1 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the extended circuit breaker period, whether the National Arts Council (NAC) will consider extending support and assistance to the artiste and arts groups until the end of 2020.
2 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider downloading direct funding to arts companies to weather the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to grant applications for projects.
3 Mr Terence Ho Wee San asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry can provide a breakdown on how the Solidarity Budget of $55 million is to be used in the relief and recovery measures for artiste and arts groups.
The 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, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 at the same time?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Thank you. The arts and culture community, like many other sectors, has been significantly affected by COVID-19. The Government has introduced support measures under the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets to protect livelihoods, help businesses overcome immediate challenges and strengthen economic and social resilience during this period, including the extended circuit breaker. Artists and arts groups can tap on these broad-based measures such as the Enhanced Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) and COVID-19 Support Grant. They can also defer income tax payments and mortgage instalments, as well as seek rental relief for commercial or industrial property leases.
Besides the above generic schemes under the three Budgets, NAC has committed to sustained levels of funding to arts organisations under the Major Company and Seed Grant schemes. To plan ahead for the post-COVID-19 recovery, NAC’s regular project grants, including those for art creation and research, continue to be available. Our practitioners have also given us feedback that they want to undertake meaningful work, rather than receive direct hand-outs.
The $55 million Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) announced by Minister Grace Fu on 7 April 2020 will provide additional support to the arts and culture community. ACRP plays a complementary role by supporting our cultural practitioners to develop resilience and position our sector well for the future. The ACRP seeks to protect the arts and culture ecosystem and will provide support and opportunities for our cultural organisations and practitioners until the end of the year, while encouraging the development of longer term capabilities that will help the community emerge stronger after COVID-19. For example, the Capability Development Scheme for the Arts (CDSA) supports training programmes until 31 December 2020.
A key component of the ACRP is the Digitalisation Fund. It supports digital commissions and new works to be showcased at our major festivals such as Silver Arts, Singapore Writers Festival and Singapore Art Week. To date, eight commissions with key partners such as Lianhe Zaobao, Hear65 and VIDDSEE have been lined up in the coming months under the #SGCultureAnywhere campaign.
Projects have also benefited from the Digital Presentation Grant for the Arts, such as the Jazz Association Singapore’s well-received online concert in celebration of UNESCO International Jazz Day on 30 April 2020, which attracted almost 100,000 viewers locally and abroad. Since applications opened on 14 April 2020, 62 projects have been supported. Overall, the Digitalisation Fund aims to generate over 1,000 opportunities for cultural and related practitioners, including in the post-Circuit Breaker period. The allocation for each area of support under the ACRP will depend on the evolving national situation, as well as the needs and demands of the arts and culture community.
Another component of the ACRP is the CDSA, which enables our cultural practitioners to access a wide range of subsidised courses, including online programmes, as well as providing income to those who are trainers themselves. Since the CDSA opened on 16 March 2020, 163 training programmes have been supported. I am heartened that many of our experienced artists and cultural practitioners, such as Maestro Yeh Tsung, Chong Tze Chien and Checkpoint Theatre, have stepped forward to share their experience through virtual masterclasses and online training.
Mr Speaker, the arts and culture can uplift our spirits in these difficult times, provide comfort, and sustain our emotional and physical well-being. The warm response from viewers to online content of past shows by groups such as Pangdemonium and Nine Years Theatre, as well as programmes for children by The Storytelling Centre and Artground, is testament to the power and value of the arts. I urge larger and more established groups with deeper capabilities to help the smaller ones and individual practitioners, and ask that corporations, foundations and members of the public continue supporting the arts.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Could I also ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether NAC is also reaching out to the buskers? I believe the buskers have been quite heavily affected. They have been unable to perform for the past two months and likely, will be unable to perform for the next few months as well.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Indeed, the buskers form part of the arts community that NAC and MCCY have been reaching out to. We are aware that buskers are also affected because they are not able to perform in open spaces now. Recently, as part of our youth outreach initiative through *SCAPE, they have provided an online platform for buskers to perform and reach online viewers. We have gotten response that through the online platform, they have been able to perform to a wider community; and hopefully, this will also become their fans and supporters in the post-COVID-19 period. We continue to look out for the needs of the various members of the arts community, including the buskers, and see how we can help them better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age Limit to be Eligible for Government Co-funded Assisted Reproductive Technology Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) in respect of a woman who is older than 40 years old, why is she required to have attempted assisted reproduction or intra-uterine insemination (IUI) procedures before age 40 to be eligible for Government co-funded Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures; and (b) whether this requirement can be removed as women are marrying later.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): The Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) co-funding scheme was introduced to support couples who face difficulty in conceiving naturally. In January 2020, the scheme was enhanced to allow couples who have attempted assisted reproduction (AR) or Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI) procedures before 40 years old to tap on up to two of the six co-funded ART cycles for AR procedures at age 40 or later.
The age criterion of 40 years old is set based on current clinical evidence which shows that the chance of conception for a woman who undergoes ART treatment decreases with age, with significantly lower success rate after 40. The ART co-funding is therefore directed towards those who attempted their first assisted reproduction procedure before age 40. Couples are encouraged to start their families early. Those with difficulty conceiving should also consider fertility or ART treatment early.
We will continue to monitor the clinical evidence and update the eligibility criteria where appropriate.
\tMr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I have a few supplementary questions. First, for those who marry late, for example, if they marry at age 40, it is impossible to meet the requirement to carry out IUI before age 40. Will this be considered? The second question is, residents tell me that they are normally encouraged to do IUI first, and then IVF, as IUI is less invasive but the success rate is much lower. I would like to ask what is the success rate for IUI and IVF respectively. The third question is, can the Ministry encourage people to go straight for IVF for those age 35 and above, so as not to waste time and money? I was told the process to make appointment could take a few months to a year. There is one more question, can Ministry remove the requirement of having to go through at least two rounds of IUI before going for IVF? Give couples an option to go for IVF directly and this can save the women time and inconvenience.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her four supplementary questions. I will take the question about the requirement for couples to go through either IUI or AR before age 40, before they are eligible for co-funding for AR procedure in our public AR centres at age 40 or above. First, let me say that we recognise that more couples are getting married later and they do have parenthood aspirations. But unfortunately, even though there have been improvements in technology as well as better understanding of treatment needs, embryo culture and so on, the empirical evidence still shows that the success rate is very much linked to when the procedures are performed on the women.
The Member asked about success rates. For IVF, for instance, our latest data, 2018 data, show that the success rate of live births arising from IVF drops from around 23% for women age 30 to 34 years, to around 6% for women age 40 to 44 years; in fact, even further down to 0.6% for women age 45 and older. So, when we put the age criterion of 40 years, as I have said, we recognise that people are getting married later, and we do not want to put too low a cut-off age. The experts also feel that age 40 is reasonable, given the empirical evidence before them. Therefore, this age criterion, together with the requirement that couples need to have already tried AR or IUI before age 40 to qualify for this co-funding, really, the intent is to balance the need to support and encourage couples to receive AR procedures early for higher chance of success and at the same time, also, to support the needs of older couples who want to try for a child. It is a balanced approach, taking into account the scientific data and the social trends as well as the developments to date.
We will continue to monitor the clinical evidence and where appropriate, we will update the eligibility criteria.
With regard to the IUI co-funding, we only introduced this in January 2020. It was done to enhance our support for couples who have difficulties conceiving naturally. IUI, as the Member has rightly pointed out, is a less invasive procedure. So, depending on the assessment of the doctors, they will be advised whether they can go through IUI with co-funding up to three cycles before going to IVF, which is up to six cycles.
I do not have the success rates for IUI here, but I can give the information to the Member later.
There was also a question of couples marrying beyond age 40 and then, they are not eligible. They are not eligible for the Government co-funding scheme. But they still can use MediSave. So, for couples who want to go through ACP including ART and IVF, they can withdraw from MediSave up to a lifetime limit of $15,000. That does not have any age cap nor limit to the number of cycles. It is only for the Government co-funding that they will not be eligible for. The reason is because we need also to be mindful of the effectiveness of such financial support extended through Government co-funding. This has to be based objectively on the empirical evidence before us.
\tMr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir. I agree with the Senior Minister of State that we need to be very careful with the funding. But I have one question, my second question earlier, for those who are aged 35 and above, instead of asking them to go through IUI, can we let them have an option to go for IVF? Many of them say that the success rate for IUI is very low and it is a waste of their time as their biological clock is not with them. Maybe the Ministry can consider letting them choose, give them an option to go for IVF straightaway.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, my understanding is whether to go IUI before going to IVF really depends on the doctors' assessment. I will have to stand corrected, but I do not think there is a policy that couples definitely have to go through IUI before IVF. But as the Member has also pointed out and also according to my understanding, IUI is less invasive, so it may be something that doctors advise them to try before going through AR procedures. As I have also said, even for AR, for women younger than age 30, where the success rate is highest, it is actually about 24%.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I agree with the Senior Minister of State that our policies should be based on science. But science also tells us that stress faced is a key factor in determining whether an IVF is successful. I think a lot of the couples are very stressed because of the finances involved in an IVF cycle. If MOH can then provide the subsidies, reduce the stress, then, maybe we will have a higher percentage of success for IVF cycles for those age 40 and above.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions. The fact is that we introduced the Government co-funding scheme for ART procedures in 2008. This was in order to reduce the out-of-pocket payment for couples who want to go through ART procedures at our public AR centres, in addition to being able to use their MediSave for these procedures. We have, in fact, been enhancing this co-funding scheme since then – in 2013, 2018 and just in January this year – in order to support couples in their parenthood aspirations, including couples who may marry later and still wish to try for a child.
As I have said, such policies have to be objectively determined based on the empirical evidence. What we are doing now is to try and strike a balance between encouraging couples to marry and fulfil their parenthood aspirations early and if they have difficulty conceiving naturally, to receive IUI or ART treatment early, versus the need to also support couples who may marry later and wish to have a child.
We will continue to monitor the clinical evidence and where it is possible and appropriate, we will update the criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequate Number of HDB Flats under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme for Young Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will ensure an adequate number of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme for young families who are looking to start families soon and who are facing added economic uncertainties due to the COVID-19 situation.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) provides an additional option for temporary housing for married couples awaiting the completion of their new HDB flats.
Previously, PPHS flats were mainly in vacated blocks that were not immediately needed for redevelopment. In recent years, HDB has injected more permanent sources of flats for the scheme.
HDB has 680 PPHS flats presently, of which about 550 are occupied. HDB will be adding about 200 more flats by end-2021, bringing the total supply to about 880. HDB will continue to monitor the demand and review the supply of PPHS flats, with a view to ensuring a small and steady supply of PPHS flats in the longer term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Shorter Rental Leases for Private and HDB Properties to Accommodate Construction Delays due to COVID-19 Circuit Breaker Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether URA and HDB will permit rentals of residential premises that are shorter than three months for private property and six months for HDB flats, to provide accommodation for families displaced by construction work delays due to the COVID-19 circuit breaker measures.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, there is no change to the rules for the minimum rental period of six months for HDB flats and the minimum stay duration of three months for private residential properties. However, in view of the COVID-19 situation, HDB and URA have been exercising flexibility on a case-by-case basis for households who are in genuine difficulties and need temporary accommodation.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister for National Development.
The first question is, is the Government aware that there are residents who have contracted to sell their existing homes in the expectation of moving to their new homes by a certain timeline before the circuit breaker measures were announced? Some of these residents would, therefore, be impacted in the sense that if their new homes are not ready for them to move in by the designated time to leave their current homes, they would have to find alternative accommodation. That is the first question.
The second question is, I am glad the Minister has said that the authorities would be prepared to exercise flexibility in granting shorter term rentals. Would he be able to also assure Singaporeans that URA and HDB would aim to give timely replies to such applications, for example, say within a week, because time is of the essence in such cases?
Finally, Sir, on the issue of the cessation and soon-to-be phased resumption of construction works, I believe that BCA in May issued some guidelines about the phased resumption of construction including renovation works. According to the phases announced, works by individual households are placed in tier D, which I think is a tier that is termed \"can be delayed\". It is indicated that such works may only resume in August. Based on Minister's statements in press conferences, I would like him to confirm that even if the works are in a phase that BCA is not prioritising, if the contractors can show that they are able to comply with BCA's safety requirements, that BCA would consider such applications even if they are in the subsequent tiers for earlier resumption or commencement.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, let me address the questions raised by Ms Lim one by one. On the first point, we are certainly aware that there are homeowners who are impacted by the circuit breaker, having made certain transactions with the hope of moving to their new flats and now finding that renovation works have been suspended because of the circuit breaker. That is why we have a series of different measures to help these families and homeowners. One, at the start of the circuit breaker, for very minor renovation works, we gave some exemption for some of these works to be completed as much as possible, so that the homes can be made safe and people can move in quickly. It was in the first few days of the circuit breaker that we provided for such an exemption.
But still, there are quite a number who could not complete the renovation works during that few days and then, these had to be suspended. For these cases, we have worked on a different set of measures. For example, number one is working to see if the transaction timelines can be pushed back; number two, checking to see if the homeowners who are impacted can move with relatives and friends; number three, working with serviced apartment operators, some of whom have agreed to offer subsidised rates for impacted homeowners and these can be offered to the homeowners who need temporary accommodations; number four, we looked at the worst case and for those who are really urgent and have difficulties, we offered interim rental flats.
So, there is a range of different measures that we are doing to help these people who are impacted. We will certainly remind the agencies to be prompt and responsive to some of these appeals when they show up. We will continue to do whatever we can to assist them.
On the third question on when the renovation works can resume, we are doing it in two steps. For the works that had already started but suspended because of the circuit breaker, we are actually going to allow that in Phase One. So, even in Phase One, so long as the firms are able to put in place the relevant safeguards and assure that the workers are safe, then for these renovation works for projects that had started earlier but were suspended because of the circuit breaker, we will accord some priority and let them resume first.
For new projects, we will defer or suggest to the homeowners and contractors who are embarking on new renovation projects, that these be pushed back later. So, settle the existing, on-going ones first. But as Ms Lim said, we have indeed made the commitment that if there are any contractors who will come forward and say, \"I have the workers. They are safe. I have the measures in place and I would like to be prioritised ahead in Phase One\", we will be prepared to consider such cases as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oligopolistic Behaviour of Major Oil Companies and Realistic Petrol Pump Prices in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are indications that the major oil companies in Singapore behave like an oligopoly; (b) what is the realistic selling price of the popular Octane 95 petrol when the crude oil price is zero or less; and (c) whether the Ministry will mandate oil companies to publish their lowest petrol and diesel prices after their best discounts.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan Wu Meng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Member’s query speaks of important, deep questions, which can be described as follows: why did some crude oil prices go to zero or less, and what does it mean for retail petrol prices? When is an oligopoly market structure harmful to consumers? And how do we help consumers find the best fuel prices, regardless of crude oil price or market structure?
Sir, firstly, on crude oil prices. Brent Crude is the most commonly used benchmark in the world. Brent Crude fell from US$28 per barrel at the start of 20 April to a low of US$16 a barrel on 22 April, the lowest price in over two decades. The United States generally relies on a different benchmark, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Crude, which fell from US$18 to minus US$38 per barrel on 20 April.
Observers have cited the much reduced demand for oil because of the COVID-19 situation as a key factor in explaining the trends for both cases. At the same time, supply has far exceeded demand. So, inventory was filling up, and in a number of markets there was lack of storage space. Some analysts have noted that WTI Crude oil faced an acute shortage of storage space and thus traders were paying money in order to offload expiring contracts that carry a commitment to receive WTI Crude this month; hence, the negative trading prices for WTI Crude.
What does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? While a drop in oil prices generally results in a drop in retail petrol price, this may not always happen, because of many other factors which affect retail petrol price. I seek your indulgence as I explain why.
Sir, crude oil is made of many different types of hydrocarbon molecules. The refining process separates the hydrocarbons in crude oil into different products such as retail petrol, jet fuels, bunker fuels, asphalt and naphtha. The proportions are more or less fixed. So, if there is a change in demand for one of the refined products, it can affect the supply and demand situation for the others.
The COVID-19 situation is a real-world example. The demand for jet fuel has dramatically fallen because of travel restrictions around the world. Hence, refineries will need to store the excess jet fuel supply, reduce the price of jet fuel to move the supply, or reduce the production of jet fuel altogether.
Storing excess supply is only viable and sustainable if the refinery has enough storage space, with the assumption that this excess supply could eventually be sold. Reducing the price of jet fuel may not move the supply much, if jet planes are not flying – as we have seen with the fall in demand due to travel restrictions from COVID-19. And if the demand for jet fuel continues to be low, the refinery may decide to reduce the production of jet fuel by refining less crude oil. This will reduce the production of other refined products, including retail petrol. And this would exert upward pressure on their prices despite no change to the underlying demand. This effect could be more pronounced and persist in the medium to longer term if more refineries across the world shut down temporarily or for good, due to a mixture of the impact of COVID-19 and persistent low demand.
Another potential outcome of low demand and full inventory is that refineries will likely need more time to sell their products before they can bring in a new supply of crude. If the refineries are still processing crude oil purchased before the plunge in prices, there may be a longer lag time before lower crude oil input prices can pass through to end products.
Hence, it is not certain that every plunge in crude oil prices would necessarily lead to a decrease in refined petrol cost.
Furthermore, in addition to the refined petrol cost, the price that consumers pay for petrol also depends on the petrol companies' operating costs, land costs, duties and taxes, and discounts and rebates. The detailed study published by then-Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) in 2017 found that refined petrol costs accounted for less than one-third of the listed retail petrol price.
Sir, secondly, when does an oligopoly market structure become harmful for consumers? Oligopoly is a market structure where there are only a few providers in the market. Partly due to Singapore's relatively small market, an oligopolistic-type structure can be found in several sectors, including supermarkets and cinemas. Harm can arise if there is anti-competitive behaviour among the firms, for example, collusion to mark-up prices. The 2017 study found that the major petrol retailers do regularly monitor and respond to each other's prices and promotions, but also found that prices do not always move in tandem among the petrol retailers. Furthermore, there was no observable pricing pattern, such as a clear price leader, either for price increases or price decreases. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) is monitoring closely and will take enforcement action should evidence of anti-competitive activity surface.
Thirdly, how do we help consumers find the best fuel prices, regardless of crude oil price or market structure? I had previously mentioned that well-informed consumers are a key deterrent against unreasonable pricing decisions. I highlighted the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE)'s work on Fuel Kaki. The Fuel Kaki Price Estimator empowers individual consumers to compare not just the retail pump prices, but also the effective price of petrol across retailers, based on the various discounts and rebates specifically applicable to them. Fuel Kaki also allows individual consumers to explore what effective price would be paid, if they used different combinations of discounts and rebates across different retailers. This customised information is more meaningful to consumers than providing fuel prices based on the best discounts, which the retailers may not apply to every individual.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, if I may ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary a question. I think the consumers are frustrated, because everytime there is a drop in crude prices, there seems to be a lack in the fall in pump prices. Whereas, the minute there is increase in crude oil prices, pump prices rise quite quickly. While the CASE is happy to work with CCCS to provide fuel prices in Fuel Kaki, I am just wondering whether MTI would be able to ask the fuel companies, in the interest of price transparency, to consider asking the fuel companies to provide or publish a breakdown of their costs components. That means the base costs of crude oil, the taxes, the land costs, their labour costs and so on.
This will be similar to what One Motoring or LTA publishes insofar as the price of cars are concerned. One Motoring publishes the Open Market Value (OMV), the Additional Registration Fee (ARF), the taxes as well as the base costs of cars. For consumers, I think it will help if they are able to understand what are the crude oil prices, what is the fuel component of it, so that when a fuel companies increase their prices, then they would know how much more the fuel companies are charging for the the fuel component of the costs.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. If I can address his first point, which is whether petrol companies pass through more of the price change and at a faster rate when the crude oil prices go up, as compared to a decrease. And the answer is that, if you look at the empirical evidence, it does not suggest listed retail petrol prices adjust downwards more slowly or by a smaller amounts compared to upward price adjustments.
The 2017 report by then-CCS found that between January 2010 and December 2016, for every 10 cents change in Mean of Platts (MOPS) price, the listed retail petrol price changed by an average of seven cents.
This finding applied to both increases and decreases in price. On average, adjustments in listed retail petrol price, took place over eight days for MOPS' price increases and six days for MOPS' price decreases.
The Member also asked about the components of listed petrol prices. In 2015, MOPS made up less than one-third of total listed petrol price and the non fuel components such as operating costs, taxes, duties, land costs, discounts and rebates made up the remaining amount. Some of the information that the Member is interested in may well be commercially sensitive, but we are prepared to work with CASE, with our agencies and with the companies to see whether there are ways to put more of this information out there.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): First, I want to thank Speaker for the opportunity to ask the questions and I also thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. I would like to first declare my interest as CEO of the ComfortDelGro taxi business.
The fact that we have many questions over the last few months about fuel price, means that a lot of Members of the Parliament and also members of the public are not convinced that oil companies are behaving fairly. The fact that the five oil companies are making a lot of money, also adds to the suspicions.
I like what Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat said about the food delivery companies at the last sitting. Senior Minister of State Chee said that it may not be wise to cap the commission fees of the food delivery companies and the better way is to inject competition. Thus, MTI is encouraging the restaurants and food outlets to engage the delivery companies under the Food Delivery Booster Package. In that way, the end customers can get food from the food outlets directly without going through the food delivery companies.
So, in the same way, I would ask a supplementary question. Will MTI consider injecting competition to the local petroleum market? And there are two options, one is to remove the three-quarter tank rule, so that Singapore motorists can go to Johor Bahru to pump petrol when COVID-19 is over. However, Singapore Government will lose the petrol tax if the Singapore cars go over to Johor Bahru to buy petrol. The second option is to allow white pump operators to sell fuel to the general public instead of selling the fuel to their own the fleet of vehicles only. This is similar to the practice amongst the telcos where some of the players are buying bulk from the existing telcos, repackage these and sell broadband connection at a lower price to the end customers.
So, I hope MTI can consider injecting competition into the local petrol market to silence the criticism that major oil companies are profiteering.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: I thank the Member for his many extensive supplementary questions. If I take a bit of time, please cheer me on with \"加油\".
On the question about the three-quarter tank rule, the three-quarter tank rule is part of a suite of policy measures to encourage less car usage and reduce carbon emissions. These considerations remain relevant today. The Government will continue to ensure a well-functioning competitive petrol market against this backdrop.
There was also a question that the Member raised, about what some have called \"white pump fuel dispensing\". The idea, essentially, is, if you have a company that maintains a stock of fuel on site – some of these companies may do so because of a vehicle fleet – whether this stock can be sold onwards to consumers. At the moment, companies maintaining such fuel stocks for their own vehicles are not allowed to retail to the public. We are prepared to look at his suggestion and to consider it. But any consideration has to be done very carefully because there would have to be factors such as implications for land use and land allocation as well as ensuring safety for this.
\t
The other issue that the Member alludes to is: how do we improve transparency in a way that the consumer, on a day-to-day basis, has that information easily. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the handouts to Members?
\tMr Speaker: Yes. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: Sir, I will continue as the handouts are being distributed.
We can very much understand the interest in the listed pump prices. That, to date, has formed a lot of the discussion and discourse among members of the public. When you talk to uncles and aunties, it is often the listed pump prices that are at the top of the mind. But the listed prices can be different from the effective prices, which are what individual consumers pay after discounts and rebates.
The 2017 study by the then-CCS had found that there was a lack of ready access to, and awareness of, retail petrol prices by consumers. This prevented consumers from having the necessary information readily available to make the best petrol purchase decision. Following that study, MTI and CCCS worked with CASE to develop the Fuel Kaki website to help improve transparency for petrol prices.
The Fuel Kaki website does not just collate the listed pump prices. That is what you see at the top of the handout. But it also has a Price Estimator within. And as individual consumers, you can find out which petrol retailer offers the lowest effective price based on your individual eligibility for discounts and rebates. So, if you look at the handouts, what you can see is that the retailer with the lowest listed price may not be the one with the lowest effective price. You would also see that although listed prices are the same for most retailers, effective prices do differ even without any promotions or discounts other than the loyalty programme. So, although the handout has quite a small font size, I thought I would bring your attention to Figure 2, which is the effective price that one can get based on the loyalty programme only. You can see the bars are not quite exactly the same length and not exactly the same value, and that is reflected in the handouts which we have distributed to Members.
Consumers can also tick multiple boxes on the Fuel Kaki website to search across multiple petrol retailers and across multiple discounts and rebate programmes to find the lowest effective price. So, if you are curious, you want to see what the other promotions, options, discounts and rebates are, you can search. I know of users who will tick all the boxes and then they click search and the website gives a whole list, much like what you see in Figures 3 and 4 of the handouts that you have. And this helps individual consumers also find out if a different retailer with different discounts and rebates can give a better lower effective price.
Mr Speaker, actually, there is so much more to look at beyond the listed pump price; so much more to see when you look into the rebates and discounts when you look at the effective price. And Fuel Kaki puts that into the palm of your hand, on your smartphone, and you can search within a minute. That information can help you in so many ways. If you are a consumer, you can search for the lowest effective price; if you are an academic, it helps to have a single portal which you can look up, and I am sure there are many learned economists in this House and outside who would be interested. If you are a journalist or an analyst, it helps you, too.
So, by making it easier for consumers to compare effective prices, Fuel Kaki helps empower consumers and, as mentioned earlier, well-informed consumers are a key deterrent against unreasonable pricing and we will continue to work with CASE to improve Fuel Kaki and to continue empowering all our consumers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regionalisation of Supply Chains and Impact on Singapore’s Trade and Logistics Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry expects a greater regionalisation of supply chains; (b) what is the expected near and longer term impact on Singapore's trade and logistics sector; and (c) how will the Ministry prepare companies and workers for this challenge.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic will accelerate shifts in global supply chains that were already underway before the pandemic struck, arising from global trade tensions, the need for resilience and the impact of technological change.
There is no telling how supply chains will eventually be reconfigured, but it is likely that supply chains will be relocated nearer to the final demand markets, so as to strengthen resilience against future supply disruptions.
In the near term, there will be a severe impact on the global economy and Singapore. Earlier today, MTI announced a downgrade of Singapore’s GDP growth forecast for this year from -4% to -1%, to the new range of -7% to -4%. The outlook for outward-oriented sectors, such as manufacturing and those related to trade and logistics, remain weak, adversely affected by the sharp slowdown in many of Singapore’s key markets.
However, as we adjust to the new environment, there will also be opportunities to fill new and unmet demands and to participate in the new supply chains that are formed. As companies consider shifting production lines to the region, Singapore and Southeast Asian countries can facilitate these new investments by matching overseas interest to suppliers and global distributors. Our posture, therefore, must be to foster greater regional integration and global interdependence rather than to try and maximise domestic production which may not be the most efficient nor sustainable.
We are helping our companies and workers to take advantage of these shifts.
First, we will continue to boost our connectivity to the region and uphold our status as a financial and logistics hub. The network of Digital Economy Agreements we have started to build with partners, such as Australia, New Zealand and Chile, will augment our extensive network of Free Trade Agreements to ensure that our companies have access to the opportunities in the digital economy.
Amidst the pandemic, Singapore has been working closely with other like-minded countries on various initiatives to ensure supply chain connectivity. We issued a Joint Ministerial Statement with 10 other countries to affirm our commitment to ensure supply chain connectivity and to refrain from imposing export restrictions on essential goods. As a concrete follow-up of this initiative, we have signed a declaration with New Zealand to eliminate customs duties, not restrict exports of essential medical products, as well as expedite clearances of these goods through sea and air ports.
We are similarly working with our fellow ASEAN countries to ensure the continued supply of essential goods, and remain fully committed to signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) this year. Doing so amidst the pandemic would also send a strong signal of our continued commitment to free and open trade, as well as unlock further economic opportunities.
Second, we are helping our companies take advantage of these shifts. For example, under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise plan, we are deepening our companies’ R&D capabilities in Industry 4.0 supply chains to address industries’ needs in optimising and ensuring supply chain resilience. We are helping businesses leverage digital platforms to grow their international reach. Earlier this year, we introduced Grow Digital under the SMEs Go Digital Programme to help SMEs seize business opportunities in overseas markets through e-commerce platforms, without having a physical presence overseas.
Third, we have also introduced enhanced training and re-skilling programmes to prepare our workers and companies such that they can capitalise on the upswing when the economy recovers. In March 2020, Workforce Singapore (WSG) launched a new Redeployment Programme for Supply Chain and Logistics Coordinators to help firms reskill and redeploy existing rank-and-file workers to take on new or redesigned job roles as companies digitise or transform their business processes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we will continue to do our utmost to help companies and workers adjust to these changing supply chains. While some concern amidst this flux is understandable, we should not despair. Such shifts are not a zero-sum game. Even as countries like the US and Japan diversify their production from China, so, too, are Chinese companies going international and moving more production to Southeast Asia. This will present new opportunities for regional economies like ours which will, in turn, deepen the economic links between Southeast Asia and these countries.
To harness these opportunities, we will work with companies and workers to invest in building new capabilities, and as One Singapore, to emerge stronger from these challenges.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. I have two points for clarification for the Minister.
The first is that the COVID-19 situation has clearly shown that long and complex supply chains are a weakness for many countries. The situation will likely evolve into shorter, fragmented and more automated supply chains, including goods that might not pass from China vis-a-vis Singapore to the US. So, how would the US-China tensions disrupt our supply chain and our viability as a trade hub going forward?
With shorter and more regional supply chains, how would it affect us as a port? We clearly see that TEUs have dropped significantly over the COVID-19 period. Are we expected to rise to a level that will allow us to compete as a trade hub going forward?
Third, how would developments like COVID-19 fundamentally change our longer term investments, for example, in Tuas Mega Port?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make a few points to respond to Mr Desmond Choo's questions. I will answer the questions in reverse order.
Let us look at the volume of the port at this point in time. There are short-term and long-term forces. The short-term forces that see a drop in the port volume in the recent weeks can be attributed to the global fall in demand. So, this is overall. This has to do with the short-term forces because of the lockdowns and supply chain disruptions in various countries.
Mr Desmond Choo also touched on the longer term issues which have to do with how the reconfiguration of the supply chains towards a more regional base would affect our port operations. From a longer term perspective – ceteris paribus or all else being equal – if the demand remains at the same level, a more regional supply chain network actually can work to Singapore's advantage because we are a trade hub and a trade port, as Mr Desmond Choo said. The connectivity within ASEAN, within this region, will provide greater impetus for our port operations when things stabilise, all else being equal. So, our investment in the Tuas port over the long term, we are optimistic that we will continue to play a significant role in the regional logistics chain and also as part of the global logistics chain.
I now come to the second point of Mr Desmond Choo's first question. Yes, indeed, technological changes have given many companies the opportunities to shorten and diversify their supply chain to make it much more resilient. But this does not mean that Singapore will be bypassed. In fact, as I have mentioned during my reply, I said that even if the US, Japan and some countries decide to relocate part of their supply chain out of China, it is not a zero-sum game.
\t
When the US, Japan and other countries relocate part of their supply chain out of China, it does not mean that they no longer trade with China or no longer deal with China. What it means is that they have diversified part of the operations away from China, but there will also be part of their operations that will still be in China.
The second effect of this shift, is that the connectivity between China and Singapore, China and the Southeast Asian region, will also strengthen as a process. So, it is not a binary choice whereby it is China or not China, ASEAN or not ASEAN. In fact, the entire global supply chain network will become much more resilient because of the diversification.
The third aspect of this that we should remember is that even prior to this, China had been trying to diversify its own production based, seeking other low-cost production opportunities around the world. And this is why we have worked with the Chinese to explore third countries' market opportunities such as by building industrial parks in other countries. And we will continue to explore working with the Chinese companies as they continue to venture out.
So, while the overall global supply chain network will shift towards a much more resilient one, I think it is not a zero-sum game and there are certainly opportunities for Singapore.
The last point I want to make is this. In the past, while people had just considered efficiency as the primary consideration for designing their supply chain, many more companies and many more countries are now beginning to appreciate the need to balance efficiency with resilience. When they look at resilience, they are looking at not just the lowest cost competitor, but they are also looking for places where they can put their operations, where their intellectual property (IP) can be protected, their talent can come together, and perform product design and services; they are looking at trusted hubs whereby their exports will not be restricted because of policy-induced choices.
These are all opportunities that play to Singapore's strength as a trusted hub, as a safe harbour for talent and IP. So, as people diversify their supply chains and look for such trusted hub and safe harbours, I think there are many opportunities for Singapore to play to our strengths and to continue to strengthen our role in the global supply chain.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance and Counselling for Payment of Loan Instalments and Other Debt","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister in light of rapidly decreasing interest rates, whether MAS will proactively monitor our banks' housing loan rates to ensure that the downward revisions are timely and fair, so as to ease the financial burden of existing borrowers who are impacted by the COVID-19 situation.
10 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Prime Minister whether MAS will consider proactive measures that will help individuals/businesses to understand credit restructuring and credit counselling programmes since many will be facing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 situation.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, may I take both questions together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes please.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: As part of the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been closely monitoring market developments and engaging the banks on a comprehensive range of relief measures for borrowers.
MAS does not intervene directly in housing loan pricing as interest rates are determined by the market. But MAS expects housing loan interest rates to be revised downwards in a fair manner where this is consistent with sustained trends in banks' cost of funding for such loans.
How interest rates on housing loans fluctuate also depends on the loan terms that borrowers had chosen. Currently, about a quarter of borrowers are on housing loans pegged to the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) or Swap Offered Rate (SOR). These borrowers would already have seen interest rates for their loans come down over the past months, as falling interbank interest rates are passed on directly to these borrowers.
Slightly over half of borrowers have housing loans pegged to board rates or linked to fixed deposit rates. These rates generally change more slowly than SIBOR or SOR. So, borrowers are less adversely affected when market interest rates rise quickly, but also will benefit less when market interest rates fall quickly.
The remaining borrowers largely chose to be on fixed interest rates for the first two or three years of their loan. These loans do not adjust to changes in market interest rates, but provide certainty and stability.
Notwithstanding these differences in interest structures, borrowers may refinance their housing loans to take advantage of lower interest rates. The current rates for new housing loans are between 1.4% and 1.8% for the first year, which are lower than the range of 1.8% to 2.3% last year. However, as a matter of practice, banks will charge a fee to borrowers wishing to refinance their housing loans when they are still within the lock-in period. If there are borrowers who have difficulty paying the fee, they can put up an appeal and I am sure the banks will consider on a case-by-case basis.
MAS also facilitates the refinancing of property loans should borrowers choose to do so, by not subjecting them to the total debt servicing ratio (TDSR), mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) and loan-to-value (LTV) limits for owner-occupied residential properties. As a temporary debt relief measure, MAS has also waived the TDSR and MSR requirements for refinancing loans for investment residential and non-residential properties.
Mr Kwek also asked whether MAS will help individuals and businesses understand credit restructuring and credit counselling programmes.
Our priority has been to prevent borrowers from encountering repayment difficulties. MAS has been working with the financial industry to help individual and SME borrowers with a wide range of credit relief measures, without these impacting the borrower's credit record. For example, individuals will be able to defer payments on their mortgage loans. Likewise, SME borrowers may opt to defer principal repayment on their secured loans.
As at 10 May 2020, close to 90% of the 31,300 applications for mortgage loan payment deferment have been approved. Similarly, more than 90% of the 3,300 applications for SME secured loans deferment have been approved.
MAS has also worked with financial institutions and industry associations to promote awareness of the relief measures, and to help borrowers understand the costs and benefits of each relief measure so that they can make informed decisions.
There will be borrowers who find the relief measures insufficient. They will have to approach their banks to explore possible solutions, including restructuring their debts. They may also approach the Credit Counselling Singapore, or CCS, for debt management advice and counselling. CCS has collaborated with banks to offer the customised debt management plan for such borrowers.
To help borrowers on the debt management plans and who are affected by COVID-19, CCS will also assist with restructuring their repayment plans. On an ongoing basis, MoneySense, Singapore's national financial education programme, actively educates the public on debt management options.
MAS will continue to work closely with the financial industry to support individuals and businesses through this crisis, and to educate borrowers on the relief measures available to them.
\tMr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for a comprehensive response. I am very encouraged to hear about the high percentage of loans that were deferred. Two clarifying questions. The first is, regarding the loan deferment, it will help right now, but in maybe six months' time, after the temporary relief Bill term ends, there will likely be a lot more defaults. And so one suggestion I have heard from my resident is, can we get more jobs from SGUnited to help out with Credit Counselling Singapore as a temporary measure to help deal with the additional workload, because the more people we can help to restructure the debts, the better it will be for everybody including the banks in the long run. That is one suggestion.
The other suggestion is about the rates. My residents hope that MAS continues to exercise vigilance on the rates. They pointed out to me a particular observation. The observation is that while SIBOR rates have gone down, rightfully so, the credit spreads have gone up recently at a very short time period. That means the SIBOR plus the bank spread. That does not seem to gel with the default rates that does not seem to be increasing rapidly. So, they do hope MAS can look at that, as well as the board rates movement very carefully.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: On the first issue, I fully agree with Mr Henry Kwek. I think moving forward, the labour market is going to be quite soft, unemployment is likely to go up. If the private sector is not hiring enough, one area we look to is the Public Service including Credit Counselling Singapore, and I think if there are opportunities there, the Government should be prepared to put in money and we can see how to create more of such jobs, including in the Public Service, such as what the Member had suggested.
On SIBOR rates, I do have to look into the details. I do not see any particular reason, as the Member mentioned, that the credit spread has gone up. In fact, there have been many schemes. There have been schemes run by both ESG or MTI and MAS to make sure that the credit spread is controlled, with the Government putting in and taking 90% of the risk. But if the Member is referring to mortgage rates, that could have a different market mechanism. On the whole, from our observation, interest rates ought to be coming down and it really depends on the kind of loans that you have taken, whether it is a fixed rate, or whether it is a floating rate, and I think that will also affect. Whatever it is, when a bank decides to adjust interest rates, always give enough time for your customers to be able to refinance the loans and without penalties. And I think that is what MAS will always encourage all banks to do.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) 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 Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time\".
This Bill, together with the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill, or the \"Active Mobility Bill\" for short, which will be read next, relates to small motorised vehicles, including personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs).
Sir, with your permission, I would like to propose that the substantive debate on both Bills take place together, under the common objective of ensuring and developing a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape. This will allow Members to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate. We will still have the formal Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill to ensure that procedural requirements are dealt with.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. You will be taking two speeches together?
Dr Lam Pin Min: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to thank our delivery riders, who have been instrumental in providing delivery services to Singaporeans during this COVID-19 circuit breaker period. It is not an easy job; they brave the elements and are on the move all day. I am grateful for their efforts in making our lives more convenient, amidst this trying time for all of us.
Let me first address why we are tabling these Bills now. In many cities around the world, we have seen an uptake in active mobility modes of transport after the outbreak of COVID-19. We have observed a similar trend in Singapore, where travel demand for active mobility devices appears to have increased, even as ridership for public transport, taxis and private hire cars fell drastically. This has arisen because of the larger number of short trips between homes and neighbourhood centres. With the expansion of the cycling path network in the years ahead, we should also expect use of active mobility devices to pick up again. With more users, it is all the more critical for us to strengthen our regulations and enforcement even as we deal with other COVID-related challenges.
The Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill, or the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill for short, sets out an import control regime to stem the inflow into Singapore of unsafe small motorised vehicles, which include PMDs and PABs. The Active Mobility Bill allows LTA to shorten the forfeiture process for such devices which pose significant safety risks, and expands the public path network to include certain open spaces, so that active mobility devices can be used safely in accordance to our regulations.
Let me now elaborate on the main provisions of the two Bills. Let me first start with the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill.
Today, only active mobility devices that comply with device criteria on weight, width and speed are allowed to be used on public paths. This is to enhance public safety on paths. Motorised PMDs and PABs are also required to meet the relevant safety standards, which is the UL2272 standard for motorised PMDs and the European Standard EN15194 for PABs.
Sir, devices which do not meet the relevant safety standards pose higher fire risks and accounted for all 115 fire incidents in 2019 involving PMDs and PABs.
We have introduced many measures to tackle the supply of non-compliant devices, including prohibiting the sale of non-UL2272 devices for use on public paths since July 2019 and mandating inspection of e-scooters from April 2020. LTA regularly enforces against retailers who display, advertise and sell non-compliant devices, and alter devices to make them non-compliant, as well as path users who ride such non-compliant devices on public paths.
Despite our efforts, LTA continues to detect non-compliant devices being used on public paths, and fires involving non-compliant devices continue to occur. In 2019 alone, 972 users were detected riding non-compliant PMDs and PABs on public paths and public roads.
Irresponsible retailers have compounded the problem. In 2019, 11 retailers were caught for displaying non-compliant PMDs and PABs and failing to display warning notices.
In view of these challenges, we need to go upstream to stem the inflow of non-compliant devices at the point of import.
Clause 5 of the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill requires all importers to obtain import approval from LTA before they can bring small motorised vehicles into Singapore. For a start, we will implement this requirement for motorised PMDs and PABs. This will ensure that we have oversight of the inflow into Singapore of all such devices. LTA will assess import approval applications based on the safety of the devices to be imported. It will be an offence to import motorised PMDs and PABs without valid approval from LTA.
We recognise that there are legitimate reasons to import non-compliant devices, such as for research, re-export or commercial use exclusively on private land or land with restricted public access. For these specific cases, import approvals can still be granted after LTA has ascertained that these non-compliant devices will not be abused and eventually used on public paths where they could be a danger to other path users. Thus, clause 8 makes it an offence for importers to allow non-compliant devices they have imported to be used for purposes other than what had been allowed under the import approval or to fail to comply with a condition specified in the import approval. LTA will also affix tamper-proof tags on all non-compliant devices allowed to be imported, to facilitate downstream enforcement.
We will take decisive enforcement against the provision of false information and imports without import approvals. Similar to other import controls regimes, ICA officers appointed as officers of customs will work with LTA to carry out random inspections at the checkpoints. LTA is also empowered to conduct searches of premises or conveyances located within any premises, used for or in connection with the import of small motorised vehicles or the storage of such imported vehicles, in order to investigate an offence under the Bill. This could include premises suspected to contain motorised PMDs and PABs imported without valid import approval from LTA. Motorised PMDs and PABs found to be imported without valid import approval will be seized and forfeited and their importers will be taken to task.
Let me now move on to the Active Mobility Bill.
Non-compliant devices pose fire risks even when not being used or charged. Since the Active Mobility Act (AMA) was passed by this House in 2017, LTA has seized PMDs, PABs and bicycles used in the commission of offences under the AMA or the Road Traffic Act (RTA) and stores these in holding yards pending the outcome of prosecution or the acceptance of a composition offer. Some are not UL2272 or EN15194 compliant and others could have been badly damaged or have leaking batteries after being involved in accidents. It would be dangerous for LTA to retain custody of such forfeited devices.
To mitigate safety hazards arising from the storage of such seized devices, this Bill amends the AMA and the RTA to allow LTA to immediately forfeit devices that LTA has assessed to be dangerous, prior to composition or conviction and to dispose of them after providing a 30-day notice period for objections to be submitted. There will be no changes to the forfeiture and disposal process for non-compliant devices that are not dangerous.
In addition to PMDs, PABs and bicycles, the process also extends to non-compliant mobility vehicles, or what we refer to as personal mobility aids.
Lastly, to improve clarity of rules for all path users, the Active Mobility Bill expands the public path network by allowing path-connected open spaces to be declared as public paths. Path-connected open spaces are generally indistinguishable from the existing public path network. This includes spaces such as courtyards, plazas, squares and atriums that are accessible to the public. This amendment will allow our public path network to accommodate the largest range of possible users. It will also enable LTA to extend the public path user rules to reduce potential conflicts between the motorised and non-motorised users in these open spaces. The clarity will be useful to all path users.
We understand that some of these path-connected open spaces are used for community or municipal functions, such as grassroots events, night markets or community roadshows. We will facilitate events and activities by allowing open spaces to be closed temporarily.
Lastly, clauses 29, 30 and 31 of the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, Rapid Transit Systems Act and the Road Traffic Act to channel certain sums collected by LTA into the Consolidated Fund. This delinks LTA's regulatory and enforcement functions from the associated revenues from these actions and aligns LTA's financial practices with the whole-of-Government financial governance framework.
We remain committed in promoting active mobility as a viable and attractive mode of transport and lifestyle choice in Singapore. When used safely, with the appropriate regulations and infrastructure, active mobility devices can be an affordable, environmentally-friendly and convenient commuting option. This is why, even as we are heartened by the significant improvement in footpath safety since the use of e-scooters was banned on footpaths from November last year, we are pressing on to improve our cycling path infrastructure and to further strengthen our regulatory framework.
Mr Speaker, our active mobility regulatory framework must continue to evolve to keep pace with new technology and new trends. It is timely for us to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure that active mobility devices being brought into and used in Singapore are safe. This is a key step in helping us put in place a safe and sustainable active mobility landscape in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bills – the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill, which seeks to stem the inflow of non-compliant active mobility devices and the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which aims to improve the clarity of our active mobility rules.
Since the Active Mobility Act (AMA) came into force in May 2018, much has been done to strengthen the safe usage of active mobility devices. Examples include the introduction of the UL2272 certification and the mandatory registration of active mobility devices. But despite these measures, the number of fires involving non-compliant devices continue to remain an issue. Therefore, the introduction of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is timely as it serves to control the import and use of non-compliant devices, which are often a fire risk.
However, I have a few clarifications and suggestions.
First, I would like to ask how will the Bill regulate the import of active mobility devices that are bought online. What will be the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms, such as Tao Bao, Qoo10, and Carousell? Will the onus on ensuring device compliance be imposed on e-commerce consumers?
If onus is indeed placed on consumers, we should strive to raise awareness of compliant active mobility devices. I would suggest that LTA consider active promotion of compliant models. Having a \"white list\" of devices that meet the latest regulations would help consumers make better purchase decisions from both physical stores and online platforms.
When it comes to purchasing from online platforms, Members of this House will know that there are instances when an online seller ships a wrong product to the buyer, either deliberately or by mistake. In an event where a buyer purchases a compliant model, but the online seller ships a non-compliant one to him, would the unknowing buyer be liable for an offence under section 5 of the Bill?
As the Bill also covers the import of unassembled active mobility devices, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the import of replacement parts, which are vital for servicing and repairs, will also be regulated. Remote as it may be, there is a possibility that some may create their own non-compliant active mobility device by piecing together various replacement parts. Already, we have seen instances of PMDs being \"souped up\" to provide more power, more speed, more battery life. Such modifications can be dangerous and I hope that LTA can take proactive steps to deter this.
Mr Speaker, I would like to also ask if the Bill's proposed import restrictions of non-compliant small motorised vehicles would have any impact on the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that Singapore had already signed with other countries.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my repeated calls for mandatory third-party liability insurance for all users of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). I am glad that the Ministry had, in December 2019, accepted the recommendations made by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, to make third-party liability insurance compulsory for those who use PMDs in the course of their work. However, in my view, this requirement should be extended to all PMD users, as there remains a sizeable number of PMD riders who use PMDs for non-work purposes. I understand that the cost of obtaining third-party liability insurance is not exorbitant, and more importantly, we need to ensure that victims would be adequately covered for any medical bills arising in the unfortunate event of a PMD-related accident.
Mr Speaker, as we continue our enforcement and education efforts to inculcate a safe active mobility culture in Singapore, we need also to ensure that we stem the rise in the number of fires involving non-compliant devices, and to better protect victims should an accident happens. The proposed import restrictions are a timely measure that will further enhance the safety of our homes and our public paths. With that, I support both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to record my appreciation for the delivery riders who are doing an essential task during this period. They have, in the midst of a pandemic, risen to the occasion to deliver all manner of goods, so that the majority of the population can stay at home and practise social distancing measures and live their life as normally as is possible.
The demand for delivery services is on the rise, and it will continue to stay high even after circuit breaker measures ease, as we navigate this pandemic. More people are taking up delivery jobs to supplement their lost income. As a result, we will see more mobility devices out in public.
Some users are also relying on these devices to get out and about for their daily exercise. With fewer options to spend their free time, I observe that more residents are taking to the parks and park connectors, bringing their devices with them.
When the Active Mobility Bill was debated this February, me and several of my Parliamentary colleagues expressed concerns about fire risks with the increased usage of PMDs.
Just last week, last Wednesday, to be specific, there was a fire in Nee Soon South at 4.30 am. About 100 residents had to be evacuated and, according to SCDF report, there was a PMD being left to be charged overnight. Luckily, there was no major injury but three occupants were sent to hospital.
It is timely that Minister has followed up swiftly with the introduction of upstream measures to prevent the unauthorised import of non-compliant devices which do not meet safety requirements.
The shortening of the current forfeiture process will also help to conserve resources spent on storing impounded devices, as well as mitigate fire safety hazards from storing these devices for prolonged periods. This would hopefully serve as a strong statement to those who knowingly purchase or import non-compliant devices or refuse to do their due diligence on this matter.
These new measures are indicative of the authorities’ determination to stamp out such devices. Targeting non-compliant imports will help to nip the problem in the bud. However, as some of these devices and their parts may be purchased online by individuals from overseas companies, how does the relevant agency manage these individual imports?
Like the fire that I just mentioned that happened last week, what I understand is that the PMD was new and it was left to charge for the first time. According to the SCDF report, there is no approval label on the PMD. For those without approval labels, non-compliant, they are not allowed to use on the road from 1 July onwards. So, why do people still buy these devices? Is it because lack of publicity? Perhaps MOT need to study why people still buy non-compliant PMDs.
During the circuit breaker, I also received worrying feedback from residents about e-scooters reappearing on the pedestrian paths.
Due to reduced footfall on the pedestrian paths, some would even speed. That is not right. Pedestrians still do use the paths, and any number of accidents, especially fatal ones, is one too many. Whoever these riders are and whatever their reasons, no one is above the law. They must not ride their PMDs on the pedestrian paths.
How can enforcement be stepped up, especially during manpower constraints and social distancing measures? Are the relevant authorities exploring the use of technology, such as facial recognition or, perhaps even drones, to quicken the process for identifying perpetrators and arresting them?
Previously, I also raised safety concerns for residents waiting at the bus stops and open spaces.
Even with the new laws in place, some errant riders would not disembark when they should as they do not want to inconvenience themselves. Town centres, plazas, courtyards and squares have high pedestrian traffic and are not appropriate for PMDs or PABs. Most riders have been understanding on this matter. Yet, others take advantage of the fact that these places are not visually distinguishable from the public path network and continue zooming through on their devices.
So, I am glad that the amendments to the Active Mobility Bill will extend coverage of public paths to include the path-connected open spaces, so that law enforcement can be taken against those who flout the rules in these spaces. This is something that I feel very strongly about. In fact, I had spoken to LTA officers many times on this issue.
Safety is paramount and even with fewer pedestrians out and about, this must not be taken for granted. As circuit measures ease, the footfalls will be back. If PMD riders continue their errant ways, I fear that we will see a spate of accidents because they have become used to cruising the pedestrian paths. In the meantime, I urge pedestrians to stay alert and vigilant as you get out and about. This does not only apply to just staying safe from PMDs, but in any situation, everybody has a shared responsibility for staying safe in their environment.
Sir, I support the Bill. These amendments are necessary to protect the lives and safety of both pedestrians and the PMD riders. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tIn February this year, when we were debating the Active Mobility Bill, several Members of Parliament and I expressed concerns about the fire risks associated with the increased usage of PMDs.
\tLast week, there was a fire caused by a PMD in Nee Soon South and this has made me even more worried about this problem.
\tI am very pleased to see that the Government has quickly introduced this amendment Bill to tackle the non-compliant PMDs. Some PMDs and spare parts can be bought online; may I ask how the Government is going to check these PMDs?
\tI am also happy to note that this Bill would extend coverage of public paths to include path-connected open spaces. Therefore, PMDs will also be banned in places, such as town centre squares to protect pedestrians’ safety.
\tResidents also told me that during the Circuit Breaker period, some PMD riders saw that there were no enforcement officers around, so they feel like what the Chinese say, \"the mountain is high and the emperor is far away\", and just took the PMDs back on the paths again. May I know how the Government is going to carry on the enforcement work while ensuring safety? For example, will the Government use technologies, such as drones and face recognition?
\tIn fact, we have just given our residents some peace of mind not so long ago. In terms of pedestrian safety, we must not go backwards. We should not reduce all these rules and regulations to nothing but paper tigers.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that MOT is finally introducing the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill. In particular, it is finally introducing a law to make it an offence for a person to import a small motorised vehicle without having a permit to do so.
Back in April 2016, at the 2016 Committee of Supply Debates for MOT, I had mentioned that unauthorised e-bikes were still available for sale. I said that many e-bikes which were in use were not authorised models and I asked the Ministry to consider only allowing authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore. This was when MOT was looking at introducing new active mobility laws and looking to promote use of PMDs for first and last mile connectivity.
Less than four years later, on 4 November 2019, on the day MOT announced in Parliament that e-scooters were to be banned from the footpaths, consigning it into, at the least, temporary obsolescence for many users, I had a Parliamentary Question that day asking what are the measures in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore by online suppliers and whether the Ministry has asked Singapore Customs to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by any supplier or individual.
I wondered why it has taken so long for the Government to cut this import of illegal e-scooters or e-bikes. The public had to endure wide usage of illegal specs e-scooters and e-bikes for some time. Till today, I still see quite a few illegal e-bikes being used. Senior Minister of State Lam also mentioned this recently.
I remember in the debate for the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, I was asking about allowing throttle operated e-bikes and Senior Minister of State Lam gave his explanation as to why throttle e-bikes were not allowed. But till today, we still see throttle e-bikes around.
The best solution to disallow non-specs e-bikes, e-scooters or other PMDs would simply be to ban its import. After the Bill is passed today, the requirement for import approvals will likely be a first step to make sure that we do not have unauthorised e-bikes or e-scooters, and in fact, other types of PMDs, some of which we may not even be able to imagine at this moment.
We need to make sure that the controls are in place to ensure that no unauthorised small motorised vehicles can even be shipped into Singapore via any shipping lines or logistic service providers. They must be stopped at all our customs checkpoints for land, air or sea.
The logistic service providers of all importers including online suppliers must be made aware and accountable for the ban. Online e-commerce suppliers must not allow sale and import of such unauthorised machines into Singapore.
Will the Senior Minister of State share with the House how the Government will work with suppliers and retailers as well as all shipping and logistics companies to ensure that no unauthorised models can be brought into Singapore including from foreign e-commerce online suppliers? Will someone who try ordering an illegal vehicle online from a foreign webpage be told before paying and checking out that it cannot be delivered to Singapore?
Finally, given likely frequent changes in technology, standards for permissible SMVs should be regularly updated and that these updates be made easily available to the public to access and check. For instance, a link to these requirements can be placed on a prominent place on the LTA website's landing page. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
I now move on to the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill. I support this Bill’s intention to extend the coverage of the law to include path-related open spaces.
Clause 4 amends section 6(1) to allow for any such space to be declared pedestrian-only, footpath or a shared path by LTA whether be it in public land or private land. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how would this be done in practice? Would LTA consult the local stakeholders before declaring any area to be a specific type of path?
I also support the Bill’s intentions to enable the earlier disposal by LTA of seized non-compliant active mobility vehicles for safety reason. On the issue of the disposal of seized vehicles under the Act, may I know currently how many of such seized vehicles are being held by LTA? May the Senior Minister of State also share with this House how does LTA currently dispose the seized vehicles? Are they taken apart and sold for scrap locally or abroad? How are the batteries disposed of, bearing in mind the safety risks associated with illegal batteries?
Mr Speaker, Sir, during the circuit breaker, it was reported in the media that many people flocked to use many parks and park connectors. I am a daily user of a popular park near my home as well as a park connector leading up to the East Coast Park and I concur with those reports.
My use of the parks and park connectors during the circuit breaker reinforced my previous views on the culture of foot path or park connector use by all users.
Even without a large number of e-scooters in use, as we have previously seen, we can do more to improve on the culture – keeping left, giving way, or giving space to each other; riders reducing speed when approaching other users. I have previously spoken of how information needs to be piped to those who do not sign up for a course or do not actively seek such information online, including cyclists and device users as well as pedestrians. I hope that the MOT and LTA will look at how to enhance the public education efforts for shared use of foot paths and public connectors.
Next, I would like to talk about adequate enforcement – the other limb necessary for safe active mobility use.
On 5 May, The Straits Times reported that Senior Minister of State Lam had said that there has been increased use of non-compliant personal mobility devices (PMDs) on roads during the circuit breaker period. Even though we have seen fewer e-scooters around, there is hardly a day for me when I do not see any e-scooters on foot paths or on the road. There are still e-scooters defying the ban after so many months. These riders clearly think they can get away with it because they do not sense that they will be taken to task immediately.
I am really not sure that enforcement is indeed sufficient with spot checks on certain locations. For example, I use the Siglap Park Connector daily and I have never seen enforcement officers in the vicinity of the connector. Unless one pushes his e-scooter to the park connector, most riders will need to ride on the road or on foot paths to get to the park connector. Ditto for other park connectors. For example, the one along Hougang Avenue 7. I am sure I am not the only person who has recently seen e-scooter riders riding across the road at traffic lights.
Even if we think that these days, we may not see as many e-scooters as we used to do before the foot path ban, we should not forget that when the expanded cycling path network is up, e-scooters may yet be popular again. So, it is important that we get the issues of public education and adequate enforcement right, or we will be kicking the can down the road.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, from April to June, I have seen on quite a few occasions, food delivery riders in their uniforms using e-scooters on foot paths and on roads. They are mostly from Grab and on two occasions, Foodpanda. In February this year, I asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government will consider imposing legal obligations on food delivery companies to ensure that their delivery riders on e-bikes or e-scooters will comply with active mobility or road traffic regulations, including but not limited to compliance with device requirements or proper usage. Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in reply that under the Activity Mobility amendment and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Act, food delivery companies should be responsible for ensuring that their riders ride safely.
However, it is not clear as to how those laws were imposed on obligations. So I raised the same concerns again at the Committee of Supply debate for MOT this year and also suggested the imposition of penalties on the food delivery companies in the event of any failure on the part of their riders to comply with the law. Senior Minister of State Lam said in response and I quote, \"Businesses have a role to play, which is why LTA has introduced regulations on companies and continues to work closely with companies to encourage responsible behaviour in their riders.\" But no further details were given on enforcement.
In lieu of the continuing use of e-scooters by a small number of food delivery riders and their companies not able to stop them, I would like to ask Senior Minister of State Lam to clarify explicitly: (a) besides taking actions against errant riders, can and will LTA take immediate action against their companies to stop such breaches of law? (b) What penalties are available against the food delivery companies for failing to ensure their riders' compliance with the law?
Mr Speaker, Sir, not long ago, we heard in this House that the construction of the expanded cycling path network for use by bicycles, e-bikes and PMDs will be ramped up. May I ask the Senior Minister of State to provide an update on the status of the construction of the expanded cycling path network and whether it has been affected by COVID-19 measures or by any of the foreign workers involved in the project being quarantined or prevented from working?
The nagging question I have about the expanded cycling path network is whether cycling paths will be directly linked to HDB blocks, condominiums, houses, shophouses, office buildings and industrial buildings such that riders do not need to alight and push their PMDs or e-bikes along foot paths to their homes, workplaces or other destinations. If riders need to pass a foot path or road en route to their destination, it may result in some e-scooter or e-bike riders continuing riding on the path and taking the easy way out.
As e-bikes have become more commonly seen after the foot path ban for e-scooters, we also see more e-bikes on foot paths now. We may end up kidding ourselves after spending so much money on the expanded cycling path network – that it will solve the problems created by e-scooters' use of foot paths.
If this seems too expensive, impractical or ambitious, then MOT may need to reconsider e-scooters and other PMDs as a serious option for first and final mile connectivity. However, if our cycling path network were to become sufficiently extensive, such that PMD and e-bike riders do not need to alight and push, it may in turn do away with the need for cyclists to share the use of foot paths, which is still currently allowed. This prospect may be welcomed by many foot path users who may not think that sharing foot paths with cyclists is a good idea.
I have asked these questions earlier this year and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarification today.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the questions and concerns I have, I support this Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am glad that we are moving upstream in addressing the hazards posed by active mobility devices by introducing an import controls regime. It is also sensible for us to address the fire risk posed by non-compliant active mobility devices held by LTA before any incidents occur.
I have three clarifications to raise on the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill.
My first point relates to the return of a non-compliant forfeited vehicle that has been deemed dangerous. The new section 53(1A) provides that a non-compliant vehicle forfeited by the LTA under the new section 51(3) may be returned to a person if LTA receives from the person a written objection showing good cause for its return and there is no reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle is linked to an offence. Even if such a vehicle were not linked to an offence, it seems extremely unsafe to return a vehicle that is too dangerous for LTA to retain to an individual.
Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances such a vehicle may be returned to the individual? Will the safety of the vehicle be a pre-condition for such a return?
My second point relates to the notice requirement before selling, destroying or disposing of a non-compliant vehicle that is dangerous to retain. The new section 53(3A) provides that LTA may sell, destroy or dispose of a non-compliant vehicle if it is dangerous for the LTA to retain custody or it increases the likelihood of an outbreak of fire at the holding yard. LTA may do so after giving one month's notice in the Gazette of its intention to do so.
I appreciate that the e-Gazette was made public earlier this year. However, the reality is that publication in the Gazette will not be a meaningful notification for the average individual.
The new section 53(3A) applies to vehicles that are moved to a holding yard under section 45 or section 46. Both sections require LTA to give notice of the move to the owner of the vehicle as soon as practicable, if the owner is known. This requirement does not seem to apply where LTA intends to exercise its powers under section 53(3A).
Can the Minister clarify in a situation where the owner is known, whether LTA will be required to give notice to the owner of its intention to sell, destroy or dispose of potentially dangerous non-compliant vehicle under the new section 53(3A)?
My final point relates to the risks that continue to be posed by non-compliant vehicles held at the holding yards. Even under the expedited procedure introduced by the amendments, there is still a one-month notice period before the LTA can sell, destroy or dispose of a forfeited vehicle that is dangerous or that materially increases the likelihood of an outbreak of fire. Accidents can happen during this one-month period. The danger is compounded when you consider that there are other vehicles in the holding yards that are similarly dangerous or materially increase the likelihood of an outbreak of fire.
Can the Minister share what safety measures are put in place to mitigate the risk of fire at the holding yards? Further, in the worst-case scenario that a fire breaks out, who is liable for the damage caused? For instance, in the event that the fire can be traced back to a single vehicle, would the owner of that vehicle be liable for the damage caused by the fire caused by their vehicle, notwithstanding that the vehicle is now in the custody of LTA?
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Sir, personal mobility devices were quickly adopted by many Singaporeans in the last few years because they were cheap and fast. They filled a transport need that our public transport system and existing private vehicles could not. But as we discovered, this came at a high cost to safety – from accidents on roads and foot paths to charging fires at home. It was a case of market forces running ahead of regulators since we had no laws to ensure that these imported personal mobility devices met safety standards.
I support the intent behind the Bill, which will create a regulatory framework for licensing the import of small motorised vehicles that will promote safety and meet consumer needs.
However, new regulations will impose a cost on businesses and commuters. We need to minimise these costs while still ensuring that regulations serve the purpose of promoting public safety. In some respects, this Bill imposes more regulations on importers of small motorised vehicles than our existing laws on the import of motor vehicles do. For example, under existing law, any person in Singapore may import a motor vehicle, subject to import approval from Customs and vehicle registration from LTA. The concept of a licence to import motor vehicles simply does not exist under the Road Traffic Act. Our approach for motor vehicles is to regulate the vehicles rather than to regulate the importers.
This Bill, in contrast, will create a regulatory regime to license small motorised vehicle importers directly under section 5 of the Act. Import regulation will effectively restrict competition in the market for small motorised vehicles to approved importers and to approved mobility devices. Further, the Bill's powers also extend to import of components for small motorised vehicles, which also affects repair services and even individuals who may wish to import spare parts for their own repairs. Overall, the regulations imposed by this Bill could create barriers to entry, which would harm consumers. It will be critical for LTA to implement a robust framework that ensures competition will be maintained while maintaining safety standards for users and the community.
My concerns range over three areas: who is allowed to import; what small motorised vehicles can be imported; and whether regulations will be made under the Act to cover competition in the market.
First, I wish to ask how the framework for approving importers will be applied and whether it will facilitate entry and competition in the market for small motorised vehicles. I am concerned that consumers may face higher prices and fewer choices if prospective dealers are unable to gain approval or are discouraged by high licensing requirements. In particular, will consumers have a choice to directly import their small motorised vehicles from overseas suppliers? For example, will overseas sellers be licensed to sell direct to consumers in Singapore or can consumers be licensed to import for private use if the vehicle meets standards?
Next, I wish to clarify the framework for approving small motorised vehicles for import. As Singapore is a small market, manufacturers may be reluctant to design small motorised vehicles to meet Singapore-specific requirements. Certification could also be costly.
Will study whether international design standards for small motorised vehicles such as those in force in China are suitable for Singapore? If so, will certifications from the relevant international authorities be acceptable for import purposes? Or is the intention to develop local certification capability and how quickly and cost effectively can that be done?
A related concern is on the import of small motorised vehicle components. A broad reading of the Act suggests components could also be subject to import control because these vehicles can be easily assembled from parts. If enforced strictly, this would affect competition in the market for servicing and repairs, and prevent consumers from sourcing their own repair parts from overseas.
Will LTA consider limiting import restrictions only to components which are integral to the small motorised vehicle or which are safety critical such as the motor, chassis and batteries?
Finally, I wish to ask whether LTA will consider competitive behaviour when making licensing decisions under this Act. I am concerned that these regulations will reduce the number of firms in the market and hence, enhance market power over consumers.
As we know, similar issues can arise in the motor vehicle market, which is dominated by a small number of firms who are the exclusive authorised dealers for the major car manufacturers. Within car brands, the only competition really comes from parallel importers. In the case of the car market, the barrier to entry, they are not just regulatory in nature, they arrive in the combination of the small domestic market, combine manufacturer's decisions to authorise dealers on an exclusive basis. Will LTA be able to regulate or to consider competitive conduct as a factor in licensing importers under this Bill? These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Muralli Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. I wish to seek clarification on two areas. First, the Authority's power of forfeiture of vehicles under both Bills; and second, the ambit of the definition of \"path-connected open spaces\" in the Active Mobility (Amendement No. 2) Bill or AMB, and plans under this Bill to harmonise the use of such spaces amongst pedestrians and vehicle users.
On the first issue, I wish to make two points. First, it is proposed to allow the Authority to order forfeiture of non-compliant vehicles if it is of the view there is a danger in storing them. Currently, the power of forfeiture is limited to situations where a person has been convicted or compounds an offence in relation to the Active Mobility Act (AMA), or the Road Traffic Act (RTA). Otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction on the issue of forfeiture.
In a situation where the Authority orders forfeiture of a non-compliant vehicle posing a hazard, there could be a perceived conflict of interest arising. This is because the Authority enforces the AMA and will also enforce the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill (SMVB) once it is enacted. The Authority prosecutes offenders under both bills. Then, the Authority exercises a power of forfeiture of this vehicle, that is subject matter of ongoing criminal proceedings.
Let us take an example of a person who was brought to book and charged in Court by the Authority for importing and using a non-compliant PMD. His PMD has been seized and stored by the Authority. He denies the charges. Criminal proceedings have commenced. Before it concludes, Authority takes the view that the continued storage of the PMD is dangerous and wants to have it forfeited. Under the provision, it can do so at once, without reference to the accused or the Court. I wonder whether it would be better to vest with the Court the jurisdiction to deal with such matters instead?
Next, under clause 15(4) of SMVB and the proposed section 51(4) of the AMA, the Authority will be vested with the power to release to a third party who claims to be the owner of a non-compliant vehicle even though it was used in a commission of an offence under SMVB and AMA.
From a policy view point, may I please ask, what is the purpose of providing to the Authority the power to release a non-compliant vehicle used in a commission of an offence back into public circulation? I believe the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, made a similar point. It is noteworthy that the Authority, in the same provision, may refer the matter to the Magistrate who must order a forfeiture if he finds that the non-compliant vehicle was used in the commission of an offence. In other words, the Magistrate has no discretion and it seems to me that we may be proposing to give the Authority a wider power than the Magistrate.
We need to bear in mind that the purpose behind the SMVB is to dry up the number of non-compliant vehicles in Singapore. The hon Senior Minister of State, Dr Lam had already highlighted the fire hazard as well as the big numbers of non-compliant vehicles that were forfeited just last year.
Moving on to the second issue, I wish to first deal with the AMB provisions dealing with the extension of the public path system to include path connected open spaces. This makes eminent sense as it will harmonise enforcement against users who flout the rules on usage of pedestrian paths, footpaths and shared paths, thereby endangering other users; particularly pedestrians.
I have two queries on this point. First, the ambit of \"path connected open spaces\". Under the Active Mobility (Footpaths) Order 2018, void decks and the frontage abutting any commercial premises are excluded as footpaths. Under the proposed Bill, is it still the intention exclude both areas? If so, may I please ask why?
Void decks and frontage abutting commercial premises are sometimes connected to paths as well. We, in this House, are aware of incidents in the past involving people colliding with PMD users in void decks. This has led to 15 Town Councils to enact by-laws to ban use of PMDs at void decks. Would it not be better to harmonise the application of the laws dealing with PMD users under one Act?
Next, and this is my final point, in bringing path connected open spaces under the AMA, how is it proposed that the areas are demarcated as pedestrian paths, footpaths or shared paths respectively. It seems to me better to provide clear demarcation of areas where use of vehicles are permitted. This will augment the harmonisation of usage of paths and areas amongst pedestrians and vehicle users.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMr Speaker, Sir, I support these two latest Bills to further strengthen safety in the use of PMDs.
We are all concerned about the safety of PMDs. Not only do they compromise the safety on shared paths, they also create fire risks when being charged.
The first line of defence is to stem the inflow of non-compliant PMDs into the country. Hence, banning the import of such devices is a concrete step. Last year, after a number of serious accidents involving PMDs occurred on footpaths, I asked for a temporary halt on PMD imports during a Parliamentary Question.
Requiring approvals from LTA is a necessary step. However, I will urge LTA to err on the safe side in the approval of the new devices as there will always be new and innovative devices that will be brought to the market; they may seem safe initially but develop unforeseen problems after some usage. We should not take chances on fire safety. Once the public has bought the devices and started using them, it would be very difficult to call back.
We also cannot rule out the possibility that some people might do illegal modifications on their devices, compromising the safety. Hence, can I ask the Minister if MOT sees the need to have a validity period for the approved devices, as the functionality and reliability of these devices may deteriorate over time? Is there a need for the devices to undergo inspection after some years of usage to ascertain their safety worthiness?
Besides being the approving authority for new devices, LTA can also regulate the number of devices allowed, given our limited pathways. Again, it is always better to be safe and conservative. One of the reasons why the public was concerned about PMDs last year was the sheer number and the high utilisation rate of these devices, increasing the likelihood of accidents.
Can I also ask whether LTA will take the delivery companies to task if their delivery people use devices that are not approved?
I support the immediate forfeiture of the devices assessed to be dangerous. This can also serve as another deterrence. I support these two amendment Bills.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the introduction of both Bills which will enhance safety for all as well as connectivity. I would like to begin with some concerns regarding the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill.
The proposal to put in upstream measures to prevent unauthorised import of non-compliant small motorised vehicles is absolutely necessary. These vehicles include personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) which come in many configurations and specifications.
Very unfortunately, we have seen how, in the absence of import controls, how many of these devices had caused fires, resulting in injuries, loss of lives and property damage. In addition, some of these devices can attain maximum speeds way in excess of what is permitted and the speed differentials with other users on footpaths had led to accidents and serious injuries.
With the legislative framework in place, enforcement will be key. Would the Ministry share how it will monitor individuals who purchase online and import devices which may not be compliant with our regulations? How will MOT work with our Customs to check on these imports?
Another challenge is how MOT will check on those who modify the PMDs and PABs themselves as well as workshops or retail shops that are involved in illegal modifications. I would also like to know how the Ministry can enforce these regulations when users do not send their devices for registration and checks. So far, how many cases of non-compliant devices have been picked up? Would the Ministry consider recruiting volunteers who can be trained and deployed to assist enforcement officers? How about providing incentives or rewards to those who have assisted and given the necessary information regarding offenders?
Next, on the Active Mobility Bill. I am glad that LTA has widened the enforcement area to include path-connected open spaces against the illegal PMD riders on these paths. We have greater clarity now that it is specifically stated that paved open spaces can only be accessed by pedestrians, personal mobility aid users, bicycles and non-motorised PMDs. So, it is clear that connectivity is ensured for these groups of users, with their safety enhanced by keeping motorised PMDs, which can travel at higher speeds, out of these paths. This will promote responsible and sustainable usage of the paths for all. At the same time, we are encouraging a healthy way of transportation and reducing our carbon footprint while promoting active lifestyles.
Once again, my concern is about enforcement. I welcome the move to let LTA will take over the enforcement of offences under the AMA from the Town Councils. I would like to ask if we could tap on greater use of technology to boost our enforcement capabilities. Last but not least, I seek clarification about the age of offenders that the law will apply to as quite a number of such offenders in the past have been teenagers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the circuit breaker period has seen a rise in the number of visitors to the pockets of greenery around Singapore. Especially on the weekends, power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) cruising along the park connectors are a common sight. I expect that these small motorised vehicles will continue to be the favourable mode of transport in the current and post COVID-19 period, as people try to avoid taking public transport, while working some exercise and getting some fresh air into their new regimes. As Singaporeans turn to contactless delivery for their daily needs and wants, the number of trips taken and users of these vehicles will undoubtedly continue to rise.
It is, hence, very timely to address the concerns brought about by non-compliant devices. Last year, the number of fires related to charging and explosions of PMDs and PABs also doubled, causing property destruction, injuring inhabitants and even killing one. In densely-populated Singapore, this has a spillover effect to the neighbouring houses. Many residents have very valid concerns about the situation and I am glad the Minister has plans to tackle it with the establishment of an import controls regime to prevent the import of non-compliant and unsafe devices.
I wish to ask how enforcement will be implemented against online purchase of small motorised vehicles by individuals. These are questions that were raised by previous Members.
But I would like to ask whether spare parts, such as battery packs, wheel set-ups, attachments, amongst others, be covered under the new import controls regime? New innovations have made it possible to modify these vehicles. With some tools and online tutorials, one can even do it yourself at home. While a strict import controls regime will help to prevent innocent consumers from being misled into purchasing poor quality non-compliant products, there still remains individuals and businesses who have the capabilities to illegally modify a once-compliant product. Can the Minister share the challenges of apprehending such errant businesses and individuals and what is being done to mitigate them?
I believe heavier penalties and education would be a big part of the solution. I hope LTA will make a public list available for easy viewing that clearly defines what is illegal and dangerous and to update a list of approved vehicles and parts on a regular basis to stay abreast with the ever-changing technology and innovations. It is also prudent to provide a wide range of approved PMDs, including highly affordable models and for a range of uses, from leisure to those for heavier, prolonged use by delivery riders. That said, will the implementation of the new import regime incur resources and will this lead to increased import levies and so on? I am concerned that the extra cost will be passed on to consumers.
Lastly, on a positive note, I am pleased to observe that the circuit breaker has brought out the sporty side of Singaporeans. Despite social distancing measures, Singaporeans have found ways to keep fit alone, from following online fitness videos at home to working out, jogging and cycling near their homes. As flexible work-from-home arrangements persist after the circuit breaker, I believe Singaporeans will continue to persevere with these endeavours to keep fit.
Cycling is truly a great activity for both families and individuals. It is also a useful mode of transportation. Currently, most power-assisted bikes or bicylces on the list of Approved PABs are generally for city use. Can the Ministry look into other ranges, like electric mountain bikes, which is a new innovation – you can mountain bikes fitted with electric powered trains that can run mountain bikes on trails – to cater to sports enthusiasts? So, whether this covers this range of products in the future would be useful.
Mr Speaker, small motorised vehicles are essential to a car-lite Singapore and to be able to embrace wide-spread usage, it is critical that they are safe to use on the roads and in homes. As the circuit breaker comes to an end soon, slightly more people will start moving about in the community. Let us hope riders and users will not forget to comply with the rules on safe riding on footpaths and roads. Mr Speaker, I support both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support both Bills. Both Bills certainly address the safety aspect. The Bills will ensure that motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) and power-assisted bicycles (PABs) meet the pre-set specifications to minimise fire risks and lower risks of accidents on pathways.
I am glad that it is more clearly stated now which mobility devices are permitted on which paths, thus retaining connectivity for non-motorised PMDs and cyclists while limiting the motorised vehicles to certain paths.
However, I have two points to make.
First, I urge the Ministry to consider requiring cyclists and non-motorised PMD users to dismount and push their devices when they approach areas with fitness equipment, hardcourts or playgrounds as there are children running around and the elderly using the fitness equipment. Most usually dismount or even avoid these areas, but for those who do not, it would be dangerous. I will share an example.
There are a few playgrounds in my constituency in Henderson Dawson where there are little house-like structures that children love to play in. Why? Because the children love to play hide-and-seek there with one another. However, it is dangerous when a child suddenly runs out of this \"home\", and onto the path of a rider. As for elderly, their reflexes might be slower, and if there is an oncoming rider, they may not be able to move out of its path in time. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tI suggest that the Minister should consider setting up regulations requiring cyclists and riders of non-motorised PMDs to dismount and push their vehicles when they are near playgrounds, exercise corners and any venues where people gather. This is because at these locations, there are always children running around and the elderly people walking nearby to use the exercise equipment, and accidents easily happen.
In my constituency, there are a few playgrounds with little houses and children love playing hide-and-seek there. When the kids suddenly run out of the small houses and dash onto the adjacent paths, they could be knocked down by the bicycles or PMDs. This is very dangerous. As for the elderly, their reflexes may be slower and if there are riders approaching, they may not be able to move away in time.
(In English): Second, it is essential for the Ministry to tailor its communications strategies and methods to different groups of users about where they can and cannot ride to prevent disputes and misunderstandings. It is important to explain the different aspects clearly and carefully so that all users know how to share the usage of paths responsibly. The public education programme should be continuous so that every cohort of riders and pedestrians is taught and reminded of the necessary etiquette on pathways. This is how we can maintain a safe environment for active mobility in Singapore.
Sir, I would like to conclude and look forward to the Ministry's response.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament earlier this year to enhance the safety of PMD riders, as well as pedestrians who shared the same public space with them. The present proposed Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is meant to further enhance the safety of PMD and PAB users by ensuring that the devices imported into Singapore meet the required safety standards.
Safety standards of PMDs and PABs came under scrutiny in 2019 as the number of PMDs catching fire, mostly during charging, had surged to a record high of 102 cases and there were 13 other fires related to PABs. These figures essentially translated into approximately one fire every three days.
In one of the worst cases, a homeowner died in hospital two days after he was rescued from a burning flat where the blaze was linked to three burnt e-scooters. And just recently on 20 May, three residents were taken to hospital due to a PAB fire. Not only do these fires impact the immediate users and family members of PMD/PAB users, they also affect the rest of the residents in the surrounding units as well.
The Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill is thus proposed with the view that we need to better safeguard the lives and property of PMD/PAB users by ensuring that these devices are safe for use and do not pose a threat to the users and those around them. I am in firm support of this.
Part 2, clauses 5 to 8 of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill lays out the conditions regarding the import of small motorised vehicles and Part 3, clauses 9 to 15 of the Bill lays out the enforcement conditions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Bill has made provisions for the visible part of the market by regulating commercial import and sale of small motorised vehicles, I would like to ask, as some of my other colleagues have alluded to, to what extent does the Bill cover the \"invisible\" or grey market, that is, online? For instance, will the Bill restrict individuals from purchasing non-compliant PMD/PAB from online retailers who are located overseas and then bringing in these vehicles for their own personal use? Similarly, how would the Bill be applied to individuals who import or buy such vehicles online for their family members?
A casual search on online platforms, such as Carousell, reveals that there are many individuals who are reselling PMDs and PABs. I would like to ask: would the Bill also apply to these individuals who are thus not importing new non-compliant vehicles for sale but actually reselling vehicles that do not meet present safety standards?
While I do not have exact figures, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be reasonable to assume that the present circuit breaker (CB) measures have resulted in an increase in online commercial activity. So, it might be good for the Government to consider the Bill against the platform of online sales and \"resales\".
In the same vein, Mr Speaker, the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill complements the earlier Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill that was passed in Parliament this year to further enhance the safety of pedestrians by broadening the coverage of the original Bill to cover path-connected spaces to facilitate active mobility while also enhancing enforcement against active mobility violations.
The Bill introduces a new definition of \"path-connected open spaces\" that enable the authorities to designate substantially-levelled and unenclosed open spaces that are surfaced, such as courtyards, plazas and atriums, as pedestrian-only paths, footpaths or shared paths.
I believe these amendments will be welcomed by pedestrians, especially young families or the elderly who frequent neighbourhood malls where some riders can often be seen riding across the open-air atriums of these malls to reach their destinations. I have received feedback that examples of some areas where this has been happening with frequency are Buangkok Square, Punggol's Oasis Terrace and Westgate, just to name three.
However, Mr Speaker, I believe that while these amendments to the Bill will provide an additional safeguard to the well-being of pedestrians, we also need to ensure that the policy does not eventually make existing users of PABs worse off, especially those individuals like food delivery riders who depend on PABs for their livelihood.
Due to the recent amendments of the Bill, many food delivery riders who used to own PMDs have switched to PABs to complete their deliveries and they would, sometimes, ride into the atriums of the malls before dismounting from their PABs. With the new proposed amendments to the Bill, adequate parking spaces for PABs must be provided nearby so that delivery riders can park their PABs safely and securely, without having to ride into the atrium of the mall or to find suitable parking spaces that might be some distance away. That might also, of course, also impinge their mode of delivery.
Other malls, such as Funan Mall and Westgate, that currently provide a thoroughfare for cyclists and PABs users, could possibly thus have to rethink how to design and designate the use of their thoroughfare in view of these amendments.
I would thus urge the relevant authorities to work closely with property owners to identify how they can redesign their spaces so that their spaces continue to remain accessible to users, while still being safe for pedestrians and consumers.
I do have some other areas of concerns, Mr Speaker, quoting fire investigation reports, which suggest that most PMD and PAB fires are caused by illegally modified units, especially those units that have modified battery compartments.
While the Government may introduce Bills to prevent unauthorised entry of non-compliant devices, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the Government's position is with regard to individuals or businesses who engage in the unauthorised modification of PMDs and PABs since these modifications are often one of the main causes of fire. These PMDs/PABs might be compliant with standards when they were first imported but then eventually became \"non-compliant\" over time due to modifications that could eventually endanger the lives of users and others around them.
For example, there was a resident in my constituency who actually ran an informal PAB/PMD modification workshop from his HDB flat. Not only did the vehicles he modified endanger the lives of users, he also created potential fire hazards for his own family and immediate neighbours as his home and the public corridor were cluttered with tools of his trade like spare parts, battery compartments and wires. I had worked with the various agencies like LTA, Town Council, HDB and our grassroots leaders to try and address this issue but we were not quite clear about what guidelines with regard to legislation we could use to effect any change on the resident. The resident has since moved out but I believe problems like this might exist.
So, if these modified vehicles are indeed the main culprits of fire, then I urge the Government to take strong enforcement actions against owners of such vehicles and individuals or businesses that provide unauthorised modification services.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments are not only meant to further enhance and safeguard the well-being of PMD/PAB users, they are also meant to further protect other stakeholders, such as their families, neighbours and pedestrians.
As such, notwithstanding my clarifications, I conclude my speech in firm support of both Bills.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their queries, suggestions and support for the Bill.
Let me first address the points raised by Members that relate to the provisions in the two Bills before I address points on the broader active mobility landscape.
I am glad that many Members spoke up in support of the import controls regime, which will complement existing regulations on retailers against the display, advertisement and sale of non-compliant devices, and regulations on end users against the use of non-compliant devices.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Darryl David, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Melvin Yong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Mr Gan Thiam Poh had asked whether the coverage of the regime would be sufficiently wide, and some have suggested that we go even further to stem an inflow of unauthorised devices. All fully-assembled motorised PMDs and PABs will need LTA's approval for import. This will apply regardless of who imports them, whether by a wholesaler or retailer to sell, or by an individual buying via an online platform, and regardless of the purpose for which the device is imported.
Members of Parliament have raised a range of views on whether to regulate the import of spare parts. While the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill does not cover the import of spare parts, some Members of Parliament have called for this to be regulated, since such parts may be used to create non-compliant devices. Others have pointed out that this would inconvenience users who source for their own spare parts and affect competition in the market for repairs.
For a start, we will apply the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill to fully assembled PMDs and PABs, but may, after monitoring the situation, extend import controls to cover partially assembled or completely unassembled vehicles, if necessary. LTA will continue to engage and work with industry partners on the process as we implement the import control regime.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira raised concerns over whether the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill would increase costs for businesses and consumers. We will work to keep the import process simple and import approval and application fees low. Details will be released at a later date.
To Mr Melvin Yong's query on whether the Bill will affect the Free Trade Agreements that Singapore has signed with other countries, MOT will administer the import control regime in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner, and is also working closely with MTI to ensure that Singapore continues to comply with our international trade obligations.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira mentioned that the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill would put in place an importer licensing regime. To clarify, clause 5 of the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill does not do this. It simply requires any entity that imports devices to obtain import approval from LTA for each import transaction. At the moment, we do not have plans to license the importer as that could be an additional regulatory burden and may restrict competition, as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has pointed out.
Mr Dennis Tan asked why we took so long to put in place the import control regime. MOT and LTA have taken a calibrated approach in introducing device-related regulations. We had already put in place regulations that enforce against the sale, display, advertisement of non-compliant PMDs in 2017. As the number of non-compliant devices being used on public paths remains significant and, after receiving feedback from Members of Parliament, including Mr Dennis Tan, we embarked on an extensive study of implementing import controls, bearing in mind that it has to be done so in accordance with our FTA obligations. We have now, therefore, put in place this new piece in our regulatory framework.
Let me now move on to address questions posed by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai about our forfeiture regime in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2020. There are currently more than 1,500 non-compliant devices held in LTA's holding yards. As Mr Louis Ng had rightly pointed out, many of these devices may be dangerous and pose significant fire risks. LTA has already put in place measures to mitigate these risks, including storing them in sheltered areas to avoid exposing them to harsh conditions, 24/7 monitoring of the holding yards, and installing fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems. Our proposal to shorten the forfeiture process for dangerous vehicles and things will enable LTA to better manage the risks from their prolonged storage. I would like to reassure Mr Dennis Tan that these vehicles are disposed of in a safe manner in LTA-appointed scrap-yards, where LTA will receive the residual value of the device, which is small. The batteries are also dismantled and sold off to battery recyclers appointed by NEA.
Even as we seek to curb the risks arising from non-compliant vehicles, we have not lost sight of the importance of preserving the property rights of individuals to their devices and things, bearing in mind that as I have explained in my opening speech, there could be legitimate uses of non-compliant devices. Mr Murali Pillai's concern on whether LTA is better placed to forfeit such vehicles or whether they should be left to the Courts to better safeguard individual property rights and due process, LTA will only seize and forfeit vehicles after LTA and relevant authorities have gathered supporting evidence and is reasonably certain that the vehicle was connected to the commission of an offence under the Active Mobility Act, Road Traffic Act or Small Motorised (Vehicles) Safety Bill. The prosecution for cases involving the devices will remain independent of the forfeiture.
There were also questions about the device disposal process and LTA's powers to return devices before disposal. LTA is required to provide a reasonable 30-day period for objections to be submitted before the disposal of the device.
This recognises that there may be legitimate claims to the seized vehicles. For instance, an individual whose device was stolen might have a legitimate claim for the PMD to be returned to him since he may have obtained an import approval to bring in a non-compliant device for R&D purposes. While Members of Parliament have suggested that LTA should not return any non-compliant seized vehicles at all despite legitimate claims, this may unfairly undermine the property rights of vehicle owners. That said, vehicle owners should bear responsibility for assessing whether their devices are safe, and should safely dispose devices that may become dangerous.
As to Mr Louis Ng's other question on notifying the owner before disposal, let me clarify that the requirements for LTA to give notice to the owner of the vehicle, under sections 45 or 46 of the Active Mobility Act, continue to apply. The only difference with clause 6(b) of the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill is that, for dangerous vehicles or things, LTA will not have to wait out for 30 days before forfeiture.
But let me assure Members that, where possible, LTA will reach out to the owner to notify them that their device is to be disposed of, on top of publication in the Gazette. The public notice in the Gazette is necessary as there will be situations where LTA is not otherwise aware of the owner of the vehicle or thing. LTA also publishes the disposal notice on its OneMotoring website to facilitate public awareness.
Let me move on to address questions about expanding the public path network by allowing path-connected open spaces to be declared as public paths. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has rightly observed, this extension complements our other efforts to ensure public path safety. Once these areas are public paths, all the other active mobility regulations, including speed limits, restrictions against reckless device usage, and the Code of Conduct, will apply.
The amendment in the Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill will thus ensure connectivity for path users, provide greater clarity and assurance to all path users, and promote responsible and sustainable usage of the paths for all.
To answer Mr Murali Pillai's and Mr Dennis Tan's queries, LTA will specify which path-connected open space is a pedestrian-only area, a footpath, or a shared path. Most path-connected open spaces will be demarcated as footpaths, similar to the approach taken for paths today. LTA will work with local stakeholders on this and steps will be taken to demarcate the different types of paths by markings or signboards if deemed necessary.
To answer Mr Murali Pillai's question, LTA and Town Councils had earlier evaluated that void decks and the frontage of commercial spaces (which are today excluded from the public path system) were not critical for active mobility connectivity and had safety concerns, such as numerous blind spots. These spaces are currently regulated under Town Council by-laws.
As for Ms Joan Pereira's concern about certain areas, such as hard courts and playgrounds, LTA will work with the Town Councils to conduct ground enforcement and ensure safe device usage. Town Councils could also consider whether erecting physical barriers around playgrounds would be appropriate for keeping children out of harm's way. We will also keep up our education efforts to remind users to slow down when nearing areas with potential blind spots or which may be crowded, such as bus stops or playgrounds.
Many Members of Parliament have also taken the opportunity at this Second Reading of the two Bills to raise issues not directly concerned with either Bill, but on Active Mobility more generally. With the permission of Mr Speaker, I will deal with these very briefly.
Ultimately, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has pointed out, the effectiveness of all our regulations boil down to enforcement. LTA has a comprehensive regime that enforces against non-compliant devices at multiple touchpoints, beyond registration and inspection. As I have mentioned earlier, in 2019 alone, LTA detected a total of 972 users riding non-compliant PMDs and PABs, and seized, forfeited and disposed of their devices.
I would like to assure Mr Dennis Tan that we are constantly improving our enforcement actions against illegal device usage. LTA has significantly grown its enforcement footprint to about 200 enforcement officers, allowing for more frequent patrols. LTA also works closely with enforcement officers across various agencies. To augment LTA's enforcement efforts, I agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we should enlist the aid of technology and the wider community. And we have done so. LTA has launched an 18-month trial of mobile closed-circuit televisions at hotspots to better detect offences, such as speeding. The \"Report PMD/PAB Incident\" function on the MyTransport.SG app also allows eye witnesses to report instances of errant behaviour.
As Mr Gan Thiam Poh has suggested, LTA has recruited Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to engage residents on active mobility rules and regulations. As of May 2020, we have over 1,000 AMP volunteers across 73 teams.
I would like to assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Daryl David and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will continue to come down hard, especially on retailers who sell non-compliant devices and individuals who illegally modify devices. This limits the circulation of non-compliant devices and reduces the likelihood that consumers purchase them inadvertently.
LTA passed amendments earlier this year to significantly increase the penalties for retailer offences and will require all retailers to send in their e-scooters for inspections before sale. We also require e-scooters to undergo regular inspections to ensure device safety and deter against illegal modification. LTA also monitors feedback relating to illegal modification of devices closely and conducts regularly checks on workshops and retailers to ensure compliance.
To answer Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s question about young offenders, the provisions in these current Bills do not stipulate a minimum age, but our Courts retain discretion to consider the circumstances of the case, including the age of the individual and the laws on sentencing of young offenders, in deciding the actual punishment to be meted out. On the observation that young riders have been committing active mobility offences, we recently passed amendments to require riders to be at least 16 years old to ride an e-scooter without supervision. We are also targeting younger riders in schools with our education efforts, such as the Safe Riding Programme, and like Mr Dennis Tan suggested, enhancing public education efforts, including reaching out through Active Mobility Patrol volunteers. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has joined us in emphasising the importance of public education and engagement by designating this as a focus for their current term.
Another area of focus for the AMAP this year is to study extending third-party liability insurance requirements to individual device users, as Mr Melvin Yong has spoken about. AMAP and LTA are already working with the insurance industry to study the risk pool, design and structure of individual insurance options. In the meantime, we strongly encourage individual active mobility device riders to purchase third-party liability insurance for their own protection against third-party claims.
Since May 2019, we have stepped up the level of active mobility enforcement consistently in view of rising public path safety concerns. I assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that even during the circuit breaker period, LTA has continued to mount regular active mobility enforcement operations to enforce against errant riders.
I would like to also assure Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Dennis Tan that LTA continues to work closely with food delivery companies to ensure that they behave responsibly, including ensuring that their riders use devices that comply with active mobility regulations. It has been challenging for our enforcement officers to balance all aspects of their enforcement duties with their concurrent responsibilities to enforce against breaches of safe distancing measures. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our enforcement officers for their service.
With the necessary infrastructure and regulatory regime, I am optimistic that active mobility will be more widely adopted. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira have noted, the active mobility landscape will continue to evolve.
LTA will remain open to including new devices types in its publicly available list of approved device models, or consider new device safety standards for use on paths and roads, provided they are suitable for our local context.
Ensuring fire and device safety is the responsibility of every device user – it is necessary to protect riders themselves and their loved ones. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had expressed concern over a recent fire incident in Yishun. Even as we tighten our regulatory regimes at different levels, let me take this opportunity to remind all device users to practise safe charging habits. Devices should not be left charging without monitoring, or overnight. Users should not modify the electrical systems of their devices and should only use original power adaptors and approved battery models for that vehicle type. LTA is working with SCDF to strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes.
I concur with Mr Liang Eng Hwa that we should strive to ensure that infrastructure is more than adequate for the active mobility device population. Mr Liang also asked if we should set an effective life span for approved PMDs. I would like to share that there is currently no intention to do so as the regular periodic inspection regime will ensure that the devices remain compliant and safe for use. Even though the PMD population has right-sized following the November 2019 footpath prohibition, we are nonetheless pressing on with the provision of more active mobility infrastructure, extending the cycling path network to 1,320 km by 2030 as I had shared with this House in March 2020.
To Mr Dennis Tan's query, we had planned for eight in 10 HDB households to be minutes away from the expanded cycling path network by 2026, where PMD riders will only need to push their PMDs for a short distance. This will put us on a more sustainable trajectory, as active mobility adoption continues to increase.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMr Speaker, we remain committed to ensuring a safe active mobility landscape, especially with regard to path and fire safety. The Bills today help to ensure that devices are safe by controlling their import into Singapore. They also allow LTA to shorten the forfeiture process for devices that pose significant safety risks, and expand the public path network to include certain open spaces, so that active mobility devices can be used safely in accordance with our regulations.
Even as we tighten our regulatory regime at different levels, all device users need to use original power adaptors and approved battery models for that vehicle type. Do not be careless and leave devices charging overnight without monitoring.
The Government will strive to ensure that infrastructure is more than adequate for the active mobility device population. We plan to expand the cycling path network by 2026. Then, eight in 10 HDB households will be minutes away from the expanded cycling path network. If our plans come to fruition, LTA will also expand the cycling path network to 1,320 km by 2030.
(In English): We have come a long way in our journey on the active mobility front. We may not have had all the answers right from the beginning, but I am thankful for the guidance, the feedback and support Members of this House have given me and my predecessors over the years. To quote Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, one of our greatest advocates for PMDs safety, \"Everyone has a shared responsibility for staying safe in their environment.\" Indeed, the Government cannot do this alone. We need the collective effort of everyone – the active mobility users, the retailers, the pedestrians and other road users. We will continue with our efforts to work towards a safer, more sustainable active mobility landscape. Let us all stay safe together, active together, SG Together. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? None.
[(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)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Active Mobility (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2020 amends the Active Mobility Act to shorten the forfeiture process for seized devices which LTA has assessed to be dangerous and to expand the public path network to include certain open spaces so that our public path network can accommodate the largest range of users and active mobility devices can be used safely in accordance with our regulations.
This Bill, as with the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Bill, supports our vision of active mobility as a safe and sustainable mode of transport for Singaporeans. In the debate, we have just had on the Small Motorised Vehicles Bill, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any additional questions or views. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min]. (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":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement be taken now. As Deputy Prime Minister's Statement is scheduled to telecast at 3.30 pm, I ask Members for their agreement to allow Deputy Prime Minister to make his Statement at 3.30 pm.\"
[(proc text) Question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that, Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement be taken now. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Is the Deputy Prime Minister ready?
The Second Minister for Education and Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Speaker, maybe just wait for a few minutes. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the building. He is coming up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Plans in Our Continuing Fight Against COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker and Members of this House, this is our fourth Budget this year. I presented the Solidarity Budget in this House seven weeks ago. At that time, there were about 1.1 million cases and 62,000 deaths due to COVID-19 globally. The situation has since deteriorated sharply.
Globally, over 5,000,000 people have been infected and over 340,000 lives have been lost. More people are expected to be infected as countries come to grips with what it takes to contain this virus.
COVID-19 has disrupted the global economy. Lockdowns and movement restrictions have exerted a huge cost, with major job losses in many economies.
In the US, the unemployment rates for April has increased to 14.7%. This is the highest level since the Great Depression. New jobless claims also continue to be high in May. The Eurozone economy is estimated to have contracted 3.8% in the first quarter of 2020 – its sharpest decline on record. The IMF has predicted that Asia will see zero growth in 2020 – the worst growth performance in 60 years.
Societies and communities have been severely strained. In some countries, bitter differences over how to deal with the pandemic have deepened societal fault lines. The road ahead is fraught with uncertainties.
The key uncertainty arises from the virus itself. There is still much that we do not know about COVID-19. For example, what is the risk of transmission by asymptomatic carriers? Are recovered patients immune to future infections and if so, for how long? Scientists and medical experts are divided.
It is also uncertain how the pandemic will evolve in the coming months. Will there be significant mutations of the virus? Will there be a resurgence in infections as restrictions on activities and travel are gradually lifted around the world? How soon will a vaccine be ready? There is a wide range of views among experts – from five months to beyond 18 months for a viable vaccine. Making the vaccine available globally will also be a huge challenge.
The situation is fast-evolving and global efforts at containing the pandemic are uneven and uncoordinated. These uncertainties affect whether and when countries will be able to contain the pandemic successfully. In turn, this affects how far and how fast the global economy can recover.
As a small open economy, Singapore's economic outlook depends critically on the state of the global economy. With COVID-19, the global outlook depends on how the global community is able to contain the outbreak.
Our economy has been deeply impacted by the global shocks. This morning, the Ministry of Trade and Industry further downgraded Singapore's GDP growth forecast from -4% to -1% to -7% to -4%.
Outward-oriented sectors such as manufacturing, wholesale trade and transportation and storage have been affected by both weak external demand and supply chain disruptions. The circuit breaker, which was put in place to bring down community transmission decisively, also affected many businesses that could not operate offsite. Based on preliminary estimates, the resident unemployment rate rose to 3.3% in March 2020 – the highest since December 2009.
As announced by the Multi-Ministry Task Force on 19 May, we are preparing to reopen the economy in three phases, guided by public health considerations. As we open up progressively, we will continue to give more support to businesses which are not yet ready to reopen and workers who are still unable to resume work. The key is to reopen safely and this needs to be done carefully.
As we have learnt from the experience of other countries, life will not return to what it was before COVID-19. When we reopen and have more activities and interactions, we are likely to see a rise in community cases. We must therefore be psychologically prepared for setbacks before we safely transition to a new normal and build a COVID-safe nation.
Over the coming months as we transition to the next phase, many of our precautionary measures will remain in place. The global economy is unlikely to recover quickly. We must be prepared for tough times in the months ahead. This is a challenge for this generation of Singaporeans. It is a test of our strength and fortitude, a test of our resilience and unity. How we respond will define us as a people.
The past few months, especially the circuit breaker, have been tough for everyone. There are worries and anxieties. Some have lost their jobs or suffered pay cuts. Fresh graduates are worried about finding jobs. Mid-career Singaporeans who support both their children and elderly parents are anxious about job stability. Businesses are concerned about cash flow and staying afloat. Families have found it challenging to balance working from home and adapting to home-based learning.
COVID-19 has also hit the vulnerable groups in the community. We have seen more families seeking counselling for marital conflicts and family violence.
Our path forward will be tough, but we will journey together.
Today, I will introduce this $33 billion Supplementary Budget for the next phase of our fight against COVID-19.
The central focus of this Budget is jobs. This Budget will continue to support workers and businesses who remain affected by border closures and safe distancing measures. Given the significant changes in the global economy ahead, we will provide support to enable our businesses and workers to adapt, transform and seize new opportunities – to emerge stronger. We aim to enable workers and businesses to go through this difficult period together in a synergistic way.
We will also provide additional support to our households and community to cope with the disruptions and seize new opportunities in adversity. This will help us build a stronger and more inclusive society.
I will also provide funding to frontline agencies to continue our fight against the pandemic. This will boost our clinical management of cases and our swabbing and testing capabilities.
The coming months will test our resolve as a society and as a people. We will need to adapt and stay resolute and resilient amidst a rapidly evolving, uncertain situation.
In that light, I have decided to call this the Fortitude Budget – courage in adversity.
Together with the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, we are dedicating close to $100 billion to support our people in this battle, which is almost 20% of our GDP. This is a landmark package and a necessary response to an unprecedented crisis.
Part of this Supplementary Budget also provides $3.8 billion for the measures, including the enhancements to the Jobs Support Scheme announced on 21 April 2020 for the extended circuit breaker period.
A distinctive feature of this Budget is that we are setting aside a bigger contingent sum. We are dealing with unprecedented uncertainty across all fronts. A bigger contingent sum will allow us to respond swiftly to fast-changing situations. I will speak more on this later.
Before I get into the details, I thank our partners – NTUC, Singapore Business Federation, Future Economy Council members, Emerging Stronger Task Force members, social sector agency partners and leaders, and many citizens and groups who have given us very useful feedback. Your inputs have been valuable. I also thank my team in MOF who has been working non-stop since our first Unity Budget this year.
The central focus of this Budget is jobs. Large parts of the last three Budgets were directed at protecting the livelihoods of our workers. In this Budget, we will do even more.
Today, over 140,000 enterprises employ 1.9 million local employees across various industries. All these enterprises are facing not only immediate challenges but also structural challenges that threaten their survival. Some of our workers will lose their jobs. Some of these jobs will not come back. Other jobs will look different going into the future.
Our economy is undergoing a sea change. Even as we navigate through the current storm, we must stay on course and set our direction right to prevail over the challenges ahead.
The tripartite structure that has served Singapore so well over the years will need to be reinforced. Each of us must do our part. Businesses need to adapt and transform and workers need to adapt and re-skill.
You have my assurance that the Government will provide strong support to bring all parties together to navigate through these turbulent waters.
I will cover three inter-related subjects in three parts. First, how we provide timely support to businesses and workers. Second, how we support businesses to transform to secure the future of our workers. Third, how we will help Singaporeans upskill and re-skill to seize opportunities now and in the future.
Many businesses have been hard-hit by the simultaneous demand and supply shocks caused by COVID-19. I had a virtual meeting with the Singapore Business Federation and the Future Economy Council members and Emerging Stronger Task Force co-chiars last week. While businesses appreciated the support over the past three Budgets, they recognised that the Government cannot carry businesses indefinitely. Businesses are trying hard to get back on their feet and reopen safely as they emerge from the circuit breaker. We are fully behind them and will further strengthen our support for businesses on the 3Cs – cash flow, costs and credit.
I will help businesses on the first \"C\", cash flow, through the Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS, which supports firms in retaining and paying their workers.
When the circuit breaker was imposed, I increased the wage support under the JSS to 75% of the first $4,600 of wages in April for every local employee. When the circuit breaker was extended in May, I extended the higher level of support to May. This is because most firms had to either stop operating or operate at a much-reduced level. The temporary increase in support was planned for only two months.
Coming out of the circuit breaker, businesses will not be able to return immediately to pre-circuit breaker levels of operations. Hence, I reviewed the original JSS schedule with fellow Ministers and will make three enhancements to the scheme. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a summary to all Members of this House.
The first enhancement is to increase the duration of JSS payouts by one month for all firms. I previously announced that the JSS would cover nine months, computed based on wages paid to local employees up to July 2020. To provide additional relief for firms as they safely re-open after the circuit breaker period, I will provide an additional month of support. This will be computed based on the wages paid in August 2020. This support will be at the same levels as those provided during the non-circuit breaker months. Firms will receive this additional month of support in the October 2020 JSS payout.
The second enhancement is for firms that cannot resume operations immediately after the circuit breaker. For such firms, I will continue providing wage support at 75% until August 2020 or when they are allowed to re-open, whichever is earlier. This includes retail outlets, gym and fitness studios and cinemas.
The third enhancement is to refine the classification of firms in the different JSS tiers. This arose from feedback from industry associations and businesses. I will increase the level of wage support for firms in sectors that are more severely impacted, from the previous 25%, to either 75% or 50%.
Firms in the aerospace sector, including those in Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul, will now receive 75% wage support. Firms in the retail, and marine and offshore sectors will now receive 50% support. The full list of eligible sectors and the qualifying criteria are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]
Eligible firms will receive a back-payment to top up their previous JSS payouts to the higher level of support. This retrospective payment will be made by July.
For the built environment sector, which includes construction, we will raise the wage support to 75%. This sector will be affected by the phased and gradual resumption of activities. This 75% support will only apply to wages paid between June and August.
In total, these three enhancements to the JSS will cost $2.9 billion. Through the JSS, we are flowing a total of $23.5 billion to firms to support wage costs for 10 months.
I urge leaders in our industries to use this additional cushion to retain your staff, speed up adaptation, and move towards a viable business model. Please make full use of the schemes available to train workers and upgrade your corporate capabilities. Time is running out, please act fast!
I am heartened that some firms which have not been as badly affected by the pandemic have returned or donated their JSS payouts. Thank you! I encourage other firms that are able, to do so as well.
I will also provide support to businesses for the second \"C\", costs.
During the circuit breaker period, we provided a Foreign Worker Levy waiver and rebate to support businesses employing migrant workers that had to suspend operations.
Some businesses will not be allowed to resume operations on-site immediately after the circuit breaker is lifted. I will extend the Foreign Worker Levy waiver and rebate for up to two months for such businesses. This will include all businesses in the construction, marine and offshore and process sectors. The waiver will be 100% in June, and 50% in July. The rebate will be $750 in June and $375 in July.
To help businesses manage costs in these challenging times, the Government will defer the planned increase in CPF contribution rates for senior workers by one year, from 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2022. The CPF Transition Offset scheme will similarly be deferred until after the higher contribution rates take effect. I thank the NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation for supporting this.
Many businesses have also given feedback that while the JSS provides support on wage costs, they are facing difficulties with rental costs. This is especially tough on SMEs.
Given that businesses will need more time and support to get back on their feet post-circuit breaker, we will now do more. We will significantly add to the support for rental costs earlier provided through the Property Tax Rebate for 2020 in the Unity and Resilience Budgets. We will also expect landlords to do something, and that will be legislated.
First, I will provide a cash grant to offset the rental costs of SME tenants, to be disbursed through property owners. Taken together with the Property Tax Rebate, the Government will, in effect, offset about two months of rental for qualifying SME tenants of commercial properties, and about one month for qualifying SME tenants of industrial and office properties. The grant will be disbursed automatically to property owners from end-July. This grant will cost about $2 billion. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex B-2.]
Second, the Minister for Law will introduce a new Bill next week. This will mandate that landlords contribute by granting a rental waiver to their SME tenants who have suffered a significant revenue drop in the past few months.
We deliberated on this matter very carefully. The Government does not ordinarily intervene in contracts after they have been entered into. However, as the Minister for Law had explained in his Second Reading speech on the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill, in exceptional situations, such as this, the Government needs to intervene, through legislation, with temporary targeted steps to safeguard the economic structure for the common good.
The new Bill will also cover provisions on temporary relief from onerous contractual terms, such as excessive late payment interest or charges. It will also allow tenants to repay their arrears through instalments.
If the Bill is passed by Parliament, SME tenants in commercial properties who have suffered a significant revenue drop will benefit from a total of four months of rental relief – shared equally between the Government and landlords. Other SME tenants in industrial and office properties will also be given some relief. SMEs also already benefit from temporary relief from rental payment obligations till October. Together, these will provide substantial support on rental costs, for our SMEs.
The Government will also continue to lead by example in supporting our tenants.
I will provide two more months of rental waivers for commercial tenants and hawkers. The total rental waiver will now be four months for commercial tenants. Stallholders in hawker centres and markets managed by Government agencies will get a total of five months of rental waivers. For industrial, office, and agricultural tenants of Government agencies, I will provide one more month of rental waiver. They will now receive a total of two months of rental waiver.
We will also ensure that these measures flow through to help sub-tenants, many of whom are SMEs. This will dovetail with measures for SMEs being studied by the Minister for Law.
Let me move to the last \"C\", credit.
We introduced and enhanced various financing schemes, such as the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and the Enterprise Financing Scheme in the past Budgets. The take-up has been high. The schemes have catalysed $4.5 billion of loans so far, benefiting 5,000 businesses. This is more than three times the amount of loans catalysed for the whole of 2019.
MAS, together with banks, finance companies and insurers, has also introduced relief measures. These help individuals and SMEs to continue servicing their loans and paying for insurance coverage.
Notwithstanding this enhanced support, business leaders, including at my virtual meeting with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Future Economy Council, tell me that in this environment, some promising start-ups in Singapore are finding it hard to raise capital and develop their businesses. Left unaddressed, this could set back our efforts and result in the loss of good jobs and good companies. It is important to preserve what has been built up in our innovation eco-system so painstakingly over the years.
To bridge this financing gap, I will provide financing support for promising start-ups. This will help them sustain their innovation and entrepreneurship journey. I will set aside $285 million, to catalyse and crowd in at least another $285 million in matching private investments. This is in addition to the $300 million I had set aside under the Unity Budget for deep-tech start-ups to gain better access to capital, expertise and industry networks under Startup SG Equity. These start-ups can also make full use of the SGUnited Traineeship scheme, which I will cover later, to bring in graduating students with deep interests in the fields they are exploring and build up our talent base.
Government agencies have also been rolling out support packages to address other sector-specific needs. We have introduced packages for the aviation, tourism, land transport, arts and culture, financial and maritime sectors.
We will introduce further support for the built environment sector, which includes construction. There are many significant infrastructure projects, including public infrastructure, such as MRT lines and public housing that we must continue to plan and build.
I have covered the higher tier of JSS support for locals who are in the sector, including project managers, engineers, architects, draughtsman and quantity surveyors. I have also covered the Foreign Worker Levy rebate and waiver to support businesses in this sector, so that they can continue to play their part in building Singapore.
I will now provide support to co-share the additional costs that will be incurred by businesses who will need to meet additional requirements in order to resume their existing projects safely.
The Minister for National Development and BCA will announce the details later.
Taken together, our support in past Budgets and this Fortitude Budget will help tide businesses through their periods of closure and to retain and rebuild core capabilities. Based on our current re-opening plans, we expect most businesses to re-open by July. This support would enable most sectors to recover in the coming months.
But some sectors, such as aviation and tourism, will take longer to re-open fully, given the restrictions on global travel for the foreseeable future. The Government will consider providing additional help, depending on the situation and longer term shape of these industries and plans for the economy. In the interim, I urge businesses to make good use of the existing support and consider how to transform for a post-COVID world.
I have covered the support that we are providing to businesses in the near term, to save jobs. But we must also think ahead. To ensure good job opportunities remain available for Singaporeans, we must work to build strong and viable businesses for the future.
I set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce to plan for the post-COVID world to study how we can emerge stronger. The Emerging Stronger Taskforce will work with the Future Economy Council Sub-Committees to study how sectors can adjust to the many changes that are coming. They will draw on support from industry experts and consultancy firms to come up with actionable recommendations.
For the sectors that are more badly hit, and which also face significant structural disruptions, we will undertake a review on the medium-term outlook and our responses to adapt to the changes ahead.
After observing companies for several years now since we started work on the Future Economy, I found that companies that are adapting to structural changes early are also adapting better to this sudden shock. If change is a constant, innovation and resilience are simply manifestations of our ability to deal with change – be it persistent or sudden.
The Emerging Stronger Task Force is studying two key shifts: the rise of digital transformation and the decline in support for globalisation; and shifts in global supply chains. These shifts were already taking place, but COVID-19 has accelerated them. Our businesses must adapt and we will support them in this.
Building on the momentum of digital transformation, the first key shift is in the digital transformation. We will not go back to our old ways. Digital solutions will become more deeply embedded in our lives. Telecommuting, online food and services, and virtual events are now the norm. A McKinsey study shows that we have seen the equivalent of five years of consumer and business digital adoption in just eight weeks since the COVID-19 pandemic started.
Indeed, COVID-19 has done what many CEOs and CTOs found hard to do – accelerate digitalisation! This is a good thing. But I know that many businesses fear being left behind and shut out of the future. Businesses that are not digitally connected have been hit hard during the circuit breaker.
Earlier, we had been supporting businesses strongly to go digital. I am glad that businesses are now taking this seriously. To accelerate change, I will allocate more than $500 million to support businesses in their digital transformation. Those who are willing to transform will not be left behind. Our augmented support for digital transformation in this Budget has three groups.
First, for those who have not begun using digital tools, we will help them to get on board with digital transformation, building on current momentum. For example, in e-payments, the take-up by businesses has risen sharply – 50,000 more businesses have adopted PayNow Corporate since April this year. IMDA, NEA, JTC, HDB and Enterprise Singapore will provide a bonus of $300 per month over five months to encourage more stallholders in hawker centres, wet markets, coffee shops, and industrial canteens to use e-payments and avoid having to handle cash. They should not be left behind as the whole economy transforms.
Second, we will enhance our support for businesses which are ready to take their basic payment and invoicing functions digital. This will be coupled with support to keep their business running and even acquire new revenue lines. We will help businesses to implement safe management measures and business continuity strategies to adapt to new post-COVID norms, an area that the Singapore Business Federation suggested supporting.
We had earlier enhanced SMEs Go Digital to help businesses adopt digital solutions to cope with circuit breaker measures. Under SMEs Go Digital, we have rolled out the Food Delivery and e-commerce Booster Packages. More than 10,000 food services and retail establishments have benefited from these packages and gone online. To give a further boost, we will introduce a Digital Resilience Bonus to help businesses take their next step to digitalise. We will start with the F&B and retail sectors, which are most affected by the safe distancing requirements as we re-open the economy. Eligible businesses can receive a payout of up to $5,000 if they adopt PayNow Corporate and e-invoicing, as well as business process or e-commerce solutions. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex B-3.]
Third, businesses which already have basic digital capabilities, should deepen their digital transformation. We will help them make use of advanced digital tools in an integrated way. The Digital Resilience Bonus will have an additional tier of $5,000 for F&B and retail businesses which also incorporate advanced solutions. I will also set aside $250 million to help businesses digitalise in partnership with platform solution providers and industry champions. For example, developing Offline-to-Online business models to access new domestic revenue streams and international demand. This will mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on revenues.
Apart from businesses, our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning must also make full use of digital technologies for learning. MOE has been doing this from the time I was Education Minister. The Student Learning Space (SLS), designed as a platform for self-directed learning, has been instrumental in supporting our teachers for home-based learning during the circuit breaker. The Government will harness the talents of our best software engineers, AI experts, learning scientists and educators to develop the relevant pedagogy and build new digital platforms for online teaching and learning, and integrate the latest advancements in AI and learning sciences. The National Research Foundation and MOE will provide more details later.
We are committing our fullest support to help our businesses ride the wave of digital transformation and technological changes. But success will require strong partnerships across the economy.
To catalyse partnerships, we will introduce a set of National Innovation Challenges, riding on the success of the Open Innovation Platform. With the National Innovation Challenges, we will focus on partnerships to develop industry-led solutions to the challenges that all businesses are grappling with: starting with how we can reopen Singapore safely – to achieve safe workplaces, safe homes, safe schools and safe commuting.
The relevant agencies will articulate the critical problems that we seek to solve, or the leap that we are hoping to make. We hope that corporates, start-ups and others in the private and people sectors can step forward to form partnerships to provide solutions that can be scaled. The Government will provide support for this innovation drive. The National Research Foundation and the Ministers for Communications and Information and for Trade and Industry will share more details on these initiatives.
COVID-19 has also accelerated the decline in support for globalisation and disrupted supply chains. Governments and businesses are re-evaluating their risks. There will be a premium on resilience. In this new world, we must continue to build on our reputation as a trusted, neutral, and reliable Global-Asia node. Last month, Singapore issued a Joint Ministerial Statement alongside 10 other countries affirming our commitment to upholding supply chain connectivity and resilience during the COVID-19 situation. These links will support our businesses to go digital and global. By staying successful, they will create good jobs for our people.
For example, in the Networked Trade Platform, we have set up customs declaration data exchanges with countries in the region and further afield, such as Australia, China and the Netherlands to facilitate trade. Our Grow Digital programme is also helping SMEs to access overseas markets through e-commerce platforms.
I have spoken on the first two thrusts – providing timely support for our businesses, and accelerating transformation. By supporting our businesses to stay viable, they save jobs and also create good jobs for the future. I now turn to the third thrust, on supporting our workers to secure these opportunities. An adaptable and skilled workforce will in turn power our businesses. This is a synergy that we must seek to achieve.
In the tough months ahead, we must be prepared for some job losses. While we will try to preserve jobs in the midst of this crisis, we cannot protect every job. However, you have my assurance that the Government will protect every worker. Our promise to workers is this. As long as you are willing to pick up new skills and adapt, to access available opportunities to work or learn, the Government will provide our strongest support to help you.
Over the years, we have built up a strong base of support to help workers train and get good jobs, especially in sectors with growth potential. In the Unity Budget, I announced enhancements, in the form of the Next Bound of SkillsFuture. This included the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package. I also enhanced our placement and training programmes in the Unity and Resilience Budgets, to boost support for our workers in sectors that were more severely impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak.
In this Budget, I will launch an SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, to create close to 100,000 opportunities in three areas – 40,000 jobs, 25,000 traineeships and 30,000 skills training. This will support the immediate needs of our workers and raise the skills of our people for future jobs. Together, these cater to workers with different skill levels and career aspirations, and to the needs of diverse firms across industries.
The first component in this SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is jobs. We will continue to expand the number of job opportunities, in both the public and private sectors, to more than 40,000. The public sector will bring forward our hiring to meet long-term needs, like early childhood education, healthcare and long-term care. Together with jobs to meet short-term needs related to COVID-19 operations, such as healthcare declaration assistants and swabbers, the public sector will create 15,000 jobs.
Our agencies will also work with businesses to create 25,000 jobs. Many businesses have stepped forward, with openings in a wide range of job roles, such as computer engineers and machine operators. I encourage more businesses to do even more in the coming months.
To equip our people to take on these jobs, we will expand capacity in Career Conversion Programmes, such as in Place-and-Train conversion programmes under the Adapt and Grow Initiative, and Company-Led Training programmes under the TechSkills Accelerator or TeSA initiative. TeSA has been successful since its launch in Budget 2016. As of December 2019, over a thousand have been trained in partnership with industry leaders such as Accenture, DBS Bank and Google. Over 90% of them have been emplaced in ICT-related roles. I look forward to more industry partners coming on board, to help prepare more Singaporeans for a future where digitalisation becomes increasingly important.
The second component in this SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is traineeships. We will provide jobseekers with a wider range of traineeships to gain industry-relevant experience. Trainees may be emplaced in jobs with their host companies at the end of their traineeships. Even if they do not, they would have learnt valuable skills for other jobs. In total, we target to create about 25,000 traineeship positions this year. Of this, 21,000 will be from the SGUnited Traineeships programme, and another 4,000 places from a new SGUnited Mid-Career Traineeships scheme.
Let me elaborate. In the Resilience Budget, I announced the SGUnited Traineeships programme targeted at our local first-time jobseekers, where WSG funds the training allowances with host companies, for up to 12 months. I am glad to see strong interest from more than a thousand host companies. The public sector is also keen to offer new traineeship opportunities. With this momentum, I will more than double the provision, to provide 21,000 traineeships this year.
To support our technology and innovation drive, these traineeships will include technology-related areas that are in high demand or emerging rapidly. DSTA will offer diploma holders the opportunity to build skills in fast-growing technology areas like IT and engineering. Agencies in our research and development sector, including our Universities, A*STAR research institutes, AI Singapore and SGInnovate will work with local deep-tech companies and start-ups for trainees to work with industry partners on real-world science and technology projects. These will include areas such as software learning and AI.
As earlier announced by the Minister for Manpower, these traineeships will be progressively offered from 1 June this year. We will pay special attention to mid-career jobseekers. We understand that many are worried about their job prospects. Hence, we will create a new SGUnited Mid-Career Traineeships scheme for unemployed mid-career jobseekers.
Our agencies will work with interested companies to provide 4,000 traineeships for our mid-career jobseekers. This scheme specifically caters to the needs of mid-career individuals, to learn new skills and embark on new careers. Also, included under the Traineeships category are WSG's Attach-and-Train programmes under the Adapt and Grow Initiative targeted at mid-career individuals. We will also scale these up, to provide meaningful traineeship opportunities.
The third component in the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package is a new SGUnited Skills programme to expand training capacity for about 30,000 jobseekers this year. Jobseekers can upgrade their skills while looking for a job.
Participants in this SGUnited Skills programme will take industry-relevant and certifiable training courses full-time at highly subsidised rates. The course fees can be substantially, if not fully offset by their SkillsFuture Credit. The courses will be delivered by companies and Continuing Education Training (CET) Centres, including Institutes of Higher Learning.
Jobseekers will be given opportunities to apply their training through attachments or participation in company projects. They will also be provided with career guidance and job placement support. They will also receive a training allowance of $1,200 per month during the course of their training. This will help them focus on their training and job search. This programme will be rolled out progressively from July 2020.
The fourth component is a horizontal layer of our SGUnited Jobs and Skills package. It is a hiring incentive. Ultimately, our traineeships and skills training are to help our people to secure jobs. In these uncertain times, I understand why many employers, even if they are doing well, are reluctant to hire. To support employers in hiring, I will provide a hiring incentive to employers to hire local workers who have gone through eligible traineeship and training schemes.
In the Unity Budget, I announced a hiring incentive under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support package. For eligible workers aged 40 and above, I will double the incentive to cover 40% of their salary over six months, capped at $12,000 in total. Together with other support, such as the special SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $500 to every Singaporean aged 40 to 60 in 2020, we are providing specially enhanced support for jobs and training for this group. If needed, they can also benefit from other support schemes this period, such as the COVID-19 Support Grant.
Further, I will also expand the hiring incentive to cover workers of all ages. For eligible workers under 40, this incentive will cover 20% of their monthly salary over six months, capped at $6,000 in total.
I am greatly encouraged by how our tripartite partners are working together, going all out to provide strong support to our skills and jobs initiatives.
The Singapore Business Federation is currently the programme manager for SGUnited Traineeships. They are working hard to bring as many host companies on board and as quickly as possible. NTUC, besides supporting current workers, is reaching out to fresh graduates through the Young NTUC Movement to consider the SGUnited Traineeships programme as an option after graduation.
Some employers have stepped forward to offer jobs and traineeships. This not only contributes to the national effort but it is also a far-sighted move to build longer term capabilities for their companies. I encourage employers to also make good use of the strong support we provide to upskill your existing workers during this downtime so that they can emerge stronger when business picks up.
In total, to deal with the impact of COVID-19 on jobs, I will set aside about $2 billion for the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package this year to strengthen employment and training support for our workers. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex B-4.]
Members will appreciate the range of schemes in the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package. I have set out the broad strategy. To ensure that the strategy can be implemented well and to sustain the momentum of current efforts, careful design of the schemes and attention to implementation details are critical.
Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and former Finance as well as Education Minister, has both detailed knowledge and deep expertise in this issue. I have requested him to chair a National Jobs Council to oversee this very important work and I thank him for agreeing.
The National Jobs Council will be focused on creating jobs and building deep skills. This important effort will be integrated with the work of the Future Economy Council on the overall upgrading of our economy through the Industry Transformation Maps in each cluster. This will also be integrated into our Emerging Stronger Task Force work. In this way, we can marshal all our experiences and expertise to manage the huge changes that are coming our way. The National Jobs Council will provide details later.
I have spoken about what we will do to protect livelihoods, create new opportunities and help our workers access good jobs. I will now turn to how we will protect our families and the community and to help Singaporeans cope with this period of uncertainty.
In the last three Budgets, we provided direct support to all Singaporeans and provided more for the lower income. During the month of April, the Temporary Relief Fund assisted 450,000 individuals who were in need of immediate financial help before other support schemes came on stream. Many have written to my colleagues and me to express their appreciation for the help received. We are very glad that you have found this helpful.
We will continue to provide help for immediate needs. The COVID-19 Support Grant is now in place. It covers those who have lost their jobs, are placed on no-pay leave or will see salaries significantly reduced in the coming months due to COVID-19. In the three weeks after the COVID-19 Support Grant started, we received about 48,000 applications. We are committed to providing help to those who have been badly affected. To strengthen support for our families, I will set aside another $800 million for the COVID-19 Support Grant.
For self-employed persons, we are providing direct cash assistance through the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, or SIRS. Over 100,000 self-employed persons will be receiving their first payout of $3,000 this week. Self-employed persons who do not automatically qualify or have marginally missed the criteria can approach NTUC. So far, NTUC has received over 60,000 applications and is working hard to process them. Applicants can expect to hear from NTUC within a month of submitting their application.
I also encourage all self-employed persons to make full use of the SEP Training Support Scheme to train and upskill. Some self-employed persons are re-assessing their career options, looking at industries which are hiring. We will support you to access training programmes to make the transition.
To help all Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of uncertainty, I introduced a comprehensive Care and Support Package in my previous Budgets. Adult Singaporeans would have received their Solidarity Payment of $600 in cash. I am encouraged to hear that some have donated the payout to help others with greater needs.
The Care and Support Package has other components that will flow in the coming months. For instance, lower- and middle-income Singaporeans will be receiving their remaining Care and Support – Cash payout of $300 or $600 in June. Parents with young Singaporean children will also receive the $300 cash payout at the same time. These are on top of permanent support schemes such as the GST Voucher-Cash, which will be paid out in August.
Earlier, I announced in the Unity Budget that I would double the amount of U-Save rebates through a one-off GST Voucher – U-Save Special Payment for eligible HDB households to help with utility bills. Larger households with five or more members get more and can receive up to $1,000 in U-Save rebates this year.
Singaporeans have given us the feedback that while they are saving on transport fares and other charges, they are expecting to spend more on their utility bills as they stay home during the circuit breaker period. To thank all Singaporeans for doing our part in staying home for Singapore, I will provide a one-off $100 Solidarity Utilities Credit to each household with at least one Singapore Citizen. This will cover all property types and will be credited in the July or August utilities bill.
Altogether, we have put in place numerous schemes to tide our households through this period. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the household support summary to all Members of this House.
As Members can see, we have payments that will be coming on stream, particularly, every month – some form of payment to our households to support our households.
During the stay-home period, families are making fuller use of digital technology for home-based learning, entertainment, ordering meals and keeping in touch with families and friends. The value of access to digital technology is clear. During COVID-19, being able to connect with each other safely has enabled support, especially for vulnerable members of our community.
In a post-COVID-19 world, having all on board digital channels will open up exciting new possibilities for different members of the community to engage with and support each other.
Going forward, digital inclusion should be an important way for us to strengthen social resilience. Regardless of age or resources, all members of our society should have access to digital resources with no one left behind. To this end, we will provide help for specific groups.
The first group is our students who have gone through about four weeks of home-based learning during the circuit breaker. To support students from lower-income families who may not have digital access at home, MOE loaned over 22,000 computing devices and internet dongles to enable all students to benefit from full home-based learning and continue to connect with their teachers and friends.
As part of longer term plans to support digital literacy for all students, MOE will accelerate the timeline for all Secondary School students to own a digital learning device. The Minister for Education will announce details later.
Another group is our seniors. Seniors, who are more vulnerable if infected, are staying home during this period and many will have to continue doing so to protect themselves from COVID-19. But such isolation can affect their health. The Silver Generation Office has been keeping in touch with seniors with care needs and weaker family support through telephone calls and will continue to do so.
To enable seniors to stay in contact with their families and friends and for our care teams and volunteers to reach out more effectively, IMDA will launch a Seniors Go Digital movement to support seniors to adopt digital channels and equip them with the digital skills to do so.
This will require all-round support from family, friends and the wider community.
We will launch a Digital Ambassadors movement to rally the community and volunteers to support our seniors to acquire digital skills. For seniors from lower income households who wish to learn but are unable to afford devices, we will provide them with financial support. I strongly encourage our youths who have the digital skills, as well as corporates, to step forward to reach out. The Minister for Communications and Information and IMDA will share more details later.
Besides digital inclusion, another pillar for social resilience is our social service agencies and charities. They are key partners who have been supporting families and vulnerable groups during this period. In the years ahead, a stronger social service sector will be even more critical.
Last Saturday, Ministers Grace Fu, Indranee and Desmond joined me in a video conference with leaders of our social service agencies. They shared with us how they have been using digital means to reach out to the diverse clients they are serving. It has not been easy, but they tried and found it useful.
We are very encouraged by their can-do spirit. Many found, in their words, \"opportunities in adversity\", and were able to \"turn the challenges during the circuit breaker into new areas of strength\". While these cannot replace the human touch, they found digital tools, a useful complement that would help them better reach out to their clients even after the circuit breaker.
To serve their clients better, several social service agencies have started on the digitalisation journey and many want to press ahead with their transformation. For example, Project Belanja! by Food from the Heart. Beneficiaries can simply scan a QR code at partner food stalls to obtain a hot meal, instead of having volunteers go door-to-door to deliver food. This creative idea supports our hawkers and allows beneficiaries to get freshly cooked food, while our social service agencies save costs and reduce food wastage.
To support the building of digital capabilities as a key priority, the National Council of Social Service, or NCSS, is mobilising corporate partners to lend their expertise. Many have stepped up, including ThunderQuote which developed self-help guides on remote working tools and TechLadies which provides general consultancy.
MSF and NCSS will continue to support the social service sector in building capabilities. Funding is currently available through the VWO-Charities Capability Fund. In future, these initiatives can also be funded by the Community Capability Trust, which I announced at the Unity Budget.
While continuing to be passionate about supporting the vulnerable in our community, our charities and social service agencies are facing difficulties. The leaders appreciate the support from the Jobs Support Scheme, but they are facing falling donations. To provide more support for our charities amidst COVID-19, the Government will partner the Tote Board to enhance the matching for donations through Tote Board's Enhanced Fund-raising Programme.
Charities can apply to receive dollar-for-dollar matching on eligible donations, which are raised from projects in FY2020, up to a cap of $250,000 per charity. This includes donations raised through approved digital platforms. To enable this, I will provide a top-up of $100 million, to add to the existing $70 million budget for the Enhanced Fund-Raising Programme. I strongly urge Singaporeans and residents in Singapore who are able, to donate generously.
NCSS had earlier set up the Invictus Fund to provide additional support to social service agencies. This Fund will support our social service agencies to maintain service continuity, retain staff and adopt technology to transform their work.
To enhance support for our social service agencies, I will provide a top-up of $18 million to the Invictus Fund. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]
I urge our social service agencies to accelerate their digitalisation efforts, scale up capabilities and share resources and efforts to solve common challenges. We will continue to provide our strongest support for you so that you can serve your clients better.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Fortitude Budget will commit a total of $33 billion to support the next phase of our fight against COVID-19 and to position ourselves to emerge stronger.
Together with the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, we are dedicating close to $100 billion or $92.9 billion to be precise, about 20% of our GDP, to support our people in this battle.
The Overall Budget deficit for FY2020 will increase to $74.3 billion, or 15.4% of GDP. This is the largest Overall Budget deficit in Singapore's history since our independence. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex D-1.]
This Fortitude Budget will be funded out of Past Reserves. This is the second draw on Past Reserves this financial year. Our Past Reserves are our strategic asset, built up through the prudence and hard work of our people, across generations.
The Government has always upheld the principle that our Past Reserves are to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
For the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, we used up almost all our accumulated surpluses since the start of this term of Government. But what we need to deal effectively with COVID-19 has grown so much that we have no choice but to draw on Past Reserves.
In our fight against COVID-19, our Past Reserves have been critical in enabling us to respond comprehensively and robustly to the situation at hand. We will have to deploy it in a deliberate manner, and at decisive moments, in this battle against COVID-19.
In the earlier Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, the President gave approval to draw up to $21 billion from our Past Reserves. This allowed us to safeguard jobs, keep the economy going, and provide direct assistance to Singaporeans during this difficult period. I also told Members then, that I was prepared to propose to the President to make further draws on Past Reserves, should it be necessary.
Since the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, the impact of COVID-19 on Singapore has deepened. Lives and livelihoods are at stake, and we are moving to secure our future.
After a challenging circuit breaker period, we are now preparing to re-open our economy. To do so in a safe and calibrated manner and to continue to support our people, we are proposing a further draw on our Past Reserves.
The Prime Minister met with the President to share the Government's considerations. Ministers Gan Kim Yong, Lawrence Wong, Chan Chun Sing, and Indranee Rajah joined me last week, to brief the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) on the Government's assessment of the situation, the details of the measures and the resources needed.
The President, in consultation with the CPA, has given her in-principle support for a further draw of $31 billion from our Past Reserves to fund the measures in this Budget. As President Halimah stated in a Facebook post yesterday and I quote, \"Indeed, this crisis is unprecedented. Lives and livelihoods continue to be at stake… Having deliberated and considered the recommendation of the CPA, I am satisfied that the fourth support package is necessary… I have therefore given my in-principle support for the proposed measures to draw on the Government's past reserves.\"
Altogether, we are looking at drawing up to a total of $52 billion from Past Reserves this financial year to enable Singaporeans to tide through this crisis and emerge stronger.
This is a very significant amount, necessitated by the very exceptional nature of the COVID-19 crisis.
I thank President Halimah, Chairman Eddie Teo and members of the CPA for their support.
Members of this House know how strict I have been on prudence and my Ministry's emphasis on value-for-money spending. The Public Accounts Committee has also been scrutinising the Government's expenditure.
I have deliberated long and hard on the measures and went through many rounds of deliberations with fellow Ministers and my staff. I have also discussed with the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues before finalising this set of measures. It has been an unprecedented crisis that is still changing rapidly.
But I am grateful that we have the fiscal resources to mount this response and the unity, resilience and solidarity of our people to battle this together. We have a responsibility to make the best use of these resources, to keep our people safe, to save jobs and transform businesses and to emerge stronger.
Every dollar that we have saved has been saved by careful counting over the years. In spending this national savings now, we must make every dollar spent count.
While we have the resources and the will to do what is needed in fighting COVID-19, we must continue to stay nimble and adaptive in this rapidly evolving situation. We are dealing, as many have said, with a very smart and agile virus.
To cater for urgent and unforeseen expenditure needs which have yet to be provided for under the Supply Act, the Constitution provides for Parliament to create Contingencies Funds.
Each year, in our annual Budget, we set aside a total of $3 billion as a buffer in the Contingencies Fund and the Development Contingencies Fund.
With COVID-19, we are facing unprecedented levels of uncertainty – it is uncertain how the pandemic will evolve, if there will be a second or even third wave, and if, and when, vaccines will be available. The uncertainty on the medical front is fuelling the uncertainty in the global economy.
Members will appreciate that within less than four months, we are deploying four Budgets to protect Singapore and Singaporeans.
To meet this unprecedented level of uncertainty, we will set aside a larger sum in the Contingencies Funds, so that we can respond to urgent and unforeseen needs swiftly.
Having briefed Cabinet, the President and the CPA, I will set aside an additional $13 billion in the Contingencies Funds. This will allow the Government to respond quickly to any unforeseeable developments arising from COVID-19. This could include public health or fiscal measures that have to be put in place quickly, if the medical or economic situation deteriorates. We will do our best to avoid this, but we must be prepared for any eventuality.
The use of the Contingencies Funds is subject to proper governance and accountability.
Under the Constitution, the Minister for Finance may make advances from the Contingencies Funds if the Minister is satisfied that there is an urgent and unforeseen need for the expenditure, and the President concurs with the making of such advances. Thereafter, the amount advanced shall be included in a Supplementary Supply Bill or Final Supply Bill, which will be presented to and voted on by Parliament, as soon as practicable.
This approach is appropriate and prudent, given the fluid situation which may require the Government to act swiftly in the coming months.
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tThis is the fourth Budget I introduced this year. Since I presented the Solidarity Budget seven weeks ago, the situation has deteriorated sharply. Many countries have imposed the lockdown measures to control the pandemic, causing an unprecedented impact on economies and societies. Singapore, too, cannot be spared. There is still much that the international community does not know about the virus. It is difficult to predict accurately how the pandemic will evolve. Hence, the road ahead of us is fraught with uncertainties.
\tTo ameliorate the impacts of the pandemic and to help everyone adapt to this new normal, I am putting forth this Fortitude Budget totaling $33 billion.
\tWe need to give targeted support to firms and workers, and to do so in a way that allows our workers and businesses to adapt, transform and pivot towards new opportunities. This allows us to preserve jobs, livelihoods and businesses.
\tThe Government will launch the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to create 100,000 jobs, traineeships and skill training opportunities, in partnership with the business associations and unions. This includes 40,000 jobs, 25,000 traineeships and 30,000 skills training opportunities. This will benefit graduating students and mid-career Singaporeans, enabling them to join the workforce sooner.
\tThe Government will also provide a cash grant and legislate to provide rental relief to SMEs. Tenants of Government properties will also receive between one to two months of additional rental relief. On top of existing rebates, these tenants could receive a total of two to five months of rental rebates. Hawkers in Government-operated hawker centres or markets can receive a total of five months of rental rebate.
\tIn addition, we will also extend the Jobs Support Scheme by a month until August. At the same time, we will provide 75% wage support for firms that are not allowed to re-open. We will also increase the wage support for firms that have been more severely hit than expected.
\tWe will also provide foreign workers' levy waivers and rebates to firms that cannot re-open.
\tDigitalisation is increasingly important for firms, especially SMEs. As such, the Government will set aside more than $500 million to provide a Digital Resilience Bonus and other support measures to accelerate the firms' digital transformation.
\tWe will also provide more support for Singaporeans, set aside resources to encourage philanthropy, so as to build a more resilient and inclusive society.
\tThe Government has received 48,000 applications for the COVID-19 Support Grant. We will set aside an additional $800 million for this to help Singaporeans who have been displaced from their jobs or have their incomes affected.
\tEvery household with at least one Citizen will also receive a one-off $100 Solidarity Utilities Credit.
\tWe will also support the social sector in digitalising and scaling up capabilities to better serve their beneficiaries. The Government will also set aside $100 million to provide dollar-for-dollar matching on eligible donations for charities and provide a top-up to the Invictus Fund to encourage Singaporeans to donate generously.
\tAs online communications become more prevalent, the Government will also launch a series of initiatives to partner families and communities to enable more seniors to use digital technologies and enjoy the convenience that these technologies can bring.
\tThrough these four Budgets this year, the Government has committed almost $100 billion to battle COVID-19. We have been able to do so because we have our Past Reserves as a strong backing. Here, I would like to thank President Halimah for giving in-principle support for the Government to draw $31 billion from our Past Reserves to support this Fortitude Budget. Our Past Reserves are accumulated by our forefathers through their hard work. We must cherish it and make every dollar spent count.
Soon, we will be celebrating our 55th National Day. Our forefathers overcame all kinds of difficulties with the spirit of fortitude to build what Singapore is today. COVID-19 is a real test for our generation. Although the future is uncertain, if we can adapt to the changing circumstances, respond with fortitude, and unite as one, we shall overcome this crisis and secure our future.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now conclude in English. The COVID-19 crisis is a major challenge for Singapore and all Singaporeans, and for people around the world. Singaporeans from all walks of life have responded with unity, resilience and in solidarity. Even as we stay home for Singapore, we take the inconveniences in our stride and make the necessary adjustments to our daily routines with the support of digital tools.
Many festivities such as Easter, Vesak Day and Hari Raya Puasa were celebrated virtually. We continue to resolutely tackle the twists and turns in this COVID-19 pandemic together.
In response to the surge in global demand for masks and export restriction controls on key medical supplies, we are building up the local production of surgical and cloth masks.
We are managing the situation in migrant worker dormitories together. Our agencies pulled out all the stops to set up centres in a matter of days and have been running major operations to take care of the workers. NGOs such as the Migrant Workers' Centre and volunteer groups such as the COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition are also providing significant support. Many are coming forward to contribute their resources, skills and gifts to help the wider community get through this together.
Arts organisations are developing digital content to keep people engaged at home. An example is 3Pumpkins, a community arts company working with local artists to produce programmes for Malay, Mandarin and dialect-speaking audiences, which are then hosted online.
Several Members of this House have also been part of local efforts to hand-sew reusable masks – masks sewn with love. CARE officers from Government agencies and volunteer professionals from the social service and private sectors are manning the 24-hour National Care Hotline. This hotline continues to provide emotional support to those in need during the COVID-19 crisis.
Many others are finding new ways to bring their communities together. Even though PA's interest group activities have been suspended, Mr Dick Yip has turned to live-streaming tools to engage new and existing members who share common interests. The group now meets twice a week – more frequently than before.
This spirit of Singapore Together will be critical as we come together to recover and rebuild for a stronger, more sustainable tomorrow. As we carefully exit the circuit breaker, we will focus on safely reopening our economy and our society.
I call on everyone to stay the course with the necessary safe reopening measures. Our collective action protects us, our families, our community, our lives.
We will continue to bolster our economic resilience. The key focus of this Fortitude Budget, building on the last three Budgets, is to provide resources for us to make decisive moves to save jobs and support our workers – now and for the future. To succeed, businesses must do their part. During our virtual meeting, the Singapore Business Federation emphasised that businesses must support one another. I agree.
Larger businesses can bring forward procurement and payment schedules to help their suppliers. Our trade associations and chambers (TACs) have stepped up to support businesses. For example, the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has formed a COVID-19 task force to raise funds to support their micro-SME members. And of course, landlords can support their tenants.
Looking ahead, the Emerging Stronger Task force is partnering business leaders, SME owners, industry experts and TACs to chart our path in a changed world. In the spirit of Singapore Together, I hope Singaporeans will participate and share your ideas.
On the social front, we will continue building our social resilience. In this Budget, I spoke about building social resilience through digital inclusion and strengthening our social service agencies. Building a resilient society requires our collective ideas and energy. It is about knowing who we are as a people and what we stand for.
In these trying times, we must take special care of the more vulnerable members of our society, be they seniors, individuals with special needs or those who lost their jobs. We are implementing many help schemes to meet various needs. Some groups have been more severely affected, such as low-wage workers in informal jobs and self-employed persons whose incomes have fallen sharply. We will continue to assist them and help to strengthen their longer-term social security.
Our social service agencies, charities and volunteers have stepped up. Let us mobilise everyone to do our part to build a more resilient Singapore.
Let me once again express our deep appreciation to our frontline workers for your dedication and sacrifices in serving our people tirelessly in this battle against COVID-19. Please continue to take care and precautions.
The battle against COVID-19 will be a long one. The road ahead will be uncertain, with more ups and downs. Our generation must have the fortitude to persevere, to adapt and emerge stronger, just like our founding generation. This is why I have named this our Fortitude Budget – courage in adversity. Moving forward with fortitude – as we stay united as one people, remain resilient in the face of adversity, and stand in solidarity with one another. We will overcome. We will emerge stronger together as Singapore United, Singapore Together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, \"That the Ministerial Statement made by me be considered by Parliament.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, to give Members some time to consider my Statement, I would like to adjourn the debate. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Thursday, 4 June 2020, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.56 pm until 5.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.20 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, this Bill complements Singapore's upcoming accession to the International Convention on Salvage 1989, or the Salvage Convention. The Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act was passed last year, to implement the Salvage Convention. To-date, 72 countries have ratified the Salvage Convention. A key aspect of the Salvage Convention is the introduction of special compensation. These are compensation for claims arising from salvage operations.
Special compensation claims allow a salvor to be compensated for salvage operations to prevent or minimise environmental damage, even if the salvor did not save the vessel or its cargo. This differs from traditional salvage claims dealt with under an earlier convention adopted in Brussels in 1910, where salvors are only awarded if the salvage of the vessel or its cargo was successful. This Bill expands the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction to cover special compensation claims that arise under the Salvage Convention, or by way of contract. Currently, the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction covers only traditional salvage claims.
By placing special compensation claims on the same footing as traditional salvage claims, this Bill further incentivises salvors to protect the environment and keeps Singapore abreast with other signatories to the Salvage Convention, including the UK and Hong Kong, who have also made similar amendments to their own admiralty jurisdiction.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a short Bill. I will highlight the key amendments very quickly.
Clause 2 amends the current section 3(1)(i) of the Act, which relates to salvage claims. Clause 2 provides that the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction includes any claim arising under the Salvage Convention. This includes Article 14 of the Salvage Convention, which provides for special compensation. It also provides that the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction covers contractual claims relating to salvage services. This includes contractual clauses that provide for special compensation, such as the Special Compensation Protection and Indemnity clause. Finally, it provides that the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction covers any other claim in the nature of salvage. This ensures that all salvage claims previously covered by admiralty jurisdiction continue to be covered. Clause 2 also preserves the principle that there is parity in treatment of claims arising from salvage operations in respect of both ships and aircraft.
Clause 3 of the Bill repeals section 176 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that the High Court has jurisdiction to decide all claims relating to salvage. This provision is a historical anachronism and is unnecessary. The High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act already provides for admiralty jurisdiction over salvage-related claims and it should be the single piece of legislation dealing with this issue.
Sir, this Bill updates our maritime legal framework in line with international practice and will pave the way for Singapore's accession to the Salvage Convention. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Singapore is a port city. Situated in a strategic geographical location with strong supporting networks comprising professional services, marine technology and logistical solutions, Singapore was ranked as the leading maritime capital of the world in 2019.
Singapore has taken active steps to accede to the International Convention on Salvage. The Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2019 enacted the International Convention on Salvage. While that Act paved the way for the substantive law, it is this Bill deals with the jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to salvage claims.
Salvage operation refers to any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever. The party doing the salvage operation is known as a salvor. Situations that give rise to the need for salvage are varied, for example, grounding, fire, collisions, engine failure, structural failure and sinking.
Previously, the 1910 Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea, salvors would only be rewarded if they were successful. However, this did not adequately recognise the skills and efforts of salvors who prevented or minimised environmental damage, providing little incentive for riskier salvage operations. An example is where a major pollution incident was avoided by towing a damaged tanker away from an environmentally sensitive area of where the ship or cargo could not be salvaged.
In light of this, the 1989 International Convention on Salvage introduced something called \"special compensation\". This provided some reward to salvors who prevented or minimised environmental damage even though they were unsuccessful in saving the ship or the cargo. While the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2019 enacted the law that allowed such claims in Singapore, it is this Bill that will extend the Singapore High Court's admiralty jurisdiction to include such salvage claims. Therefore, this law is important and I support it because it will further incentivise and encourage ships at sea to help fellow ships in distress to reduce environmental damage within the seas and oceans. Reduction of environmental damage to the seas and oceans are key and we should support such a reduction. Hence, I am supportive of this Bill.
This Bill has two operative clauses – clauses 2 and 3. Sir, at this stage, please allow me to declare that part of my practice as an advocate and solicitor includes admiralty disputes.
Clause 2 is the clause that expands section 3(1)(i) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act to provide for salvage claims under the 1989 International Convention on Salvage. The way the relevant provision has been restructured sets out more clearly what is covered. Flowing from this restructuring though, would the Minister please clarify if there is any other difference in the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court over salvage claims besides the addition of salvage claims under the Convention?
By allowing special compensation claims in the Singapore High Court, our High Court will have an expanded jurisdiction over a variety of claims in admiralty law and places it in a good position to administer justice on admiralty claims. This furthers Singapore's position as a dispute resolution hub, particularly in the admiralty law practice.
In the press release on MinLaw's website on this Bill dated 4 May 2020, paragraph 3 states and I quote, \"By placing special compensation claims on the same footing as traditional salvage claims, the Bill incentivises salvors to protect the environment during salvage operations\". Would the Minister please clarify whether the statement that special compensation claims are placed on the same footing as traditional salvage claims is to be understood only in the context of High Court admiralty jurisdiction and not, for instance, the ranking of a maritime lien? Would the Minister please also elaborate how having a High Court jurisdiction over special compensation claims impacts salvors and incentivises them to protect the environment? Further, would the Minister be able to explain whether the introduction of special compensation might translate into a better marine environment near Singapore shores?
Clause 3 repeals section 176 of the Merchant Shipping Act which provides for the jurisdiction of the High Court over salvage claims in addition to section 3(1)(i) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act. By locating all relevant provisions under the same Act, clause 3 tidies our statute book and makes the law clearer.
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill supports and supplements the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2019 in preparing Singapore for accession to the 1989 International Convention on Salvage. That Convention more adequately reflects the service that salvors do and incentivises salvors to protect the environment. This Bill furthers and strengthens Singapore as a maritime dispute resolution hub and a key maritime capital in the world and, therefore, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer in private practice.
The High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act sets out the Admiralty jurisdiction of our High Court. A robust admiralty law and regime is always important to a major international maritime hub. Singapore is one of the major maritime hubs in the world alongside Hong Kong and London.
One other advantage we have had for many years is that we have one of the busiest ports in the world and many ships stop by for bunkering, transhipment or other services. Many ships also passed by Singapore en route to ports elsewhere in the world. A busy port allows greater possibility of seizing jurisdiction for admiralty claims in our courts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 14 January 2019, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill and supported the Bill. The Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act brought into force two key maritime conventions, one of which is the International Convention on Salvage of 1989.
Today, the proposed amendments to the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (HCAJA) are consequential to the adoption of the Salvage Convention in our laws. The HCAJA provides for the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. It essentially sets out the various maritime claims allowed under our admiralty law and how admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked for any claim and against any ship or any company or even individual.
The amendment Bill today proposes to extend the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court to any claim for salvage which falls under the Salvage Convention of 1989 and also any contractual claim for salvage. It also provides that services rendered in saving life from a ship is made under the Salvage Convention and not under a previous provision.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill, I mentioned that the English House of Lords had in the case of the \"Nagasaki Spirit\" identified problems with the wording of Article 14 of the Convention. Essentially, it was decided that the term \"fair rate\" in Article 14 for environmental salvage only cover expenditure but does not include an element of profit.
I said we could address this issue in our law by including an extended definition of \"damage to the environment\" to any place where the damage may occur and the \"fair rate\" as referred to in Article 14 is deemed to include an element of profit, just like what South Africa did in their law. I was then disappointed that this was not taken up.
However, today, I am happy to note that, in the explanatory note to today's amendment Bill, it has been explained that the existing coverage under section 3(1)(i) has been expanded to, and I quote:
\"(a)\tAny claim under the Salvage Convention, including Article 14 of the Convention which relates to the entitlement of a salvor that has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment, to special compensation where such salvage did not result in any vessel or other property being salved;
(b)\tAny claim under a contract for salvage services to carry out any salvage operation to prevent or minimise damage to the environment, even where such salvage operation did not result in any ship, apparel, cargo or wreck being salved.\"
I welcome these inclusions not just because they are consistent with the Salvage Convention. More importantly, they encourage salvors to carry out salvage work on a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to environment or to prevent or minimise damage to environment even when the salvage work did not result in the ship or cargo being salved. In this way, salvors will not be motivated solely by or pressured merely by the need to achieve a positive salvage in terms of the ship or cargo. This will encourage salvors to place significant consideration on possible damage to environment or to mitigate such damage.
This is consistent with environmental concerns of the international community which developed in the last 30 years as a result of the huge damage to environment caused by numerous notorious cases like the Exxon Valdez, the Erika, the MSC Prestige and which also led to changes in the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State for Law.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr de Souza and Mr Tan for their support of this Bill and also for the comments and suggestions that have been raised.
Let me address the questions raised directly.
Mr de Souza asks if the Bill change the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction over salvage claims, other than adding claims currently proposed under the Salvage Convention.
The answer is no. The Bill expands the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction to also cover special compensation claims that arise under contract, such as under the Lloyd's Open Form SCOPIC clause. But in other respects, the jurisdiction of the High Court is preserved.
Mr de Souza also asked about ranking and whether the Bill provides for special compensation claims to enjoy a maritime lien.
The Bill does not do so and let me explain this. My Ministry has studied this and consulted with maritime law experts. We eventually opted not to confer a maritime lien on special compensation claims, in view of admiralty law principles and also international practice.
Today, the common law grants traditional salvage claims a maritime lien because property has been saved, either the vessel itself or the cargo. And this in turn ensures that there are assets from which all other claims can then be paid. This rationale, however, does not apply or may not apply to special compensation claims, because these claims arise in situations where possibly, neither the vessel nor the cargo has been saved.
We also considered international practice on whether these claims are given a ranking of a maritime lien.
Jurisdictions like the UK and Hong Kong, who have similarly expanded their admiralty jurisdiction laws to cover special compensation claims, have not provided legislatively for such claims to be conferred a maritime lien.
The 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, which 19 countries have acceded to, also does not provide for special compensation claims to give rise to maritime liens.
For these reasons, the Bill does not confer a lien on such claims.
Both Mr de Souza and Mr Tan touched on the impact that this Bill has on the environment. Mr de Souza asked, in particular, how this Bill might incentivise salvors in the context of environmental protection.
Ultimately, this incentivises salvors undertaking a rescue or salvage of a vessel even when the prospects of saving the vessel or the goods are remote or it is inherently risky because it allows compensation for these claims, thereby encouraging them to help either to salvage the remains or to move the vessel into another location which is less environmentally damaging.
Today, salvors commonly obtain security to satisfy their special compensation claims through the relevant P&I clubs.
This Bill provides an additional avenue for obtaining security for such claims. This avenue may be needed where contractual arrangements for security are absent, or could perhaps, in some cases, be inadequate. By broadening the range of enforcement options available, this amendment gives salvors greater assurance of compensation when they undertake operations to protect the environment.
Mr de Souza asked how the introduction of such claims might affect the eco-system of such projects and the environment near Singapore.
The mechanism of special compensation was created to ensure that salvors are incentivised to assist endangered vessels that might provide a threat to the environment. Mr de Souza might be aware that under the Salvage Convention, salvors who engage in salvage operations in any waters will be able to enforce special compensation claims in any proceedings brought before a Court or arbitral tribunal in Singapore. And the availability of such claims under our current framework will be a positive development for the marine environment, generally, and also for Singapore.
Sir, I believe I have addressed questions raised by Members. I thank both Members who have spoken and supported this Bill. I would like to say that this is one step taken towards updating Singapore's legislative framework governing admiralty jurisdiction and also, of course, maintaining a progressive legal framework for the maritime industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Resolved, \"That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to Thursday, 12.00 noon, 4 June 2020\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Closing the Digital Divide for SGUnited: Learnings from COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Deputy 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, the world has changed. The social glue has come unstuck and we are forced online to learn, work, live and stay connected. Yet there are many who are cut off from access due to lack of internet connectivity, requisite devices or digital literacy. They are not digital natives; they are digital outcasts. COVID-19 has exposed and deepened the digital divide in our society.
To achieve an SGUnited Smart Nation, closing this gnawing digital divide must be an urgent priority. I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged this divide in the Fortitude Budget earlier.
In this Motion, I will address three questions: how deep is the digital divide? What factors contribute to the divide? And what solutions can we consider?
Mr Deputy Speaker, at least one in 10 households in Singapore are not plugged into our digital world according to the Household Expenditure Survey. Only 81% of resident households have a personal computer, and only 87% have Internet access.
Only 45% of households residing in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have Internet access. Thirty-one percent have a computer, a personal computer. Contrast this with 96% and 95% respectively of households living in non-HDB apartments.
These numbers mean that some of us are almost guaranteed to have internet connectivity and a personal computer, while more than five in 10 households living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have no internet access or personal computer.
This is also reflected in the ground realities exposed by Home-based Learning (HBL). MOE has loaned out an estimated 20,000 devices, including laptops and tablets. A few community groups I personally know including Engineering Good have given out more than 2,600 laptops in total. They have also provided wi-fi dongles or SIM cards to several families.
The bleak picture does not end at infrastructure, Mr Deputy Speaker. Stories from the ground reveal significant struggle in terms of digital literacy and skills, particularly among one, low-income households; two, the differently-abled; and three, seniors.
ReadAble is a community organisation supporting families in rental flat communities. They shared that parents struggle with navigating donated laptops donated – whether with Zoom or even in-app functions, which compromises their children’s education.
According to Society Staples, a social enterprise working with the differently-abled (PWDs) and the Disabled Persons Association, many lower income PWDs lack equipment, Internet access or the necesssary IT skills. It is difficult for them to work from home or participate in society online. This can mean loss of income and opportunities to retrain or learn new skills. They also missed out on maintaining or even expanding connections with family and friends which increases mental stress and strains existing coping mechanisms, especially for those with psychosocial disabilities.
Cassia Resettlement Team, a community organisation, has had to support many low-income individuals, particularly seniors, who struggle with the digitisation of Government services. For example, many of them cannot use SingPass without help. SingPass, as we know, is required to access many such services including checking CPF accounts, which are regularly required to apply for welfare schemes; or checking medical appointments, medical tests results and prescriptions.
In 2006, the Intelligent Nation or iN2015 Masterplan pledged that every household with a school-going child would own a personal computer by 2015. I remember this clearly as I was running my own education technology company then and was very energised by this vision of a digital future which my company also participated in. Sadly, despite this iN2015 ambition, our efforts to become a Smart Nation since 2014 and the Digital Readiness Blueprint released in 2018, we continue to struggle with a deep digital divide in Singapore.
I would like to highlight two structural issues that perpetuate the digital divide: gaps in Government intervention as well as metrics that miss the mark.
Market forces are the key driver of this divide. Today, Internet connectivity and personal computers are necessities but they are still priced beyond the reach of the low-income in our society. This disparity in turn perpetuates further inequality.
The Government intervened by introducing the NEU PC Plus Scheme in 2006, offering students and PWDs from low-income households a new personal computer bundled with three years of free internet connectivity. While it has benefited more than 40,000 households, the scheme falls short in several ways.
First, it only permitted one laptop per eligible household regardless of the household size, increasing to two only last month due to HBL.
Second, the application process is complex and bureaucratic.
Third, it is limited in scope, excluding pre-school, home-schooled and university students and adults.
Fourth, it discriminates against PWDs, who only receive a 50% subsidy as compared to 75% for students.
Fifth, under the Home Access Scheme, adults have no option to apply for a personal computer, only a tablet or smartphone.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and appreciate the civil servants at MOE and IMDA who have worked very hard to resolve digital access issues during this circuit breaker period. IMDA enhanced the NEU PC scheme. MOE worked with schools to loan out personal learning devices and kept schools open for those who struggled with digital access.
But gaps persist. The device loan programme came with conditions and liability provisions. Community organisation 6th Sense shared that there were families who were too scared to bring these devices home as they would not be able to afford to pay the schools if the devices got lost or broken. Further, the families were rightly worried about going to school and risk COVID-19 infection. One teenage student I know developed severe COVID-19 related-anxiety before HBL. Why should any child be required to go to school and use IT facilities at the height of a pandemic?
Given these gaps, community organisations found that it made more sense to give every family good internet connection and every child a personal computer.
By personal computer, I mean a laptop or a desktop, and not a tablet. Personal computers, including laptops, are the engines of creativity and productivity. Tablets and smartphones are not enough for work and learning. A child who has to type out an essay on a smartphone or a tablet is not on the same footing as a child with a laptop. Yet, some low-income families reported that their children were told to do home-based learning on their mobile phones!
The Minister for Education has said that, by 2024, every Secondary 1 student will have a tablet, a laptop, or a chromebook, which the Deputy Prime Minister just shared that this timeline will be accelerated earlier. I commend the policy intent, but I propose a broader, cross-Ministry change in the form of a Digital Adequacy Framework on which I will elaborate later.
Now, let me move to the gaps in our statistical metrics and KPIs. They do not capture whether every citizen has internet access commensurate with their needs. In fact, certain classifications obscure infrastructural inadequacy. As they influence and inform policy-making, it is important to get them right.
First, our statistics do not reflect the sufficiency of devices in each household. Instead, they measure the number of houseFholds with access to a personal computer, which includes tablets. For example, if a household of seven has one tablet to share between them, they are classified as having access to a personal computer in the home.
Second, our metrics do not measure under-connectivity. Simply owning a personal computer and being connected to wi-i is not the end of the matter. Poor connection or an underperforming hardware creates further obstacles. Xiaoqian, a Secondary 2 student, recently shared her home-based learning experience on a public podcast. Before ReadAble provided her with a new laptop, she only had an old laptop at home. I quote from her: “It will be very slow for me to switch on and I have to wait. I wake up early to switch on the computer to wait for it, but in the end I was late for class because it was still uploading. I wouldn’t have a full lesson.” I am sure we will agree that it is unacceptable in a Smart Nation for a child to receive a deficient education because of faulty hardware.
Third, our KPIs conflate personal computers with other digital devices. This is undesirable for reasons I have already discussed earlier.
If our metrics do not highlight these fault lines, we remain blissfully misinformed of reality and true digital inclusion will continue to elude us.
MCI has boldly committed in its Digital Readiness Blueprint that all Singaporeans will be digitally ready, no matter their income or current IT abilities. I support this commitment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and would like to offer some suggestions from the ground regarding enhancements to existing schemes and structural changes.
The NEU PC Plus Scheme could be further streamlined. The five gaps I mentioned earlier should be plugged. For instance, beneficiaries of various financial assistance schemes could automatically qualify for new PC Plus. For instance, can MSF and MOE work together to ensure that every family with a child on MOE-FAS, or every family supported by ComCare who has a child in school, automatically gains adequate access to a fully subsidised personal computer? Should adults supported under ComCare or residing in HDB rental flats not have the option of receiving a partially or fully subsidised digital device, depending on their income. IT subsidy schemes should also include device replacement and customer care.
The scheme should also be broadened immediately to permit applications to benefit all children whether pre-school, home-schooled or university students, and adults from low-income families. PWDs should be subsidised equally to students, especially given the changing nature of work post COVID-19.
To reduce the time and resources required to deliver digital devices to families, can we have a Digital Empowerment Voucher (DEV) scheme that combines aspects of the existing Public Transport Voucher and Innovation & Capability Voucher schemes? Families would then get the devices themselves. The vouchers could be stipulated for use only with local SMEs which would also directly assist our local enterprises in these trying times.
In terms of a structural rethink to realise the Digital Readiness commitment to provide adequate digital access for those with limited resources, I propose that a Digital Adequacy Framework be considered. Because it is not enough to just be digitally ready or included, this digital participation must adequately support their learning, work and social connections meaningfully.
Under this Framework, tablets must be decoupled from the definition of “personal computer” across the board for learning and work purposes. We should also view the amount of hardware deemed adequate for each household to be the aggregate of the needs of each member in it.
For instance, should every student aged Primary 5 and above have their own laptop, considering MOE’s digital literacy plans for upper Primary schools? Should younger children have computer access in the home, sharing a personal computer with no more than one other person? The Framework should also fold Internet speed, hardware functionality and digital literacy into its analysis to enable meaningful digital participation.
Within this Framework, universal Internet access should be provided as a public utility especially for low-income households. Can IMDA and HDB work with commercial providers and Town Councils to ensure that all low-income households have adequate Internet connection? For instance, can Wireless@SG be expanded to cover all rental flats in Singapore and enhanced with sufficient speed, much like the ubiquitous wi-fi access available in shopping malls?
Finally, the Digital Adequacy Framework should underpin the Digital Readiness Blueprint to inform and guide its work. Meaningful statistics and metrics across more diversed groups should be gathered regularly. Much public policy has been characterised by efficiency, effectiveness and economy, emphasising outcome that are easily measured rather than what might be most helpful to measure.
In the UK, for example, the Office for the National Statistics studies the digital divide across locations, gender, age, income, disability, ethnic groups and language, education and other social and economic determinants of digital inequality. Such information will be helpful to policy design.
Mr Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 has spotlighted our deep digital divide and the \"digital outcasts\" in our midst. Our clarion call for SGUnited must surely be a Singapore that is also digitally united through community digital resilience. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister also acknowledged this need for resilience through digital inclusion earlier in his speech.
I therefore want to conclude by imploring the Government to ensure that every digital policy design intentionally includes the views and experiences from our vulnerable groups, these digital outcasts. I propose that a Citizen's Workgroup be established comprising citizens and community groups to complement the Digital Readiness Workgroup made up of leaders in public, people and private sectors. The observations and recommendations outlined in this speech have been the result of consultative and collaborative efforts with, and between, these community groups and citizens.
Like the MOH's commitment that \"no Singaporean will be denied appropriate care because of an inability to pay\", the Digital Readiness Blueprint takes the position that \"no Singaporean will be denied adequate digital access because of an inability to pay, or use\". I am energised by this vision, Mr Deputy Speaker. COVID-19 has thrust Singapore into the digital future. We must not leave any citizen in the past.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun, would you like to join the debate? You have four and a half minutes.
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member Ms Anthea Ong for inviting me to speak on this Motion. In her speech, she has vividly captured the wide range of ground difficulties encountered by families on the wrong side of the digital divide. As Leo Tolstoy posited in his renowned novel Anna Karenina: \"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.\"
Indeed, families in Singapore that have struggled with digital access over the circuit breaker period juggling home-based learning and work from home have faced a spectrum of challenges. Some have had no devices, others the wrong kinds of devices, of which many were slow or malfunctioning. And yet others had no Internet connections and still more had limited digital skills.
Families on the right side of the digital divide are similarly happy – robust Internet connections, reliable devices, and digital competencies to see them through their online needs for learning, working and transacting.
How can we level the playing field as far as such technological needs are concerned? By providing universal digital access.
In my commentary published in ChannelNewsAsia today, co-authored with Assoc Prof Irene Ng from the National University of Singapore, we propose a significant paradigm shift – to regard digital access as a public utility, just as we do electricity and water. As far back as nine years ago, in 2011, the United Nations declared Internet access as a human right.
With Industry 4.0 pounding at our doors, regarding digital access as a public utility makes eminent sense and will involve three tranches.
The first is to make Internet connection universal. Singapore's Wireless@SG programme already provides free Internet access across broad swathes of public space. With our Nationwide Broadband Network successfully in place, extending free home wi-fi to residential areas will not involve more than a concerted coordination with telcos outfitting every home with modems and wireless routers. Indeed, our transition towards 5G provides a strategic opportunity to \"reset\" our digital infrastructure networks for universal Internet access.
The second tranche is ensuring access to computing devices. As those of us who own multiple devices well know, they are not all created equal and some devices are simply more effective for particular functions. As it stands, online learning platforms are optimised for computers or laptops, and not mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. We cannot expect our students from low-income households to simply get by or make do with mobile phones for online learning.
Universal provision of computing devices assumes need with less concern over deservingness. Thus, greater universalism could materialise in the form of automatic allocation, as is the case now with Baby Bonus, Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and Silver Support. Possible channels include building computing provision as part of school registration, ComCare benefits, or WIS. Stepped levels of subsidies according to household income and size of household could also be introduced, similar to the subsidy ladders for childcare and Baby Bonuses. Technology companies should be mobilised to co-fund such provisions as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts.
The final tranche is of course digital literacy. Invariably, better-educated parents will be more tech-savvy and can better guide their children's digital access. Hitherto, some donors have been reluctant to provide Internet access to needy families, citing fears that they will be vulnerable to online risks such as pornography or gambling.
We must therefore introduce more intensive in-school digital literacy programmes to help these children make up for the lack of scaffolding at home. But poor digital literacy should not be used as justification to deny low-income families access to a vital resource that the rest of society benefits from.
Beyond learning for children, home-based computing will also be essential if low-income adults are to have any real chance to participate in more technology-based training or employment. The progress of our Smart Nation drive has translated into more Government services moving online, thus making digital access even more of a need than a want.
In a rapidly digitalising society, comprehensive digital access in the form of wi-fi, devices and technological literacy is a critical social leveller as a conduit for education, upskilling and employment.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim, your time is up.
Prof Lim Sun Sun: The recent slew of generous budgetary measures shows that our Government is committed to leaving no one behind. The best way to ensure that everyone gets on the social mobility escalator is to make universal digital access an affordable public utility.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Anthea Ong and Prof Lim Sun Sun for emphasising the importance of a digitally inclusive society and for sharing their thoughts on how we can bridge the digital divide.
Let me start by making it absolutely clear that digital inclusion has been at the heart of the Government's national digitalisation effort, and, indeed, of every discussion we have had in this House on that subject. Our Digital Readiness Blueprint, which was launched in 2018, envisions a nation with universal digital access where every Singaporean – young or old, disabled or able, rich or poor – is empowered with access and skills to thrive in the digital future.
While our digitalisation message has been consistent and universal, the adoption of digital technologies has been uneven, across our economy and across our society. COVID-19 has brought that same message across more starkly, highlighting to all the value and even the urgency of digital solutions at a time when we have all had to learn and work from home, and interact and transact online.
We now have the opportunity to give digitalisation a renewed impetus and push and the Nominated Members of Parliament have already observed that the Deputy Prime Minister has been somewhat prescient in his Fortitude Budget speech by making digital inclusion one of the key thrusts of the Fortitude Budget.
But I think I want to make one point before I go further, which is, I appreciate the spirit in which some of the ideas have been put forward, but in our efforts to highlight gaps and in our desire to do better, we must be careful not to forget the progress that has been made, largely because of the hard work done by various Government officials in partnership with community partners and corporate partners.
So, I want to begin by first putting into perspective the current state of Singapore's digital readiness. Where are we today in our digital inclusion journey?
IMDA's Annual Infocomm Usage Survey in 2019 found that 89% of all households own computers; and among households with school-going children, 98% own computers. If we exclude tablets from the definition, we find that 61% of households with school-going children own computers. So, that drops significantly. Interestingly, within this group, it is noteworthy that more than 80% of HDB 1- to 3-room households with school-going children have access to computers. In other words, it is gratifying that the efforts are reaching this lower income group.
IMDA's survey also indicates that broadband penetration among households stood at 98% in 2019; and it is nearly universal for households with school-going children.
Our 3G and 4G mobile broadband subscription rate stands at 100% of the total mobile market, compared with an international average of 75%; and our total broadband which is fixed and mobile subscribers, stand at 807 per 1,000 of population, compared to an international average of 369 per 1,000.
Another group that we pay close attention to is our seniors. Smart phone usage among adults below 60 was 99.6% in 2019; for seniors aged 60 and above, it had increased to 75% from 36% in 2016.
These figures, I believe, affirm that we have made valuable progress in our digital inclusion journey. One key contributory factor has been the range of initiatives that have been launched in close collaboration between our public, private and people sectors. For example, since 2006, IMDA's NEU PC Plus programme, which Members have all referred to, has helped over 46,000 low-income households, with school-going children or persons with disabilities, for them to obtain computers and broadband access. And I want to assure Ms Ong that the computers in this scheme refers to computers as in PCs and desktops and not tablets.
A further 16,500 households have benefited from IMDA's Home Access programme since 2014 which provides subsidised Internet access, with an option to bundle in an Internet-enabled device. Both these are run in partnership with self-help groups and also with Social Service Agencies.
Digital readiness is also not just about hardware and connectivity, but it is also about the literacy and the skills to derive the full benefit. And that is why we have, for example, initiatives like the Silver Infocomm Initiative (SII), which was launched as far back as in 2007. It provides a range of programmes for seniors at different levels of digital skills. These programmes are also provided in vernacular languages to meet the needs of our seniors.
Our companies have been important partners in these initiatives, with over 70 partnering IMDA, with 6,000 volunteers in our outreach efforts. And for persons with disabilities, the NEU PC Plus programme provides support for computer and broadband access. I can elaborate further but because of the time constraint, I just want to emphasise that the persons with disabilities remain an important part of our overall effort towards digital inclusion.
So, we have a range of programmes aimed at youths, aimed at seniors, aimed at people with disabilities, aimed at low-income households, and these programmes are run in partnership with the private sector, with the community organisations. The situation, I believe and I beg to differ with the Member, is not as bleak as Nominated Member of Parliament Anthea Ong paints it out to be. I think we have made progress, but at the same time we must have the humility to acknowledge that there is more that we can do.
And that brings me to the impact of the COVID-19. It has led to a surge in the interest and demand to go digital. We welcome this rejuvenated interest and will do our best to support it.
During the period of Home-based Learning (HBL), for example, Members have already heard how MOE loaned out more than 20,000 computing devices and 1,600 Internet-enabling devices. The question has been asked, \"Why only one device per household in the NEU PC programme?\"
But we are talking about an environment pre COVID-19. I think that Members would agree that the last two months has changed the world. So, what was sufficient in a pre COVID-19 era for example – one computer per household at a time when there was no home-based learning, there was no work-from-home or telecommuting requirements – changes dramatically when you are in a COVID-19 type situation with circuit breaker measures.
So, I think we must have some perspective in evaluating how fit-for-purpose the programmes were and of course, then understand that if the situation has changed, we need to adapt and introduce the measures that are necessary.
In terms of the NEU PC Plus programme, for example, what IMDA did was then to adapt the programme so that families with three or more school-going children could apply for a second subsidised PC and more than 3,000 computers were given out in this period despite the supply chain restrictions that we had to deal with. So, I think it has been an important effort.
We have also seen commendable initiative spawned by self-organised groups and community organisations. As Ms Ong noted, the group Engineering Good has been collecting and refurbishing 1,800 old laptops for those who cannot afford one of their own and I also know that they have been working with partners like Progress NEST and A Good Space, whom Ms Ong is associated with and I think we will continue to encourage such collaborations amongst the community organisations and between the public and private sectors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have one more minute.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you. I want to conclude by highlighting again, as Deputy Prime Minister has highlighted, we want to build on these momentum, including the various initiatives for seniors, to reach out to all segments. So, the efforts with seniors, the efforts with hawkers, the efforts with low-income households, they are all a measure of our aspiration to ensure universality in the approach we take towards digital inclusion.
But, it is a challenging task as I am sure Members like Prof Lim who has been involved in some of these community efforts know, as you go further down, it becomes harder and harder to implement.
Sir, I want to conclude by affirming that digital inclusion anchored by digital access and digital literacy remains a foremost priority of the Government's efforts and borne of a pressing need COVID-19 has catalysed a heightened interest among individuals, families, workers and enterprises to be equipped with digital access and to acquire digital skills.
We welcome this and we will do our utmost to ensure that every Singaporean is digitally ready and we will work with community and corporate partners and canvas widely for ideas as has been suggested by both Members. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that every Singaporean regardless of age income or background is well prepared to lead a fulfilling life in our shared digital future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 5.47 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.17 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":"Ascertaining Commercial Property Landlords’ Compliance with Requirement to Pass on Full Amount of Rebates to Tenants under COVID-19 Support Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether tenants of commercial properties have the right to ascertain from IRAS what is the total amount of property tax rebate received by their respective landlords under the COVID-19 support measures to enable tenants to make an informed decision about whether landlords have complied with the requirement to pass on the full amount of the rebates to their tenants.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The property tax rebate is granted to the owner of the property, as he is the party who is liable for the property tax in the first instance. IRAS does not disclose information on the property tax and property tax rebate to third parties, including a tenant of the property.
Nevertheless, the tenant of the property owner can request for information from the property owner on the amount of property tax rebate received. The property owner will then be required to provide his tenant with this information, and failure to do so will constitute an offence.
If there is a disagreement on whether the property owner has complied with the requirement to pass on the property tax rebate fully, the property owner or his tenant may apply to the Valuation Review Panel to hear and determine the dispute.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply of Certificates of Entitlement after Lifting of Circuit Breaker Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport what is LTA's plan for the supply of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) once COE bidding resumes after the circuit breaker measures are lifted.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Motor vehicle dealerships and showrooms have been closed since the start of the circuit breaker. As COE bidding is done mostly by the motor vehicle dealers on behalf of prospective owners, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) suspended COE bidding for the months of April and May.
To keep community transmission low, the Government has announced plans to resume economic activities in a cautious manner, in phases. Motor vehicle dealerships have not yet been allowed to re-open. COE bidding will only resume after the dealers are allowed to re-open. As new travel demand patterns may emerge as a result of COVID-19, LTA will monitor the situation closely before deciding how the accumulated COE quotas from the suspended bidding exercises should be factored into future bidding exercises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Recent Flash Floods and Plans to Tackle Issue","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the reason for the recent flash floods in several areas in Singapore, including Sennett Estate in Potong Pasir, despite the drainage system being recently expanded; and (b) what are PUB's plans to further tackle this issue moving forward.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: On the afternoon of 30 April 2020, strong solar heating of land areas coupled with convergence of winds in the region led to intense thundery showers over Paya Lebar, Punggol and Hougang. The total rainfall of 128.4 millimetres that day was one of the highest daily rainfall ever recorded in Singapore over the past 30 years.
As the capacity of roadside drains were overwhelmed by the intense rainfall, flash floods resulted at locations such as Upper Paya Lebar Service Road, Lorong Gambir, Tampines Road, Serangoon Avenue 2 and Lichi Avenue (which is close to Sennett Estate). These flash floods lasted between 10 to 30 minutes. PUB officers were on site to actively engage affected residents, provide sandbags and loan the portable Dam-Easy flood panels to prevent floodwaters from entering homes. These flood panels, which the Public Utilities Board (PUB) started loaning to residents and businesses in flood-prone areas since the start of the monsoon season in 2019, can be set up quickly during a flash flood. These flood panels were used by one of the residents during the 30 April 2020 rainstorm, who found them effective in preventing water from entering his home.
Drainage Improvement Works
As part of PUB's broader efforts to address the impacts of climate change, PUB had raised the drainage design standards to cater to higher rainfall intensity in 2011. Since then, the Government has invested almost $2 billion in drainage works, and will invest another $190 million this year to enhance our flood resilience.
In most of the areas affected by the intense rainfall on 30 April 2020, a number of flood alleviation projects have been recently completed or are ongoing. For example, PUB completed the upgrading of the Tampines Canal (from Hougang Avenue 1 to Hougang Avenue 7) in March 2019 at a project cost of $27 million to alleviate flooding along Tampines Road. The hydraulic analysis showed that the completed works had successfully reduced the flood area by 86%, including a large section of Tampines Road. As a result, the flash flood on 30 April 2020 was confined to a localised road depression at the junction of Tampines Road and Hougang Avenue 1. PUB will study the feasibility of raising the depressed road junction.
For the low-lying Upper Paya Lebar Service Road, works are on-going to divert stormflow from existing drains to larger new drains. The works are expected to complete in 2021 and will further improve flood protection in these areas. In addition, PUB will be upgrading the drains serving Serangoon Avenue 2 and Lorong Gambir to alleviate flooding. These works are expected to commence over the next two years.
In the case of Sennett Estate, which is a low-lying area and prone to flooding, PUB has been progressively upgrading the drains serving the estate between 2006 and 2015. There are on-going works to upgrade the remaining stretches of drains in the estate. When completed in 2021, flood protection for Sennett Estate will be further enhanced.
While PUB will continue with efforts to improve drainage systems, it is not practical to expand our drains to meet every extreme rainfall event in land-scarce Singapore. Besides drainage improvements, PUB will put in place cost-effective measures to minimise flood risks and better manage flood events. For instance, PUB is in the midst of upgrading its rainfall forecasting radar technology, which will help improve prediction of locations where heavy rainfall might occur and enhance its response time to potential flash floods. Members of the public can also stay updated on weather and flash flood warnings by subscribing to NEA's or PUB's mobile apps and SMS alerts. In the event of a flash flood, members of the public are advised to take appropriate safety measures, such as to avoid driving and walking in flooded areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gross Monthly Income of Full-time Employed Resident Workers above 15 Years Old at Bottom Percentiles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the last three years, what is the gross monthly income of full-time employed resident workers who are above 15 years old at the bottom 5th to 20th percentiles, excluding employer's CPF contributions.
Note: Mr Speaker has given his approval for the above question to be withdrawn.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1388,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex 1 - handout for PQ7.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1 - handout for PQ7.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":1389,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex B-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1390,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex B-2.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1391,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex B-3.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1392,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex B-4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex B-4.pdf","fileName":"Annex B-4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1393,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex C-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex C-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex C-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1394,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex D-1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/annex-Annex D-1.pdf","fileName":"Annex D-1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3949,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat Fortitude Budget 26May2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat Fortitude Budget 26May2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3950,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3951,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Liang Eng Hwa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/vernacular-Liang Eng Hwa Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Liang Eng Hwa Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3952,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/vernacular-Joan Pereira Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3953,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Lam Pin Min","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20200526/vernacular-Lam Pin Min Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lam Pin Min Active Mobility 26May2020-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}