s directions, and have provided for this in the Bill. For example, certain measures may turn out to not be technically feasible due to unforeseen changes in the ground situation. NParks will work with developers to ensure that the wildlife-related measures under the EMMPs remain relevant and implementable.
Assoc Prof Theseira asked how the Director-General will exercise this power and if the relevant stakeholders will be engaged to ensure that the directions balance environmental concerns and developmental measures. NParks has staff that are trained to assess developers' EMMPs and advise developers further on how to implement them. This will ensure that the measures implemented on the ground are sensible and effective for the particular site context. In the process, relevant stakeholders, such as nature groups, are consulted.
Ms Ong also asked whether section 10(1) of the Wildlife Act could halt a development. The Bill does not deal with the stopping of developments. Instead, it allows the Director-General to direct a developer to implement wildlife-related measures that the Director-General considers to be necessary to protect wildlife, public safety and so on. Non-compliance with such wildlife-related measures is an offence and section 10 provides for penalties, such as a fine or imprisonment. The proposed penalties serve as a strong deterrent against non-compliance. Furthermore, this new power under the Wildlife Act does not stand alone; it is part of a broader framework that ensures that the environmental impact of developmental works is minimised.
As to Ms Ong’s question on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, it is protected under the Parks and Trees Act (PTA) and its accompanying regulations. The PTA applies to underground activities, regardless of depth, which adversely affect the biodiversity and enjoyment of the Nature Reserve. However, if the underground activities are carried out at a depth that does not affect the biodiversity and enjoyment of the Nature Reserve, the PTA does not prevent such activities from being carried out.
As the administrator of both the PTA and the Wildlife Act, NParks will take a holistic approach in applying the Acts to developments that may impact wildlife, both within and outside the nature reserves.
Members asked about how NParks would operationalise the enforcement of the Wildlife Act’s provisions. Ms Ong asked whether offenders under the Wildlife Act would be prosecuted if they are confronted at the scene of the offence. As with all cases of suspected offences, NParks will first carry out investigations to ascertain the facts of the case. Based on these facts, the appropriate enforcement actions, which could include prosecution, will be considered.
Assoc Prof Theseira asked about the composition of offences. Compoundable offences will be prescribed by MND in the subsidiary legislation to the Wildlife Act, and MND intends to allow for the composition of offences related to feeding and release.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked for clarification on the term \"authorised officers\". This term has the same meaning throughout the Act, whether referring to officers authorised to compound offences, or to those who interact with, investigate and arrest accused persons. That said, operationally, the Director-General will authorise different groups of officers for different functions.
Let me conclude by thanking Mr Louis Ng and the WALRC once again. This Act is an important step towards improving wildlife protection, in partnership with key stakeholders and the community.
Legislation is but one lever to do so. We should continue to ramp up public education and outreach efforts so that there is a sustained change in mindset which will allow us to live harmoniously with wildlife in our City in Nature. I look forward to Mr Ng and the WALRC’s continued commitment to work with the wider nature community to spearhead such efforts. Mr Speaker, my Ministry and I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and given their support for this Bill.
Sir, allow me to start by briefly outlining five of the WALR's recommendations that are not contained in this Bill before us today. I will then address the points made by Members in this House and members of the public. I will also share the concerns raised by people who do not support this Bill.
First, the WALRC recommended repealing the Wild Animals (Licensing) Order. This is an outdated piece of legislation that permitted individuals to keep certain wildlife as pets, so long as they obtained a licence. These animals include kangaroos, bears and pandas. But these animals clearly should not be privately owned. As the Licensing Order is a subsidiary legislation, no Act-level amendment is required, but I am glad to share that MND has agreed to repeal it. Commercial animal establishments, such as zoos, will continue to be regulated under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA).
Second, the WALRC proposed ensuring that only trained and qualified individuals can kill and trap wildlife. There was strong public support for this in our consultations. Wildlife management can be risky, such as when workers need to handle snakes in a crowded area. We felt that these workers should be trained to protect wildlife, the public and themselves. The WALRC also consulted the Singapore Pest Management Association and its members, who were supportive of this opportunity to upskill their workers and improve the professionalism of the industry. However, the proposal to regulate wildlife management companies would not require Act-level amendments, as it can already be done under the existing ABA. Specifically, section 43 of the ABA already empowers the Director-General, Animal Health and Welfare, to specify training and qualification requirements for those engaging in prescribed animal-related businesses. I understand that NParks intends to implement this proposal in time and that it will take a phased approach to ensure that the industry has time to adjust, by first focusing on training and capacity building before imposing any formal regulatory requirements.
Third, the WALRC proposed having codes of conduct for general activities in nature areas, such as wildlife photography, hiking and camping. There was also strong public support for this but many felt that, for now, these need not be made into laws to be enforced by the authorities. In this regard, the WALRC will work with the community to improve public education on wildlife-related measures.
Fourth, the WALRC had initially proposed to remove the Schedule of Specified Wild Animals and Birds, which currently exempts six bird species from protection against killing, trapping and keeping. These are the house crow, feral pigeon, common myna, white-vented myna, purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling. There were public concerns about this and we decided that we will review this again at a later stage. For now, the Schedule will be moved into subsidiary legislation and MND will review the list of birds within it. After discussions with MND and NParks, I understand that the purple-backed starling and the Philippine glossy starling will be removed from the Schedule, as these species are no longer common.
Finally, the WALRC considered empowering citizen volunteers to enforce certain offences under the Act, such as the feeding and release of wildlife. However, this was the least supported proposal in our public consultations. Members of the public were concerned about the potential abuses of power, as well as the risks faced by volunteers themselves if they were to attempt to confront offenders. Hence, the WALRC will instead rely on a softer approach. We will galvanise volunteers to educate the public on responsible wildlife practices and discourage the feeding and release of wildlife. If volunteers come across offences being committed, they can inform NParks.
Sir, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has talked about the downstream implementation of the Bill. I will now address the other points raised by Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Miss Cheng Li Hui and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the Act would prevent the extermination of pests. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the intent is not to criminalise the killing and trapping of pests and non-threatened invertebrates, as such activities do not undermine the overall aim of wildlife protection.
On the other hand, Miss Cheng Li Hui suggested to remove the burden of proof of intent when it comes to killing, trapping, taking or keeping of wildlife. She raised the example of someone who intended to trap a rat but inadvertently caught a Southeast Asian shrew. I believe the Member thinks that rather than having to consider the intent of a person, we should just prohibit all killing, keeping or taking of wildlife without a permit and leave it only to the professionals.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
I share her concerns. But the implementation of the law has to be practical, balancing wildlife protection with other needs. It would not be reasonable for people to have to call in professionals to handle minor pest issues in their own homes. Further, as shared earlier, there will be safeguards to protect threatened species and our eco-systems.
I agree with Miss Cheng that we should work towards having clear boundaries on what should and should not be done. The strong public response on this issue has shown me that legislative changes must be complemented with efforts to educate and engage the public.
The law must also be applied sensibly, with the overall objective of creating a set of norms and behaviours around how we interact with wildlife, to more sustainably protect wildlife and ourselves.
This brings me to Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether there should be blanket approval for those who seek to help wildlife out of kindness. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that NParks will consider the intent and impact of someone's actions, including whether they were trying to prevent further harm, before deciding to prosecute.
But let me start with some \"norm-changing\" now. If you see an injured wild animal, especially something like an eagle, please call NParks or ACRES instead of attempting to rescue the eagle yourself. While we know that many have the best of intentions, untrained human intervention could cause significantly more harm than good. I understand that NParks is actively building up the capacity and capabilities of the wildlife management industry, so rest assured that there will be trained people ready to provide these necessary services.
Ms Anthea Ong asked if the definition of \"wildlife\" extends to all wild marine animals. The answer is yes. She also asked if the Act covers the trade of marine wildlife. The answer is also yes.
But as Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has explained, NParks also has other existing Acts regulating different aspects of wildlife trade. For the amended Wildlife Act, it will be used for regulating wildlife that may cause harm to the public and our local eco-systems. For instance, NParks may not want to allow the import of a poisonous jellyfish, without imposing strict conditions to ensure it is not inadvertently released into the wild.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether there was an overlap between the prohibition against feeding in the Wildlife Act and the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules. Mr Murali is right that the intent is to consolidate the legislation against feeding of wildlife, including wild birds, under the Wildlife Act with higher penalties. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has shared that MND intends to repeal the relevant rules in the Animals and Birds (Pigeons) Rules in due course. This will provide more clarity to the public and help us when we engage our residents to tackle the problem of feeding in our neighbourhoods.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked how the Bill will address wildlife release in religious practices. I will take it that he is referring to the practice of mercy release in particular. The WALRC is aware of this practice and that is why we consulted extensively with religious groups. Mercy release has fallen out of favour with many of them. Captive-bred wildlife, such as those bred for consumption, die quickly in the wild, and those that survive negatively affect our environment and eco-system. As I have shared in my opening speech, to complement the legislative amendments, the WALRC will continue to work with the community on education and outreach efforts surrounding wildlife release.
Assoc Prof Theseira also asked whether the proposed penalties for the feeding and release of wildlife are appropriate. We took reference from similar offences in other legislation to decide what the appropriate penalty levels would be. For example, under the existing Parks and Trees Regulations, feeding and release of wildlife in parks are already punishable with a fine of up to $5,000. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, repeat littering offenders can be fined up to $10,000. These maximum penalties for Court convictions are different from the smaller composition fines that agencies have the discretion to decide on.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has elaborated on NParks' proposed enforcement approach for feeding and release. If the matter goes to the Courts, the Court will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances in deciding the appropriate penalty.
Assoc Prof Theseira also asked under what circumstances would the Director-General (DG) need to grant written approval for feeding wildlife.
Sir, in the proposed amendments, we did not ban the feeding of wildlife completely. When we rescue injured wild animals, there may be a need to feed them to lure them into traps. Similarly, during the rehabilitation and release of these rescued wild animals, there might be a need to feed them temporarily after they are released back into the wild. These will be carried out by trained professionals and, under the proposed amendments, would require approvals from the Director-General.
Sir, Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the need to clamp down on the feeding of birds and described how he has too many wild birds in his constituency. Both issues are interlinked. He is right that once we stop the feeding of wild birds, there will likely be a reduction in the number of birds. The root of the problem here is the availability of food.
NParks has said, \"We have instead focused on methods like managing food waste better and habitat modification, such as the planting of trees that mynahs are less attracted to. When food sources are reduced, birds spend more time looking for food and less time mating. It affects their entire cycle.\" NParks further added that, \"Short-term culling actually reduces competition, so the remaining birds have less competition to eat and mate. We often see an increase in the number of birds after periods of culling.\" The new section 5A will make it illegal to feed all wild birds and also introduces a higher penalty for repeat offenders. This will serve as a stronger deterrent.
Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted that there may be a \"loophole\" in that someone could claim to be feeding a domestic animal to avoid being prosecuted under section 5A. I understand this, but I think we must recognise that most feeders, again, are not malicious. They want to do good. For many cases, instead of finding ways to punish them under the law, we should be creating more awareness about why they should not be feeding wildlife in the first place. Both measures have to work hand-in-hand and, together with the other measures NParks is taking, I am confident that we will address the root of the problem and resolve this longstanding issue.
Sir, Mr Yee Chia Hsing raised concerns about the illegal smuggling of pet birds. Again, I am extremely happy that the person sitting on the seat I used to sit on is now asking and now repeatedly asking animal-related questions. I do agree with Mr Yee that we need higher penalties to serve as a stronger deterrent. As such, the Bill proposes to increase the penalties significantly for offences related to the killing, trapping, taking, keeping, offering for sale, sale, export and import of wildlife without approval.
As I have shared earlier, we are also strengthening NParks' enforcement powers and proposing a new power for the Court to be able to forfeit conveyances used in the commission of a convicted offence. Taken together, these proposed amendments will strengthen our fight against the illegal wildlife trade in Singapore.
Ms Anthea Ong asked if ordinary citizens could be authorised and given the power to remove and dismantle traps under the new section 10A. The answer this time is no. Under the existing section 4(2), the Director-General, subject to the directions of the Board, may only appoint the following persons as \"authorised officers\": (a) an NParks officer, (b) an employee of another statutory authority, (c) a public officer, or (d) an auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. As I have mentioned earlier, the WALRC had considered empowering citizens with certain enforcement powers under the Act. However, we had to balance this against the potential risks, such as to their safety, as enforcement is a challenging business.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised some concerns about the new section 11B on seizure and section 12C on forfeiture, particularly as they relate to conveyances. This new provision on seizure is similar to other seizure provisions in existing legislation, such as section 51 of the Animals and Birds Act and section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions are not overly prescriptive and only set out the general parameters within which seizure should be effected.
With regard to forfeiture, while the Courts ultimately make the decision to forfeit a vehicle, NParks must first decide to seize the vehicle. If the vehicle is not seized, the forfeiture provision does not apply. Even if NParks seizes a vehicle to facilitate investigations, I understand that it can still consider whether or not to recommend its forfeiture to the Court.
I trust that NParks will be reasonable in its enforcement and will consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. For example, in the case of someone who drives somewhere to feed or release wildlife, the use of the vehicle may be ancillary and not entirely necessary for the commission of an offence. Feeding and release are generally less severe offences in the Wildlife Act. So, seizing a vehicle may not be warranted except in exceptional circumstances.
Compare this to smuggling, which Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised, where the goods or animals have to be hidden within the conveyances and transported, and where offenders may be dealing with high-value wildlife. In such cases, the conveyance may need to be seized for a thorough investigation and recommending forfeiture as a punishment would be more proportionate to the crime.
In the case of a private boat operator transporting wildlife for release into the sea, a possible pertinent factor to consider when considering whether forfeiture is warranted would be whether the operator was knowingly abetting illegal activities. That said, I reiterate that this would depend on the details of the case.
To clarify, there are also more safeguards other than those under section 12C(2). Section 12C(1)(a) also indicates that the Court may not forfeit conveyances if the person is not convicted of the offence, for example, if NParks chose to compound the offence.
Conveyances also cannot be forfeited if they were not proved to have been used in the commission of an offence. Section 12C(4) also adds that conveyances may not be forfeited if the conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of another person without the consent of the owner.
Ultimately, the Court's exercise of discretion will still act as a safeguard. Thus, I do not feel that additional statutory limits are required at this point.
Sir, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the possibility of community-based sentencing for recalcitrant feeders, especially those who may have underlying psychiatric issues. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has spoken about sentencing policies and NParks' engagement approach.
I would like to make an additional appeal to fellow Members to activate the community, such as neighbours and grassroots leaders, when you engage such residents, instead of only leaving it to enforcement agencies. These residents may have complex needs, like social isolation or unaddressed mental health issues. We should be all hands on deck to help them.
Sir, I am glad that Members in this House and members of the public have been very supportive of the Bill. Of course, there are people who are not supportive and their voices should be heard as well. I respect their differing viewpoints and I thank them for taking their time to share their concerns with everyone.
Sir, I thus turn to address other points that have been raised by members of the public both in support of and against the Act.
To start, the proposed controls on feeding attracted the most attention. Let me address one of the biggest misconceptions with regard to the scope of the Act.
Even just a few days ago, people were asking on my Facebook post whether the proposed amendments applied to cats and dogs and asked if it would become illegal to feed community cats and dogs if this Bill is passed.
The current Wild Animals and Birds Act and the proposed amendments do not penalise the feeding of stray cats or dogs. Domestic species of cats and dogs are not covered under this Act. However, it is important to feed responsibly, as leftover food could attract pests and other wildlife.
Others felt that feeding wildlife will cultivate a love for nature and we should not ban it. For example, one Forum letter read that \"People, especially children, develop an interest in the environment through opportunities to interact with animals and birds. One of the best ways of doing this is by feeding them. Singaporeans should not be forced to appreciate animals only at a distance.\"
I have provided several reasons for prohibiting the feeding of wildlife in my opening speech. I agree that we should find ways to help the public appreciate wildlife. But the research is very clear: the feeding of wildlife causes an unnatural rise in wildlife population. This is why, for example, we see so many more birds in areas where there is rampant feeding.
Indeed, the letter writer acknowledges this trend. It shared that, \"Cute squirrels are more common now because more and more people provide them with food\". The result of such feeding is increased human-wildlife conflict. I cannot put it better than this reply in another Forum letter, \"The feeding of nuisance species such as monkeys\" – which the original letter writer agreed with – \"should be banned, ironically became a nuisance only because people started feeding them.\" Further, wildlife feeding creates broader problems with the eco-system. The letter continued, \"I have seen many uninitiated 'nature lovers' feeding birds and fish with cooked rice, white bread or even leftover food. These may not only make the wildlife ill but also wreak havoc on the eco-system.\"
This Bill, and its proposed ban on wildlife feeding, will reduce human-wildlife conflict, address public safety concerns and safeguard the welfare of wildlife and our eco-system.
Others have also suggested that wildlife feeding could be banned in or near HDB flats, but not in private residential properties. To quote, \"Why should people living in landed properties face restrictions if they want to attract other desirable wildlife species to their homes?\" But the impact of wildlife feeding is not so isolated. When residents in private properties feed animals, it affects not only themselves but also their neighbours, the animals and the broader eco-system.
For this reason, it is not practical or reasonable to exclude residents of private properties from the ban on wildlife feeding. There is a solution for those in private residential estates who want to see more wildlife. As another letter writer wrote, \"We can 'feed' butterflies and birds by planting flowering trees.\" I agree with that. She further states: \"In all my decades of observing nature in my backyard or a nearby park, I have never had to provide a single morsel of food to 'attract' wildlife. A plethora of garden birds from tiny sunbirds to larger orioles can always be seen throughout the year feeding on naturally-occurring food like nectar, seeds and insects.\"
Someone also emailed me to ask why there is a disparity between the penalties in the Bill and the penalties currently imposed for the feeding of wildlife in our parks and nature reserves. He felt that there was no difference whether the person is feeding inside or outside our parks and nature reserves, as both are equally damaging to our natural biodiversity and eco-system. With regard to the feeding of wildlife, the higher penalties in the Parks and Trees Act apply to nature reserves and national parks, as those contain our most sensitive eco-systems.
For parks and gardens, the lower penalties in the Parks and Trees Regulations apply. The Bill proposes to align the penalty framework in the new Wildlife Act with that in the Parks and Trees Regulations and other animal-related Acts, in order to rationalise the penalties across the various pieces of legislation.
Next, I am aware that some feel that since I am mooting this Bill, NGOs will get \"special treatment\" to do things like provide wildlife removal services. Let me clarify that there will be no special treatment for NGOs. Like anyone else, NGOs will have to get approval from the DG to release or trap wildlife. These provisions are important as they will allow the DG to approve those involved in wildlife rescue efforts, for example, to trap, rescue and subsequently release wildlife in proper places. These groups could include NGOs such as ACRES, wildlife management companies and also pest control companies.
Finally, some have cautioned that measures in this Bill could alienate citizens from nature by discouraging feeding and release, amongst other matters. I can understand these concerns, but any appreciation for nature and wildlife amongst our people must be built on a foundation of safety and respect. That comes with keeping a distance and maintaining certain basic boundaries.
As NParks has shared in a Forum letter, there is a huge amount of effort to encourage this responsible interaction. They said, \"NParks also organises activities and programmes that allow the public to interact responsibly with nature and help foster a love for our environment. Some examples include guided walks, bird-watching and citizen science programmes. To grow our city in a garden, we will continue to encourage more Singaporeans to be stewards and custodians of our natural heritage, and to coexist harmoniously with wildlife.
We advise the public not to approach, disturb, feed or try to catch wildlife. It is best to leave them to forage in their natural eco-systems.\"
Sir, allow me to conclude. The last chapter of this story in amending the Wild Animals and Birds Act is about one important individual – One Giant.
On 22 October last year, I was about to board my flight back to Singapore when I received the devastating news that Subaraj had passed away that morning. I have known Subaraj for many years. He is a friend, a fatherly figure whom I looked up to and a fellow activist. My daughter loves him as well. I just told him recently that my little ones were looking forward to seeing him at Christmas. With his long white beard and big belly, Ella thinks he is a Santa Claus.
He might not be the real Santa Claus but as the media puts it, \"he looks a little like Santa Claus, one bearing gifts of knowledge of the wild\". In the words of Minister Desmond Lee, \"Subaraj was a true giant and pioneer in our local conservation scene. He was larger than life with his long beard and hair and his trademark bandana. Although he towered over many in his achievements, his demeanour was gentle and his smile always welcoming and reassuring. Before googling became an easy source of finding information, Subaraj was the Guru who could identify birds by their calls and knew where they could be found.
If you happened to bump into Subaraj in the forest, where he was often found, he would point out a bird that was hidden from view from everyone else, except him. That was his magic, his intimate understanding and his beautiful connection with nature. With his passing, we will greatly miss that magic.\"
Subaraj contributed immensely to nature conservation in Singapore. He was undoubtedly one of the most vocal activists, fighting passionately to protect our forests and wildlife.
Sir, when I landed back in Singapore, I went straight to Subaraj's wake to pay my last respects. I met Subaraj's wife, Shamla, who is sitting in the gallery today.
The first thing she told me at the wake was about how Subaraj and she were recently talking about the proposed amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act. In fact, the last time I met Subaraj was at the final face-to-face public consultation for the Wild Animals and Birds Act. She told me how excited Subaraj was about the amendments. I have no doubt that Subaraj would have been here today to see all of us debating about something so close to his heart, something he has been fighting for and something he devoted his life towards.
Sir, for the past two years, Subaraj has been helping me with drafting the proposed amendments to this law. At the wake, Shamla told me that whatever Subaraj was helping me with, she will now take over to ensure that his work continues, to ensure that his magic continues. This is how amazing and selfless Subaraj and his family are. Even as they grief the loss of a loved one, they never stop thinking about helping others, about their efforts and mission to save the remaining forest and wildlife.
Subaraj had actually suffered a heart attack about a year ago but that never stopped him. He continued being on the ground in our nature reserves, he continued passionately fighting and championing our cause and he continued to speak up.
Sir, Subaraj once said that, \"When I see youngsters talking about nature, studying it and fighting for it, it gives me great pride that we were able to hang on to the nature spots we have. It's their time now, time to pass the baton.\"
I thank Members for your support for this Bill and on behalf of Subaraj, I thank everyone for speaking up and for fighting for our wildlife and for our nature spots. Rest in Peace, Subaraj. Thank you for all that you have done for Singapore and rest assured that your work and magic will continue. This Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill is dedicated to you.
Sir, this 14-year journey is finally at its last few chapters. It has been a beautiful journey made possible by passionate, selfless individuals who make this world a better place for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(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 Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (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":"Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (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.\"
The Bill amends the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act to: (a) enable Singapore to give effect to the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention; and, (b) provide a statutory basis for an approved financial security provider who has paid a seafarer for certain liabilities owed by a shipowner to the seafarer, to acquire the seafarer's rights against the shipowner in respect of the liabilities.
Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill.
First, clauses 3 to 5 amend the Act to enhance employment protection for seafarers in captivity. Should a seafarer be held captive on or off a ship as a result of an act of piracy and armed robbery against the ship, the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the period of captivity. This is regardless of whether the date fixed for the expiry of the seafarer's employment agreement has passed or either party to the seafarer's employment agreement has given notice to suspend or terminate it.
Further, a captive seafarer's wages and entitlements must continue to be paid during the period of captivity, until the day the seafarer is released and duly repatriated, or until the seafarer's death while in captivity. The seafarer's employer is also obligated to repatriate the seafarer upon release from captivity.
Besides enhancing employment protection for seafarers in captivity, we are making another amendment to facilitate the acquisition of a seafarer's rights by an approved financial security provider which provides insurance or other financial security required under the Act to shipowners. Clause 6 facilitates the transfer to and vesting in the financial security provider of a seafarer's rights against a shipowner as a result of any liability arising from the shipowner's obligation to repatriate the seafarer. For example, the liability to pay the seafarer's wages and entitlements. It amends the Act to provide a statutory basis for the financial security provider to acquire such rights if the provider has paid the seafarer under a contract of insurance or other financial security for such liability.
To conclude, the provisions in this Bill will help protect seafarers' welfare and enhance Singapore's international reputation as a responsible maritime nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to enhance protection for seafarers who have been held captive on or off a ship as result of an act of piracy or armed robbery against the ship. My comments today on the Bill are from an employment perspective.
While the amendments to the Employment Act last year are no doubt commendable, the EA does not cover seafarers. Seafarers' employment rights and obligations are governed by the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Act which is to be amended this time round. I have spoken to my sisters and brothers at the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union and the Singapore Organisation of Seamen and am pleased to share that they stand in full support of this deck of amendments.
Broadly speaking, the amendments to the Bill provide that where seafarers are held captive due to acts of piracy or armed robbery against the ship, the following will apply, during the period of captivity: first, the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the period of captivity; second, the seafarer's wages and other entitlements under their employment contracts or collective agreements must continue to be paid; and third, the seafarer will be entitled to repatriation upon his or her release.
The amendments to the Bill are timely in view of the recent sea robbery incidents. In December 2019, The Straits Times reported that pirates launched two attacks on separate vessels in the Singapore Strait within two hours of each other.
In the first incident, three perpetrators had entered the engine room and one of them was armed with a knife. Two of the crew members were subsequently discovered to be tied up. In the second incident, six intruders had attacked the ship and tied another two crew members up in the engine room.
CNA also reported that sea robbery incidents in the Singapore Strait had hit a four-year high in 2019, with a grand total of 31 such incidents, which is in stark contrast to the 17 reported incidents from 2016 to 2018.
Collectively, these incidents show how seafarers are increasingly vulnerable to acts of piracy or armed robbery on board the ship as well as the risks they undertake to perform their jobs as well. Accordingly, it is necessary that the laws be enhanced to offer protection to seafarers in terms of continuity of employment, payment of wages, benefits and repatriation entitlements during such periods of captivity. That is the least we can do to alleviate the financial and emotional burdens of seafarers held captive at sea through no fault of theirs.
While I am fully supportive of the amendments to the Bill, I have the following questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, is there a reason for the sudden spike in sea robbery incidents in 2019 as compared to the previous years? I understand it is attributable in part to lack of enforcement measures. What would be the other reasons and would the Senior Minister of State be able to provide more details on that?
Second, does the Senior Minister of State foresee that the rising number of sea robbery incidents is a cause for concern, especially in view of Singapore's prominence as a global maritime hub? If so, would the Senior Minister of State be able to share some of the enforcement measures that are to be implemented to combat such crimes such that seafarers and vessels sailing through Singapore waters are assured of their safety. It is crucial that the measures implemented are effective as there would be knock-on effects on Singapore's position as a financial hub as well as the livelihood of seafarers.
Third, what is presently being done and what more can be done to help families and relatives of seafarers who have been held captive at sea? I am sure they experience a deep sense of helplessness and despair in such situations.
Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. In 2016, we amended our laws in accordance with the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC, to improve protections for crew abandoned by their shipowners by mandating shipowners' procuring of financial security. This ensures that seafarers are fairly compensated in the event of death or long-term disability due to occupational injury, illness or hazard.
In view of last year's spate of sea robberies in our waters, which has reached a four-year high, it is commendable that we are seeking amendments to this Act to duly compensate seafarers in the event of an abduction in an armed robbery or piracy incident. I am supportive of this move to bolster the labour protection for seafarers, a vulnerable group of workers who are exceptionally excluded from the Employment Act.
To the proposed amendments, I would like to raise five clarifications.
My first clarification is on the reporting of abductions. Given that captive seafarers must continue to be paid wages and other entitlements during their captivity, errant shipowners may make false claims of the whereabouts of the abducted seafarer in the event of an armed robbery or piracy incident.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what measures will the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore or MPA put in place to ensure all cases of crew abductions are truthfully and accurately reported? What punitive measures does the MPA intend to take against errant shipowners?
My second clarification is on the period of salary payment. The new section 20(7A) provides that the seafarer's wages and other entitlements must continue to be paid during the seafarer's period of captivity until the seafarer's release and repatriation, or the date of the seafarer's death. Further, the effect of the new section 12A is that the seafarer's employment agreement continues to have effect during the captivity period regardless of the date of expiry of the agreement or any termination notice.
It is possible that a seafarer's life, safety and whereabouts will be unknown while in captivity. It appears from the Bill that in the instance that a seafarer is held captive for an extended period and it cannot be confirmed if he or she is dead, the shipowners will be required to continue paying wages and other entitlements indefinitely.
While I am supportive of the protective rationale of these amendments, shipowners have a strong incentive to avoid making these payments for an abducted seafarer.
How will the MPA ensure that shipowners will continue to make these payments? In the event that shipowners are unable to make payment, what funds are available to cover the shortfall in wages and entitlements to be paid to the abducted seafarer?
My third point is on terrorism-linked kidnappings. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill seek to protect the seafarer in the event of an abduction related to an armed robbery or piracy incident.
We have seen kidnap-for-ransom incidents perpetrated by terrorist organisations in the region. Notably, the Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf terrorist group has carried out a number of kidnappings of seafarers in regional waters. Most recently, in June 2019, 10 gunmen from Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 10 fishermen off the coast of Sabah, Malaysia.
Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if these amendments will cover abductions linked to terrorism? In other words, will the abducted seafarer be remitted his due wages and entitlements in the case of terrorism?
The fourth issue I would like to raise is a proposal on post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers. A study titled \"The Long-term Impact of Maritime Piracy on Seafarers' Behavioral Health and Work Decisions\" found that one in four former hostages showed symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Given that victims of other types of trauma, such as assault and sexual harassment, can tap on numerous avenues for counselling and support, the same should be made available for abducted seafarers, even if such victims are rarer.
Will the Senior Minister of State consider introducing post-release support programmes for abducted seafarers?
My fifth and final point is on protections for Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that various parts of the Act will cover Singapore ships wherever they may be and non-Singapore flagged ships in Singapore. The Act does not seem to apply to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if the protections accorded by these amendments will be extended to Singaporean seafarers on non-Singapore flagged ships if they are abducted in a piracy incident outside of Singapore's territorial waters? If not, what protections and recourse are available to them?
Sir, with more than 1,000 ships passing through the Singapore Strait every day and more than 4,400 Singapore-flagged ships on our registry, this amendment will ensure that abducted seafarers and their families will be adequately compensated. This Bill will align Singapore with the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention or MLC. As such, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay for their comments and support of the Bill. Let me address the points they have raised.
To address Mr Louis Ng's query on MPA's measures against errant shipowners who wilfully misreport abductions, there are existing measures to address this. Currently, all Singapore-registered shipowners are required to put in place procedures for reporting shipboard security incidents, including incidents of abduction, under Chapter XI-2 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Regulations.
To ensure timely reporting of abductions, MPA has issued shipping circulars to the shipping community to remind shipowners and ship-masters to send reports of any attacks or attempted attacks on board their ships immediately to the Rescue Coordination Centre for the area and to MPA. A shipowner who knowingly or recklessly makes a false report of a shipboard security incident commits an offence under section 194 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Such an offence is punishable with a fine not exceeding $10,000, or an imprisonment term not exceeding two years, or both.
Mr Ng also asked if shipowners will be required to continue paying for wages and other entitlements indefinitely for cases where the seafarer's whereabouts are unknown and the seafarer's death cannot be confirmed, and whether there would be a sunset clause built into the subsidiary legislation.
The intent of the amendment is that the shipowner must continue to pay the wages of the captive seafarer until the seafarer is released from captivity and repatriated or until the death of the seafarer while in captivity. In circumstances where it is believed that the seafarer has died, a presumption of death certificate may be applied for through the court.
Mr Ng also asked if the amendments will cover abductions related to terrorism, for example, kidnapping for ransom by a terrorist group. The Bill seeks to enable Singapore to implement the 2018 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention, which require shipowners to continue to pay seafarers their due wages and entitlements in the event of an abduction in an \"armed robbery\" or \"piracy\" incident. Under international law, whether a specific terrorist act can fall within the definitions of \"armed robbery\" or \"piracy\" depends on the facts of the case.
Shipowners may further take on additional insurance cover for terrorism, in which case, seafarers will be compensated their wages and entitlements in instances of abductions related to terrorism. Seafarers also have a right to terminate their contracts upon giving notice, which they could choose to exercise if the ships they are on will traverse or journey through high-risk areas.
On Mr Ng's fourth point about post-release support programmes, we will bring that back and study the proposal.
On his last query on whether Singaporeans on non-Singapore-flagged ships will be protected under this amendment, I am happy to update Mr Ng that actually, most other shipping companies also need to abide by the MLC, whether they operate Singapore-flagged ships or not. As many countries are MLC countries, Singaporeans who are working on non-Singapore-flagged ships should be covered under the 2018 amendments.
Next, to address Mr Patrick Tay's query on reasons for the spike in piracy and armed robbery (PAR) incidents in the region in 2019 as compared to previous years, there could be several reasons for these incidents. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia or ReCAAP, cited crew members' lack of vigilance and highlighted the need for strong collaboration among the littoral states in information sharing and enforcement. The Minister for Defence mentioned in Parliament on 3 February this year that perpetrators are based and operate outside of Singapore territorial waters. Therefore, the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) is working closely with our neighbours to share information and collect intelligence to better tackle these threats, and to step up enforcement in the region. MPA is also encouraging the shipping community to be vigilant when travelling along the Singapore Strait.
Mr Tay also asked what are the enforcement measures that are to be implemented. Should any suspicious vessel enter Singapore territorial waters, our maritime agencies will respond strongly to safeguard Singapore's security and take the necessary action against the perpetrators.
For incidents outside our waters, we have to work with our neighbours to counter this transnational threat. As I have mentioned in my COS speech, the Malacca Straits Patrol (MSP), involving our military and the militaries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, conduct air and sea patrols in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. This also involves regular information exchange and updating suspicious indicators to assist investigation efforts of sea robbery incidents. MINDEF has reached out to its counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia to propose that the MSP initiative be extended to other areas in our surrounding waters. Discussions are on-going. RSN's Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) will also be enhancing its capabilities to deal with maritime threats, including piracy and armed robbery.
In addition, Singapore is part of a region-wide initiative called ReCAAP, which facilitates timely and accurate information sharing so that the respective littoral states and the shipping community can take prompt remedial actions.
Mr Tay also asked what is presently being done and what more can be done to help families and relatives of seafarers who have been held captive at sea. The 2018 amendments will require shipowners of Singapore-registered ships to continue to honour the employment agreements of seafarers who have been taken captive by pirates or armed robbers regardless of whether the date fixed for the expiry of the seafarer's employment agreement has passed. Shipowners will be obliged to continue paying captive seafarers their wages and entitlements until the seafarers are released from captivity and repatriated, or until the seafarer's death, should the seafarer die while in captivity. This would allow the seafarer's next-of-kin to seek compensation from shipowners for wages during the period of captivity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will improve seafarers' welfare and strengthen our standing as a responsible maritime nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, 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. – [Dr Lam Pin Min]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Working Together Towards a Zero-suicide Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to read the struggles of Lucy, not her real name, and her suicidal thoughts to this House. I quote verbatim: \"I have been a witness to a suicide, I have lost a friend to suicide and I struggle with suicidal ideation on a near daily basis. It cost me my university education, landed me in tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and left me with little means to earn enough to pay back my study loan and survive on my own. I will likely never be able to earn more than $1,000 per month and will likely take my life than die of other causes in the near future.\"
Other than Lucy, there were 46 more people who came forward to share with me about their experiences with suicide, among the 400 respondents to the public consultation on mental health conducted by my team and I. Like Lucy's and the many near and far ones who have reached out to me, each and every one of their stories was heartbreaking to know and read, as they agonised over their struggles to live.
Suicide is a global public health concern. Close to 800,000 people lose their life to suicide every year, nearly one-third of which occur among young people.
Here in Singapore, teenage suicides peaked in 2018 – the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991. Sadly, so did the number of elderly aged 60 and above who took their own lives. From 2017 to 2019, there were 1,204 attempted suicides yearly. Last year, the Immigration and Customs Authority reported that there were 8.36 suicides per 100,000 Singapore residents in 2018, up from 7.74 in 2017. Suicide has entrenched itself as the leading cause of death for those aged 10 to 29.
Sir, these worrying numbers could be higher, given issues of under-reporting. According to the Attorney-General's Chambers, a classification of \"suicide\" only occurs when there is clear evidence of suicidal intent and self-harm. From my interactions with suicide-bereaved parents, the cause of death is sometimes categorised as \"fall from a high place\" or \"unnatural death\" and also labelled as such on the requests of family. In addition, we must also not forget that for every suicide and attempted suicide we know, there are many more people struggling with self harm and suicide ideation that we have little data on. In fact, estimates from WHO show that for every suicide, there may have been more than 20 suicide attempts that go undetected.
So, whilst some may argue that our numbers are not high by international standards, we are still not doing enough because the number of deaths by suicides in Singapore has remained relatively unchanged from 9.5 suicides per 100,000 residents in the 1980s to 8.3 suicides per 100,000 residents today.
How have we managed to develop from a third-world to first-world country and yet not be able to successfully tackle this issue of suicide? How is it that we still have the current number of suicide deaths we have today? One large reason might be the disappointing fact that Singapore was not listed as one of the few \"high income\" countries with a national suicide prevention strategy even though we are a member state of WHO – because we do not have one! National suicide prevention strategies are essential for working towards the ultimate goal of suicide reduction. According to WHO, such a strategy is important as it indicates a government's clear commitment to prioritising and tackling suicide, while making resources available for necessary interventions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's assurance at Budget 2020 that a whole-of-Government review of our mental health strategy will be undertaken to identify gaps and strengthen existing inter-agency efforts brought much hope to many who are struggling. Building on this, I hope to use the rest of this speech to ask the Government to go further in developing a national response that aims for zero suicides under this review as part of a multi-ministry and multi-sectoral effort.
But first, let me take this opportunity to address the discourses about suicide. It is a common fear that talking about suicide could encourage suicide behaviour, hence many friends and families who are concerned about their loved ones in distress often struggle with asking about suicide ideation or intent.
Similarly, Minister Ong Ye Kung shared his concerns in this House that talking about suicide numbers in schools \"may heighten suicide risk in vulnerable youths\". While I appreciate the intention of these concerns, I would like to point out that youths today already consume a large volume of media online related to mental health and suicide. Youths have shared with me that schools often try to keep quiet about students who died due to suicide, but this backfires as students are often already in the know about their peers' mental health and suicidal intention. The expert consensus is that, to have a chance at preventing suicide, we must talk about suicide responsibly.
Earlier this month, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong indicated that allowing for treatment for self-inflicted injuries in MediSave or MediShield Life could encourage suicidal behaviours, although exceptions could be made for those with existing mental health conditions. In this House, a few colleagues expressed their concerns last year that decriminalisation of suicide could send the wrong signal in incentivising suicide. These views perpetuate the stigma by shrouding suicide in exclusion. Experts indicate that incentives for help-seeking are helpful in combating stigma, allowing those who are struggling to feel more comfortable in seeking support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, apart from poor mental health that Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong gave concession to, we must also recognise that there are social and environmental factors embedded within our society and structures that also contribute to an individual's intention to self harm or suicide or to take their own life. Intense feelings of hopelessness can also arise from sudden and adverse life events including unemployment, trauma and the loss of loved ones. Not every suicide is a result of mental illness, nor is someone with mental illness always suicidal.
Lastly, we must take the lead in recognising that suicide is far from a selfish choice and cannot be blamed on the individual. My cousin, who has attempted suicide several times, often shares that he feels that he's a burden to his family, including me, even as he acknowledged that he knows how much we love him.
Studies have shown that people who attempt to take or took their own lives commonly feel that their lives hamper others, viewing their decisions as relieving their loved ones. The following excerpt of a suicide letter from an elderly victim broke my heart, I quote: \"Father is reluctant to leave all of you. I have failed so badly that I have no choice.\" This is the reality of suicides, and those who succumb can hardly be labelled as selfish.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as recommended by the WHO, it is fundamental for the Government to lead and coordinate efforts in suicide prevention, starting from the establishment of a national strategy, to show this Government's priority in tackling suicides. This should first start from identifying currently available resources and committing further resources and funding to improve suicide prevention and efforts to support individuals struggling with suicide. One example would be to expand funding for organisations like SOS, the Samaritans of Singapore, not just to operate our de-facto national suicide helpline, but to ensure timely follow-ups with callers who need further support. We should also consider increasing resources and funding for mental healthcare services to address wait time and patient load issues.
I am deeply alarmed that our public hospitals do not track whether an admission is due to attempted suicide. Yet, studies show that 83% of people who die by suicide visit some kind of doctor a year before their death. Hence, healthcare facilities, especially emergency facilities and departments, are a logical place to prevent suicides. By getting our hospitals to track suicide attempts, our national strategy is better placed to coordinate the continuity of care for these suicide attempters. In the mould of the Zero Suicide Initiative, we must ensure that on the individual level, that we acknowledge each person's pain, empower them to make safe decisions and on the systems level, build hope for recovery with a continuity of care approach across agencies.
We should also note that since the decriminalisation of suicides, data of suicide attempts is no longer required by the Criminal Code. Without data surveillance of attempted suicides, our ability in developing informed strategies is limited.
Through a national strategy of data surveillance coordinated across Government agencies and community partners, the transparency and awareness of the support available can be improved, allowing various stakeholders better position their role and plan their work in tackling suicides. A robust framework of monitoring and evaluation is also required, thereby instilling a sense of accountability among those in charge of interventions.
We have a crisis on our hands with the spike in teenage suicides. I would like to lend a voice to the suicide-bereaved mothers of the PleaseStay. Movement. They believe there needs to be clear and strong suicide prevention and post-suicide intervention protocols in schools. Despite their inconsolable grief, they came forward to share what they believe could be done to prevent more teen suicides so that other parents do not have to go through the same pain. Families and friends, especially other students in the school, will inevitably suffer from grief and trauma to varying degrees and urgently need this post-suicide intervention support.
Many education systems such as the state government of Victoria in Australia establish step-by-step guidelines on what to do in the event of a suicide attempt and/or in an occurrence of suicide, making them publicly available as part of a whole-of-society effort. Notwithstanding the peer support networks that Minister Indranee cited in response to my question in Committee of Supply (COS) on MOE's suicide prevention strategy, I am sure we all agree that laying out clearly MOE's suicide protocols to parents and students can only help confront increasing suicides amongst teens.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as much as the Government must take the lead in suicide prevention, the complex and multi-faceted nature of suicide means that all of us are a part of this national response towards zero suicides.
Studies show that 50% to 60% of all persons who died by suicide gave some warning of their intentions to a friend or family member. One mother from the PleaseStay. Movement shared she was not aware that her 11-year-old son was suicidal until it was too late. Young people have often asked me what the warning signs are and how they can help their friends.
We need more public education programmes in schools, workplaces and communities on suicide prevention 101, including learning these warning signs: from unusual and sustained changes in actions, to actions like withdrawal, loss of interest, words like verbal statements such as \"Everybody will better off without me\", \"What is the point of living?\", and feelings – guilt, hopelessness; also, biological and physical aspects like poor sleep and loss of appetite.
Key gatekeepers like police, teachers, grassroots leaders and more must also be trained in suicide first-responder training so that they can intervene appropriately for suicide attempts. Community support groups like the SOS as the first community responder, or the PleaseStay. Movement and new groups like Caring for Life are key stakeholders in this whole-of-society effort to reduce and prevent suicides.
However, without a national strategy for these efforts to align to, we risk having a fragmented and sub-optimal approach to supporting survivors and bereaved parents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by imploring the Government to take action now to arrest the rising suicide numbers by initiating a National Suicide Prevention Strategy with a vision towards a Zero-Suicide Singapore, together with community partners and citizens. We must stand firm in the belief that suicides are preventable and commit to the efforts in making that possible.
Why zero suicides? Because unlike any other targets – like 2020 for gender equality, 30 by 30 for food security – that we have made in this House when it comes to loss of lives; human lives, nothing short of zero has ever been good enough for us. A Zero-Suicide Singapore as a goal joins the Vision Zero aspiration of our workplace safety and health policies and the Zero Accident movement in our public transportation policies too.
And we would not be alone. The United States aspires towards a nation free of the tragedy of suicide in its national prevention strategy. Japan envisions a society where no one is driven to take their own life. South Korea wants to create safe and healthy communities free from suicide. And last but not least, Sweden’s Vision Zero Policy which was ratified by its parliament in 2008 aims to build a nation where no one should be in a situation of such vulnerability that suicide is seen as the only way out.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as they say, if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. And we most certainly must not fail our people like Lucy. We must work together towards a zero-suicide society that cares because every life matters. To Lucy and those of you who are struggling with suicidal thoughts out there, please know this: \"You are not a burden nor are you alone. Yes, the world will be a better place in it. Please stay.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Deputy Speaker, MOH is committed to mental well-being and suicide prevention and to this end, Singapore adopts a multi-pronged approach.
Internationally, based on WHO's 2016 age-standardised death rates, Singapore’s age-standardised death rates from suicide – 7.9 per 100,000 resident population – is lower compared to not just countries like South Korea at 20.2 and Japan 14.3, but also countries like Finland and US – 13.8, and 13.7 respectively. It is also lower than the annual global age-standardised suicide rate of 10.5 per 100,000 population. In Singapore, the number of suicides involving 10- to 19-year-olds fluctuated from 13 cases in 2014, 27 in 2015, 22 in 2016, falling to 12 in 2017 and rising again to 22 in 2018. The number of elderly suicides has declined from 126 cases in 2014 to 115 cases in 2018 despite an ageing population.
Nonetheless, we recognise that every suicide is one death too many and we have and will continue to strengthen our strategies to prevent suicides, as guided by the National Mental Health Blueprint and Community Mental Health Masterplan.
Through partnering Ministries and agencies, we have adopted a multi-prong approach to suicide prevention based on the following key strategies of building mental resilience; encouraging help seeking and early identification; supporting at-risk groups; and providing crisis support.
We have also invested in resources for mental health as well as put in place monitoring and tracking mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of our programmes.
As noted by Ms Ong, there are social and environmental factors that contribute to the individual's intent to self-harm. Therefore, our strategy targets upstream protective factors in addition to strengthening downstream supportive services. Suicide prevention and intervention strategies have been developed in schools, workplaces and in the community. Let me briefly highlight our many efforts under the four key strategies.
As part of suicide prevention strategy, MOE has focused on upstream efforts to build students’ social and emotional skills and resilience through the school curriculum, CCAs and various programmes. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) also offers mental well-being programmes to equip students with the skills to cope with stress, overwhelming emotions, interpersonal conflicts, change and transitions.
At the workplace, HPB conducts mental well-being roadshows and workshops to provide stress management tips and techniques to employees. MOM’s Workplace Safety and Health Institute, in partnership with other agencies have developed an assessment tool, iWorkHealth, as well as a website to help workers identify workplace stressors and resources to improve one’s mental well-being.
Under the National Seniors’ Health Programme, HPB organises healthy ageing workshops that include psycho-social education modules aimed at empowering our seniors aged 50 years and above with the knowledge and skills to manage their mental well-being.
Early identification and encouraging help seeking are vital for suicide prevention. Hence, we have invested in raising mental health literacy through training and education programmes. Beyond SOPs, school teachers are trained to identify students experiencing distress, provide timely support and refer students in distress to school counsellors or mental health professionals for further interventions. Peer support structures are also being established in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) by HPB as well as MOE.
The Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT) offers easy access to mental health resources and help via different avenues for young persons between 16 and 30 years old. Young persons may either visit the CHAT hub, log onto CHAT’s online portal for its WebCHAT service or call CHAT’s hotline.
Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) conducts programmes on how to identify suicide warning signs and where to seek help.
The Agency of Integrated Care (AIC) has been working with community-based organisations to set up Community Outreach Teams to reach out to seniors with or who may be at risk of dementia or depression.
Anti-stigma efforts play an important role in encouraging persons in distress to seek help early. Hence, in 2018, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) rolled out a multi-year public education campaign, called \"Beyond the Label\" to achieve this objective. NCSS also recently launched the Beyond the Label Helpbot, Belle to make access to mental health information and resources to the community easier for the general public.
We recognise that persons who are greatly distressed and attempt to take their own life requires help and the criminal justice system may not be the best option. As of 1 January 2020, attempted suicide is no longer a crime in Singapore. However, the Government will continue to track reports of such cases. Additionally, public hospitals are working on tracking attempted suicide cases that they attend to.
There are a range of services in place to support at-risk groups of all ages in our community. For instance, we have trained Silver Generation Ambassadors to identify seniors who live alone, and to proactively offer them befriending services, identify and escalate cases with mental health needs.
We also have services in place to support persons in distress who require assistance such as Institute of Mental Health (IMH)’s 24-hour mental health helpline and the SOS' hotline which is funded by NCSS.
I agree with Ms Anthea Ong that every life matters, and we will continue to strengthen our efforts. During this year’s COS, MOE shared that they will feature mental health education in the revised Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and MOH will also be setting up an Integrated Youth Service (IYS) in Woodlands this year.
MOM has also announced their intention to work with tripartite partners to develop a Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being. In addition, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has recently clarified that companies should not ask for declaration of applicants’ mental health conditions unless there is a job-related requirement.
We have established platforms for a coordinated interagency approach to suicide prevention. For example, the Inter-Agency Research Workgroup for Youth Suicides, brings together agencies to study the issues surrounding youth suicides and to facilitate deeper collaboration between the various agencies. The workgroup will be sharing their recommendations, for agencies to follow up later this year.
Since February this year, more than 800 people from different walks of life responded to Minister Desmond Lee’s open call and will have an opportunity to be part of the Youth Mental Well-being network to be established. This Network brings people together to identify opportunities and gaps to work on, to improve youth mental well-being.
There is no easy solution to suicide prevention as the causes are complex and multifaceted. Even as we undertake a whole-of-Government review to enhance our efforts, a whole-of-society approach is necessary to build mental resilience in order to prevent suicide in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even as we celebrate life, we all know too well that it can sometimes be stressful and challenging. COVID-19 for instance poses yet another huge test for all of us, not least in mental resilience. Beyond the Government’s resources and support as well as the many community programmes and efforts, I urge my fellow Singaporeans to stand together, look out for each other, develop strong empathy and reach out your hand to others to uplift them.
Only together, can we ensure each other's mental well-being, especially in such unprecedented times.
On this note, let me conclude by thanking the Member for her selfless efforts to promote mental well-being and prevent suicides. Let me assure her and all Members of this House that the Government, too, will not let up our efforts on this front. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.13 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Cases of Emergencies Attributed to Food Allergies Onboard Commercial Flights from Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past three years, how many cases of emergencies attributed to food allergies have occurred onboard commercial flights from Singapore; (b) whether local commercial flights are subjected to regulations concerning medical equipment onboard; and (c) whether epinephrine auto-injectors can be mandated for inclusion in emergency medical kits on board flights.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the last three years, Singapore carriers have reported a total of 20 incidents of food allergies on board their flights. None required the use of epinephrine or emergency flight diversions.
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) regulations require Singapore carriers to carry first aid and emergency medical kits on their aircraft. Epinephrine auto-injectors are included in the emergency medical kit and cabin crew are trained in the use of the auto-injectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Emphasis on Local Arts Scene in Singapore International Festival of Arts 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether there is enough emphasis on the local arts scene in the Singapore International Festival of Arts 2020 (SIFA); and (b) what percentage of the programmes and productions presented are from overseas.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Arts Council (NAC) believes Singapore International Festival of Arts (SIFA) as our pinnacle arts festival, should be a platform for Singaporean arts groups to create exciting new works. It seeks to profile and open up opportunities for local arts practitioners as a highlight in our cultural calendar. In the past two years, half of all productions and programmes at SIFA involve local artists. This will continue to be the case for future SIFA editions.
NAC has decided to cancel SIFA 2020 in view of the current challenges posed by COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend Observed in Audienceship for Annual Singapore International Festival of Arts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the trend observed in the audienceship for the annual Singapore International Festival of Arts; and (b) how can the audienceship be improved.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore International Festival of Arts (SIFA) shifted to a more compact model in 2018 under Festival Director Gaurav Kripalani. All events happen over three consecutive weekends to generate more buzz, instead of four months in the past. The average attendance for the past two editions has been about 50,000 attendees each year. SIFA's strength in curating and showcasing high-quality artistic works has culminated in a 17% increase in returning visitors to SIFA in 2019 as compared to the previous year based on audiences surveyed.
As articulated by the National Arts Council in Our SG Arts Plan (2018 to 2022), growing audiences is a key priority area for the development of Singapore's arts landscape. For SIFA, close to half (47%) of the audiences surveyed last year were first time patrons, of which 70% were Singapore residents – this is heartening and we would like to see more Singaporeans attend SIFA or an arts event. SIFA will continue to present interesting programmes and experiences that can reach people from all backgrounds to attend this national event. SIFA will also keep tickets affordable to break down barriers of entry. For example, it offered a $10 Front Row Student Special to attract the younger audiences.
SIFA seeks to look at audience development holistically and explore different ways to reach audiences, such as bringing the arts out into our public spaces. It held performances in unconventional spaces such as the Armenian Church and the National Library at Bras Basah to attract new audiences.
Participative arts has also been another way to engage more audiences, such as SIFA 2019's De Relaxeratte (which invited audiences to journey on a merry-go-round of hammocks as they listen to stories with headphones) and We can Dance had audiences learning dance steps, and their experiences were then filmed and projected for a larger community to enjoy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Breakdown of Households under Public Rental Scheme, Interim Rental Housing Scheme and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many households currently live in HDB's rental flats under the (i) Public Rental Scheme (ii) Interim Rental Housing Scheme and (iii) Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme respectively; (b) how many of these rental flats house more than one nuclear household, broken down by housing scheme; (c) how many applicants under the Joint Single Scheme are unable to secure a rental flat due to difficulty in finding a suitable person to rent with; and (d) how many rental flats house (i) 3 persons (ii) 4 persons (iii) 5 persons (iv) 6 persons and (v) more than 6 persons, broken down by (i) 1-room (ii) 2-room (iii) 3-room and (iv) 4-room flats respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 52,000 households currently live in rental flats under the various HDB rental schemes, of which about 50,000 households are under the Public Rental Scheme.
Around 70 rental flats are occupied by more than one nuclear household. This means that they are able to form more than one family nucleus comprising one Singapore Citizen (SC) and another SC or Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR). Those under the Public Rental Scheme may rent separate flats, subject to each household meeting the prevailing eligibility conditions for the Public Rental Scheme.
85% of households with at least three persons are living in 2-room or larger rental flats under the various HDB rental schemes. For the households residing in 1-room rental flats, some may not have been able to retain their larger flats due to arrears.
HDB does not track the number of applicants under the Joint Single Scheme who are unable to secure a rental flat due to difficulty in finding a suitable co-applicant. Singles looking to apply for a rental flat under the Joint Singles Scheme are encouraged to find someone they know to be their co-applicant, such as a relative or a friend. For those who need help to find a co-applicant, HDB will assist by offering them a listing of single persons who are also looking for a possible pairing. HDB also conducts facilitated sessions to help the singles on the list find a flatmate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown by Gender and Current Employment Status of Singaporeans Eligible for Budget 2020 Matched Retirement Savings Scheme and Average and Median Balances in CPF Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the estimated 435,000 Singaporeans eligible for the Budget 2020 Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (a) what is the breakdown by (i) gender and (ii) current employment status; and (b) what are the average and median balances in their CPF accounts, also broken down by gender and current employment status.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, or MRSS, helps Singaporeans aged 55 to 70 who have yet to meet the CPF Basic Retirement Sum to save more for retirement. This can include lower- to middle-income seniors, and in particular, caregivers and self-employed persons (SEPs) who typically have less in their CPF.
By fully utilising the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, members can increase their Retirement Account balances by more than $6,000 over five years, which can result in up to an $80 increase in their CPF LIFE payout per month.
About half of those eligible for MRSS are active CPF contributors, with slightly more women than men among them. On average, eligible and active CPF contributors who are women have $108,000 in their Ordinary, Special and Retirement Accounts combined, including amounts withdrawn under the Investment, Education and Housing schemes. At the median, it is $90,000. Among eligible active CPF contributors who are men, the average and median balances are $146,000 and $133,000 respectively.
About one-third of those eligible for MRSS are inactive CPF contributors (likely to be full-time care-givers), with 2.5 times as many women as men among them. On average, eligible but inactive CPF contributors who are women have $60,000 in their Ordinary, Special and Retirement Accounts combined, including amounts withdrawn under the Investment, Education and Housing schemes. At the median, it is $39,000. Among eligible inactive CPF contributors who are men, the average and median balances are $96,000 and $63,000 respectively.
About 20% of those eligible for MRSS are SEPs who have lower CPF contribution obligation. For comparison, 8% to 10% of our workforce are SEPs. In this group, there are twice as many men as women. On average, eligible SEP contributors who are women have $72,000 in their Ordinary, Special and Retirement Accounts combined, including amounts withdrawn under the Investment, Education and Housing schemes. At the median, it is $48,000. Among eligible SEP contributors who are men, the average and median balances are $113,000 and $88,000 respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown on Number of Persons Above Age 65 Receiving CPF Transfers from Their Child in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower in each year of the last three years (a) how many persons above the age of 65 received a CPF transfer from their child (i) in cash and (ii) through CPF; and (b) what is the average transfer quantum received among such persons, broken down by the children's and the parents' (i) age (ii) gender and (iii) income, and the modes of transfer by cash and CPF including the amounts.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The number of recipients above age 65 receiving Retirement Sum top-ups from their children increased to about 17,800 in 2019, with more than $169 million received. Tables 1 to 4 show that:
(a) The number of unique recipients increased slightly;
(b) Cash top-ups are more popular;
(c) Female recipients receive more than males; and
(d) Givers who earn less, top up more in cash than those who earn more.
To further encourage members to make top-ups for themselves and their loved ones, the Government will introduce the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) from 2021 to 2025. Under MRSS, the Government will match every dollar of cash top-ups, up to an annual cap of $600, made to eligible members under RSTU.