1 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the plans for the fauna and flora of Jurong Bird Park upon its closure after 3 January 2023.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Speaker, Mandai Wildlife Group will move more than 3,000 birds and about 50 species of flora from Jurong Bird Park to Bird Paradise at Mandai after it closes on 3 January 2023. Mandai Wildlife Group's detailed planning for this move includes necessary steps and measures to ensure the welfare, health and safety of the birds during the relocation.
The Jurong Bird Park site is expected to be returned to JTC in 2025. JTC is working with Mandai Wildlife Group and the relevant agencies on the reinstatement of the site after Jurong Bird Park moves to Mandai.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Mr Speaker, being in Singapore, we have to constantly evaluate the balance of development. Dover Forest was 33 hectares, Jurong Bird Park is 20 hectares. This green space is substantial. As such, I have three supplementary questions.
First, what is the determined annual economic potential of the land of Jurong Bird Park —
\tMr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang, if you could just keep to two supplementary questions.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: Yes. So, the economic potential that could be derived from its development. And two, will there be a cross-Ministry workgroup that coordinates and determines this balanced approach of redeveloping large green spaces?
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the Member for his questions. I do not have the economic value of the site; I can get back to the Member. But JTC and URA are jointly reviewing the longer-term land use plans for the site, along with other agencies like NParks. We will take into consideration existing features, such as the waterfall as well as the Jurong Hill Tower nearby. Given the memories and history tied to Jurong Bird Park, we will seek public feedback in due time to shape the future plans for Jurong Hill together.
Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to visit Jurong Bird Park before it closes on 3 January 2023 and also to support Bird Paradise when it opens in the second quarter of 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Assistance for Residents who are Not Digitally Literate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will the Government assist residents who are not digitally literate with the use of digital services; and (b) how do Government agencies communicate with residents who do not have an email.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the Government fully recognises that not everyone is comfortable using digital tools. The SG Digital Office was established in June 2020 to support the adoption of basic digital tools and skills among less digitally savvy individuals. Residents can visit SG Digital community hubs at selected libraries and community centres to receive one-to-one or small group training on skills, such as how to use a smartphone, make e-payments and learn cybersecurity tips on how to stay safe online. To date, more than 210,000 seniors have been engaged under the Seniors Go Digital Programme.
Additionally, many agencies provide in-person and contact centre services, to assist those who may have difficulty transacting with Government online. The Public Service has also set up five ServiceSG Centres to serve as one-stop physical touchpoints where officers can guide residents through digital transactions and help them complete frequently used Government services across 20 agencies.
While the Government’s use of digital communication channels has increased, offline channels remain critical. On top of newspaper publications and broadcasts via free-to-air television and radio, many Government agencies inform residents of key policy announcements through hard copy letters, via the Digital Display Panels at HDB blocks and even through house visits. For example, the Silver Generation Office conducts outreach to communicate Government policies to residents and guide seniors who need help applying for assistance schemes online.
Even as more services are digitalised, the Government remains committed to maintaining an inclusive society and will continue to ensure that residents can communicate and transact with the Government, regardless of their digital ability.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I want to acknowledge the good work of the Government in trying to reach out to the seniors who are not digitally savvy.
I recently had a case where a resident wanted to file a complaint with the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). He had to navigate through the entire digital process when he needed to lodge a complaint. So, I asked one of my volunteers to help him. At the end of the day, my volunteer said the Court would then communicate with him via email.
May I ask the Minister what can a resident who is senior, not literate and who is unable to understand and navigate, such as how to go about applying for Government services, what can they do in situations like that? My resident tried to go to Court and the services rendered were not quite there. He is left struggling. So, perhaps, the Government can assist.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question and for his very useful feedback. We recognise that there will be situations like these where residents will feel quite unsure about what to do when they encounter Government services that have shifted online substantially.
My suggestion to the Member is to encourage the resident to call at one of our ServiceSG Centres. The alternative is that through a partnership between IMDA and the People's Association (PA), there are 38 Community Centres that offer a scaled down version of what is available at the ServiceSG Centres.
To give the Member a sense of the scale that ServiceSG Centres are able to help residents with, in terms of services, each one of these ServiceSG Centres, typically, will be able to work with the residents to go through more than upwards of 400 types of services offered by the Government. The 38 Community Centres where there is a partnership between IMDA and PA, they also offer upwards of 200 services that they can help residents to complete. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information\", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 78, Correction by Written Statement section.]
If all else fails, Mr Lim is very welcome to send an email to me and I will certainly find a way to help his resident.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just jump in on this? I have a very similar case where an elderly resident who has difficulty trying to file a claim to CDRT. May I humbly suggest that perhaps MCI can work with the Courts on how to facilitate laypeople, especially seniors with digital issues and difficulties with using digital platforms, to file appropriate claims in CDRT?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his comment. It is certainly a good suggestion.
May I also just say the broader point that Mr Dennis Tan as well as Mr Lim Biow Chuan brought up is that even in terms of the way we design services, and as agencies pivot to digital delivery, they should be conscious of the fact that there will be certain segments of the population that will not find it so comfortable to use digital services and to make the non-digital service options still available. That is, indeed, the philosophy that we are trying to adopt.
One very common reference that we can all relate to is the use of the CDC vouchers, for example. Even in terms of how it is being designed, it has in mind how citizens who are not so comfortable using digital tools can be enabled to benefit from the scheme. That is why a non-digital option was retained.
Over time, I think we see that fewer and fewer of our citizens need to rely on those non-digital options, but we will, obviously, have to keep those non-digital options available until such time that most, if not all, of these citizens can migrate to the digital versions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of FTX's Bankruptcy on Singapore's Financial Markets, Regulation of Asset Classes and Strategies of Investment Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister in view of the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency trading platform FTX (a) how will this affect Singapore's financial market and economy; and (b) how many retail traders in Singapore are affected.
4 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister whether MAS intends to regulate digital token service providers and exchanges to ensure liquidity requirements so as to safeguard customers' digital tokens from insolvency risks.
5 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the magnitude of losses incurred by Singaporean retail investors and individuals affected by cryptocurrency trading platform FTX’s collapse; and (b) whether FTX’s collapse will have a domino effect on other cryptocurrency exchanges.
6 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) what further steps will be taken to strengthen the system for cryptocurrency companies with non-licensed offshore exchanges that have operations in Singapore; and (b) whether the bar will be raised to prevent local retail investors without adequate risk knowledge or direct funding means from participating in investments.
7 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister in light of the recent bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX (a) what are the lessons drawn from this incident; and (b) what are the immediate and long-term steps that will be taken by MAS to help mitigate against consumer risks in cryptocurrency trading.
8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the value of Temasek Holdings’ investments in cryptocurrency trading platform FTX and its subsidiaries when FTX filed for bankruptcy in the United States on 11 November 2022; (b) whether the Government has any data on the exposure of Singapore investors to FTX in terms of the number of investors and the total value of their holdings; (c) whether FTX’s sudden bankruptcy will affect (i) Singaporeans and (ii) MAS' ongoing consultation in relation to consumer harm from cryptocurrency trading; and (d) if so, how.
9 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS will consider leading a specific study into the regulatory lessons to be learnt from the collapse of cryptocurrency exchanges, such as Terra and FTX; and (b) whether there needs to be tighter requirements to ensure the stability of regulated cryptocurrency exchanges in Singapore.
10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce further measures or safeguards to regulate cryptocurrency trading or investment, as well as to protect Singaporean retail investors in general.
11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister whether the recommendations in MAS’ ongoing public consultation can be expedited, to reduce the risk of consumer harm from cryptocurrency trading and to support the development of stablecoins as a credible medium of exchange in the digital asset ecosystem.
12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister in view of the various insolvencies of cryptocurrency exchanges and extreme volatility in the cryptocurrency markets in the last year (a) how will this affect our efforts to become a robust global blockchain and fintech hub; (b) whether MAS will consider further regulatory measures to prevent any contagion into the wider cryptocurrency, fintech and financial markets; and (c) if so, what are they.
13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the collapse of cryptocurrency trading platform FTX (a) what is the financial loss suffered by Temasek Holdings; and (b) whether this will affect the Net Investment Returns Contribution for the next three financial years.
14 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the impact of the recent bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX on Temasek Holdings’ investment in FTX; and (b) what are the due diligence or measures undertaken prior to investments in cryptocurrency trading platforms, such as FTX.
15 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given that the Government does not direct GIC and Temasek Holdings’ individual investment decisions but holds their boards accountable for their performance, whether the Government will consider creating a bipartisan Standing Select Committee of Parliament that meets regularly to question the boards of the two sovereign wealth funds on their performance, strategies and risk management approaches, on a confidential basis.
16 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of MAS’ proposed measures to reduce cryptocurrency trading risks, whether similar suggestions have been promulgated to Government-related investment entities, such as GIC and Temasek Holdings.
17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are regulations or a governance framework as to the basic level of due diligence to be observed by entities listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution handling Government assets which involve the investment of significant public funds; and (b) whether there are ongoing due diligence or audit requirements for these investments.
18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry tracks the extent of concentration of investments by GIC and Temasek Holdings investment vehicles either by (i) geography or (ii) asset class; and (b) whether there are thresholds that trigger warnings of excessive portfolio risks to the Ministry.
19 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are guidelines or restrictions on Statutory Boards and entities listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore with regard to investing in cryptocurrency-related assets; (b) if so, what are those guidelines or restrictions; and (c) whether all Statutory Boards and scheduled entities have fully adhered to those guidelines.
20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance as Temasek Holdings and GIC are Fifth Schedule entities, whether the Government will consider adding the two sovereign wealth funds to the audit ambit of the Auditor-General's Office and oversight by the Public Accounts Committee, on the condition that commercially sensitive elements in any audit report be made available to legislators but redacted from published reports.
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I answer Question Nos 3 to 20 as well as all other Parliamentary Questions (PQs) related to the bankruptcy of the trading platform FTX together?
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, before I address these questions, let me reiterate the Government and MAS’ overall approach to digital assets.
We have drawn a sharp distinction between growing an innovative and responsible digital asset ecosystem, and speculation in cryptocurrency, which we actively discourage for the retail public. We encourage and support innovation in digital assets because we see potential for new technologies to transform cross-border payments, trade and settlement, as well as capital market activities.
Early forecasts have proven too optimistic and it is still not clear that blockchain technology will develop beyond limited use cases into a gamechanger for a wide range of industries. This is why we are piloting specific use cases to test the possibilities in the financial sector.
Cryptocurrencies are a different matter. They are purely speculative as an investment asset and have no intrinsic value. That is why MAS has consistently warned the retail public not to deal with them.
Members have raised two broad issues in their questions. First, on regulatory measures and the impact of the FTX bankruptcy on our financial system; and second, on the investments made by Temasek in FTX itself.
Let me start with the first issue. The collapse of FTX and other major cryptocurrency platforms should bring about much-needed rationalisation in the cryptocurrency space. The repercussions on the cryptocurrency ecosystem globally are still unfolding and we are watching this.
We do not have data on the number of Singapore retail users of FTX, just as for other platforms that are not licensed here and do not operate in Singapore. Unfortunately, those who invested in cryptocurrencies through FTX’s global platform would have lost money.
As for Singapore’s broader financial system and economy, our assessment is that spillovers from the FTX collapse will be very limited. MAS’ surveillance shows that key financial institutions in Singapore have insignificant exposures to cryptocurrency and crypto players.
MAS has explained its approach to regulating financial institutions providing cryptocurrency services, also known as digital payment token (DPT) service providers, in Singapore.
Such DPT service providers are regulated by MAS to address money laundering, terrorist financing and technology risks. Whether the DPT service providers can address these risks robustly is a key consideration in licensing them to operate in Singapore. Importantly, DPT service providers are, currently, not regulated for safety and soundness, nor for investor protection. This is also the prevailing approach in most jurisdictions. MAS has been consistently warning since 2017 that dealing in cryptocurrencies is hazardous. Recent events have underscored these hazards.
MAS has also in its recent statements explained the role of MAS’ Investor Alert List (IAL) and why FTX was not listed on it. Let me set this out again.
The IAL serves a very specific purpose: to warn the public of entities that may be wrongly perceived as being regulated by MAS, especially those which solicit Singapore customers without the requisite licence. MAS did not have reason to list FTX on IAL because there was no evidence that it was soliciting users in Singapore. This is unlike Binance, which was placed on IAL for actively soliciting users in Singapore without a valid licence and is being investigated presently by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for possible violation of the Payment Services Act.
This does not mean that all entities which are not listed on IAL are safe to deal with. MAS cannot possibly provide an exhaustive list of all the unsafe or unlicensed entities that exist in the world.
Going forward, MAS plans to introduce some basic investor protection measures for DPT service providers which are licensed in Singapore. MAS recently published a consultation paper, which includes proposals that DPT service providers, amongst other things: (a) administer a risk awareness test to evaluate if potential retail customers are suitable for accessing cryptocurrency services; (b) segregate customers’ assets from their own assets so as to prevent lending out of customers’ money and protect customer interests should the service provider fail; and (c) refrain from operating a trading platform while simultaneously taking proprietary positions for their own account, to prevent conflicts of interest.
After receiving industry and public feedback, MAS will finalise the proposals and implement appropriate regulatory measures.
Let me emphasise that even with these proposed measures, MAS will not be able to prevent DPT service providers from failing or customers from suffering losses. Cryptocurrency platforms can collapse due to fraud, unsustainable business models or excessive risk-taking. FTX is not the first cryptocurrency platform to collapse, nor will it be the last. Further, even if a cryptocurrency platform is well-managed, cryptocurrencies themselves, as I mentioned earlier, are highly volatile and have no intrinsic value. Those who trade in cryptocurrencies must be prepared to lose all their value. No amount of regulation can remove this risk.
Next, let me address the Temasek investment in FTX and the Government's stance on our investment entities and Statutory Boards' exposure to digital assets and cryptocurrencies.
The Government does not prescribe guidelines on the allocation of specific assets or asset classes, whether for cryptocurrencies or other assets. This applies to our Statutory Boards, as well as our three investment entities managing our whole-of-Government assets, namely, Temasek, GIC and MAS.
Statutory Boards have specific mandates and functions. They are not investment entities, but they have the flexibility to invest their surpluses and they, typically, do this through external fund managers, under the oversight of their respective supervising boards and Ministries. We expect Statutory Boards to make prudent investment decisions and not be distracted from their core functions.
For our investment entities, the Government sets out its risk tolerance limits, monitors for appropriate diversification in asset classes, sectors and geographies and ensures that downside risks are not excessive. In this spirit, the Government does not prescribe an exclusion list for specific assets. But we expect the entities to incorporate environmental, social and governance, or ESG, considerations into their investment processes. They should do so in a way that best suits their investment mandates and preserves their reputation with global partners and markets.
Ultimately, the Government holds the boards and management teams responsible for formulating investment strategies in accordance with the Government's overall risk tolerance.
One of the areas Temasek and GIC's private equity arms operate in is new technology and early-stage companies.
There will always be new waves of innovation and technology that seek to disrupt the status quo. Some waves will turn out to be hype and fizzle out over time. Other technologies will prove revolutionary and transformational, like the Internet. But even with genuinely revolutionary technology, there are risks. Many startups will fail, while a few will prove successful and grow into industry leaders, like Tencent or BioNTech.
The skill of venture capitalists lies in discerning the promising projects and backing them. Risk-taking is an essential part of such investments.
As long-term investors, our investment entities have to operate in this space. They do their best due diligence based on the information available. Having made the investments, they monitor the investee companies closely, but no amount of due diligence and monitoring can eliminate the risks altogether.
Insofar as blockchain technology is concerned, Temasek and GIC have some investments in the digital assets space, but they have no direct exposure to cryptocurrencies.
It is disappointing when there is a loss by our investment entities, as in the case of Temasek's investment in FTX. Even more so, because the loss arose from what turned out to be a very badly managed company and from possible fraud and mishandling of customer funds. The fact that other leading global institutional investors, like BlackRock and Sequoia Capital, also invested in FTX does not mitigate this.
What happened with FTX, therefore, has not only caused a financial loss to Temasek, but also reputational damage. Temasek recognises this and has issued a comprehensive statement to explain its due diligence process and the circumstances leading to its investment in FTX. Temasek has also initiated an internal review by an independent team to study and improve its processes and to draw lessons for the future.
I am confident that the Temasek board and management team will learn and improve from this experience. At the same time, we should see this FTX loss in the broader context of Temasek's performance in early-stage investments. After writing off the FTX investment, Temasek's early-stage portfolio, as of March this year, has generated an internal rate of return in the mid-teens over the last decade, better than industry averages.
The FTX loss will also not impact the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), as the NIRC is tied to the overall expected long-term returns of our investment entities and not to individual investments.
Following the FTX collapse, some Members have suggested implementing more guidelines and safeguards over the investments made by Temasek and GIC. That is understandable, but the governance structures in place today for Temasek and GIC are already more extensive than those of a typical company.
Temasek, which is an investment holding company, is audited by commercial auditors. GIC, which manages public funds, is audited by the Auditor-General. As Fifth Schedule entities, both Temasek and GIC are subject to the President's oversight of their budgets and key appointments. In Parliament, if there are any questions by Members about the performance of the entities, MOF will respond to them, as we are doing now.
There is, therefore, no need for additional audit requirements or Parliamentary Committees. Instead, we should insulate the boards from political pressures. Let them do their work, carry out their responsibilities and fulfil their investment mandates, commercially and professionally.
The investment entities themselves publish their performance with respect to broad market indices. In Temasek's case, the MSCI equities indices and, in GIC's case, the Reference Portfolio, comprising 65% global equities and 35% global bonds. These market indices and data from reputable global investment funds serve as useful references. But, ultimately, the Government evaluates the entities based on their long-term performance and their track records show that they have performed creditably, even in challenging environments.
Sir, in conclusion, the FTX loss is disappointing and is being taken seriously. But the occurrence of investment losses does not, in itself, imply that the governance system is not working. Rather, this is the nature of investment and risk-taking. What is important is that our investment entities take lessons from each failure and success and continue to take well-judged risks in order to achieve good overall returns in the long term. In this way, we can continue to add to our national reserves and provide a stable income stream to fund Government programmes for a long time to come.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the comprehensive reply. I just have two questions.
One, may I ask if FTX is the only cryptocurrency-related investment that the three investment entities are exposed to?
Two, despite the failings of cryptocurrencies, the blockchain-based digital infrastructure may still prove to be useful in other aspects. So, may I ask, for these investment entities, whether they have been or will continue to invest in such companies and, if they have been, how has the investment performance been so far?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I mentioned just now that both GIC and Temasek do have exposures to new technologies and early-stage companies. These investments are within the overall context of the risk parameters set out by the Government.
So, in GIC's case, it has a broadly diversified global portfolio. Within that, it has limited exposure to early-stage companies. Temasek is, largely, an equities investor. And within that space, it has exposure to early-stage companies, but Temasek itself has put out a statement to explain that its exposure to early-stage companies is about, presently, 6% of its overall portfolio. For both entities, this exposure to early-stage companies would include investments in digital assets, but it would be diversified to a broad range of different sectors.
So, to answer the question: yes, there will be other companies in the digital asset space that GIC and Temasek have invested in, but they are within these limited parameters. So, if we talk about concerns of a broader fallout, I think that it would be relatively contained.
But, as the Member has highlighted, there may be promising use cases in blockchains. It is still too early to say. But as I have mentioned in my reply, some of the earlier optimism about blockchains has proven to be too optimistic. Remember, a few months ago, there was a lot of enthusiasm. Even within this House, Members were suggesting for MAS to move faster. And MAS was being criticised for being too slow. So, that general enthusiasm has proven to be overly optimistic.
Will there be specific use cases where blockchain technologies can be applied and be promising? Well, we are pursuing pilots in MAS, specifically in the financial sector. And the investment entities themselves, therefore, will have to do their own due diligence in analysing each particular case that comes up and consider whether or not to invest in these projects.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his assurance of the limited exposure to NIRC. I would like to ask specifically one supplementary question on the whole-of-Government's investment risk management capability.
I think that given global banks' exposure to digital assets and some exposure to cryptocurrencies, does an investment entity like MAS, for example, do they build in the risk to cryptocurrencies and digital assets blowing up as part of their worst-case scenarios in their stress test scenarios? For example, for financial institutions and non-bank financial institutions, especially on cryptocurrencies' downside risks worst-case scenarios. It is quite important, given that the systemically important institutions may have ramifications on Singaporeans in general.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we do take that into account in our stress tests. As I mentioned just now in my reply, MAS has assessed and determined that for the financial sector itself, financial institutions based here in Singapore, our exposure to cryptocurrencies and the digital assets is very limited. But we still apply these stress tests, not just to Singapore's institutions, but to the broader global operating environment to determine how this will impact Singapore's financial institutions.
This is part of our continued risk monitoring, not only for MAS and the financial sector, but also for the Government's overall investment portfolio.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister. I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, where are the risk tolerance levels spelt out to Temasek, GIC and MAS? Are they published anywhere? And under current statutes and regulations, are Temasek, GIC and MAS free to invest in anything they want to, as long as their own boards or management teams approve them and they fall within the risk tolerance level?
Secondly, does the President have any say in the setting of investment parameters, mandates, objectives or risk tolerance levels of the investments by Temasek, GIC and MAS?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I think it is important to understand the system that we have. The keys to any successful long-term reserve management systems are governance, professional management and a long-term horizon.
In our case, we have put in place a very strong governance process and system, where the Government is a shareholder – we do not micro-manage, we do not decide on investments, we do not prescribe asset classes or assets – but we have a role in appointing board members, senior management and we hold them accountable to delivering good, long-term performance. And the President is part of this governance process, too, because she, in terms of the appointments of people, has the powers as well.
\t
\t
So, within that governance system that we have in place, there are processes, there are risk metrics to monitor, there are clear accountabilities. And it is a system that has worked well over the decades and has delivered good long-term outcomes for Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just a few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, if I heard the Deputy Prime Minister correctly in his earlier statement, he said, with respect to the sovereign wealth funds, the Government is not prescriptive, it does not prescribe assets and asset classes. But he also said that the Government monitors the portfolios, if I heard him correctly, for geographic diversification and downside risks.
I am just a little curious how those two things are reconciled. What kind of discussion will the Government have, if it monitors those risks and diversification and feels that they are off? Does the Government actually intervene and would that not then be prescriptive if such a situation arose? I was just hoping the Deputy Prime Minister could expand on that.
My second supplementary question is on the rotational audits by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for confirming that GIC is subject to AGO audits, but Temasek is not. I would just like to ask why that is the case, since they are both managing public funds. It could be argued that Temasek has the legal form of a private company but, against that, I would say that right now, AGO does audit Ministries and Statutory Boards that own private companies, for example, MOH Holdings or EDB Investments, and presumably those companies under a Statutory Board are also subject to rotational audits by AGO. So, the fact that Temasek is a private entity should not, in and of itself, mean that it does not need to be subject to rotational audits by AGO.
My last supplementary question is really, would the —
\tMr Speaker: Please keep it to two supplementary questions for now, please. Thank you.
\tMr Leon Perera: Okay.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, before answering Mr Leon Perera, I forgot to reply to Mr Gerald Giam's question on the publication of the risk limits. These are published in the following sense. For example, the risk tolerance, the amount of risk that the Government has set out for GIC is expressed in our reference portfolio 65/35. That sets out the kinds of risks that the Government is prepared for GIC to take and, therefore, GIC, as an active manager, publishes its performance with regard to that risk and the performance that it tracks with regard to the referenced portfolio.
Likewise, in Temasek's case, it is different. It is not a portfolio manager. It is largely an all-equities investor. But in its annual Temasek Review, Temasek will put out some of its risk considerations and its risk parameters. So, to the extent that these risks are disclosed, the investment entities do have disclosures through their respective platforms – largely through their annual reports.
On Mr Leon Perera's question on how do you square the monitoring of assets, geographies and all that, with the policy of leaving the boards to make their own decisions, well, we do it because monitoring is not prescribing. We monitor the portfolios, we get data, we get information, we monitor them, we subject these portfolios to stress tests, given something that collapses in an extraneous event that takes place, a crisis, a fallout in cryptocurrencies. We subject them to rigorous stress tests to make sure that the overall portfolio, even under these stress tests, does not have significant losses beyond the threshold that we think would be too much.
So, we monitor. And if, indeed, the stress tests show that there is too much risk being taken or concentration of a particular asset that may lead to some vulnerabilities, then we provide feedback to the entities. They have the discretion then to take the necessary actions, to adjust. So, that is how we operate; not by prescribing but monitoring and setting in place overall risk parameters from which our entities operate.
On audit, it is not unusual at all for private auditors to audit even public agencies. Statutory Boards themselves are subject to commercial auditors, private auditors, not to the Auditor-General. So, unless we are suggesting that somehow these private auditors are not as good as the Auditor-General, I do not see any reason why. It is not unusual that the Auditor-General has a remit, largely within the Public Service and Government Ministries. But for some Statutory Boards, for a commercial entity like Temasek, which also, within it, has a portfolio of listed entities, well, I think we should let commercial auditors do their job. And so far, they have been doing a very good job.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, based on the recent reports on the FTX collapse, it seems to suggest that there are weak governance controls on the moving of customers' funds. There really is not any obligation to put funds into trust accounts in banks for safeguarding because digital assets are mainly on chain and not in the vault.
I note that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that there is now a consultation on reviews of regulatory approaches. I would like to ask if MAS is looking into regulating digital assets' custody to mandate Web3 companies to put customers' digital assets into licensed custodians that perhaps use multi-party computational wallets to manage these funds and would need the asset owners' approval before the moving of such funds. This could help to reduce the risk of misuse of digital assets.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, there is an ongoing consultation process. Part of the proposal covers some of the things that the Member has talked about.
MAS is looking into segregating customers' assets from the company's own assets so that there is a very strict prohibition from lending out of customers' money, which was what happened in the case of FTX.
MAS is also looking at one of the proposals to ensure that the DPT service provider does not operate a separate trading platform that simultaneously takes proprietary positions. So, these are some of the considerations.
We will finalise these proposals after the consultation. There may be more feedback, including suggestions from Members, which MAS will study. But, as I said in my reply, no amount of regulation can eliminate all the risks. Even if a platform is well-run, well-managed, the cryptocurrency itself has no intrinsic value. It can go all the way to zero and people who want to trade in that must be prepared to lose all their money.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we should leave the fund managers of our sovereign funds to run the funds independently. However, because the reserves are the money of the people, accountability is important. And especially in a case like FTX, there are many unanswered questions. So, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One, the Deputy Prime Minister has answered that the investment guidelines are available in separate places, like in the report of Temasek and in some places for GIC. These are things that Singaporeans would like to know. So, will the Government in the future prepare all these guidelines in a consolidated place so that Singaporeans know the investment strategy and the guidelines guiding the investment of our sovereign funds?
Secondly, in relation to the FTX case, has MOF, under the current governance structure, received any reports from Temasek? This is my first question.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. Two questions for now.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, then whether that report will be made available in a future session in Parliament.
\tMr Speaker: I am counting.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Thank you, Sir. I will answer all three questions and indulge Mr Leong Mun Wai.
On the first question whether we might consolidate all the information, well, they are just three entities. Actually, more like two, because MAS is quite unique. It is a central bank. Its investments are really in very conservative instruments. So, really, there are just all of two entities. There is not much to consolidate. If you think about it, go to the GIC website, go to the Temasek website. All of the information is there. If Members think it is useful, MOF can put up links on our website to both websites, so that you can refer to them at your own pleasure and your own time.
On the second question, on their reports, yes, Temasek has provided an update to MOF on its findings. These were subsequently published by Temasek itself. It is very unusual, first of all, for Temasek or GIC for that matter, to comment on individual investments – they do not, as a normal practice. Because we should not get into the habit of looking at individual investments in retrospect. There will always be ups and downs, and there will always be successes and failures in investments.
So, as a matter of practice, GIC and Temasek, in fact, do not put out any information on specific individual investments.
But in this case, precisely because of the unique circumstances leading up to it – because from Temasek's point of view, it recognised that it has incurred reputational damage – Temasek decided to put out a statement disclosing the circumstances leading up to its investment decision, why it had done all the due diligence and, despite the due diligence, found reasons to still proceed with the investment. All of that is on the Temasek website, including a series of FAQs. So, all of that is available on the Temasek website.
The third question, I have answered that, too.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister in his reply talked about the over-optimism in the earlier stages of the crypto developments. We also know that many financial centres like Dubai and Hong Kong are all aspiring to be the cryptocurrency hub.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government sees hubbing the cryptocurrency trading activities in Singapore as necessary to strengthen our position as a financial centre. What are the possible economic use cases here?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we are not planning to hub crypto activities here. We have always looked at how we can be a responsible and innovative digital asset player and the focus is on \"responsible\" and \"innovative\". Where innovation is concerned, as I mentioned just now, some of the earlier optimism about blockchain technologies has been proven to be not well-placed. I think there is now a more realistic sense of what these technologies can do. We are now continuing with pilot projects on payments, on capital markets, on settlements, to work out what are the promising use cases for such technologies. That we will continue to do.
And within that context, there may be a role for DPT service providers. But if these DPT service providers do exist in Singapore, are licensed here – and DPT service providers would include exchanges for cryptocurrencies and tokens – then they will be licensed. As I have highlighted, MAS has published, even before the FTX collapse, a series of consultation papers with tighter regulatory measures. After our consultations, we will want to put in place these tightened measures for the licensed entities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just have one supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister on his reply to my earlier supplementary question. So, it is just one, you can count me on that.
\t
\tOf course, Ministries, Statutory Boards are subject to commercial external auditors and that includes the private companies under them. And GIC is also subject to commercial external auditors, as is Temasek. But Ministries, Statutory Boards, GIC and the private companies under Ministries and Statutory Boards are also subject, on top of that, to the Auditor-General's audits. So, why is it then that Temasek is not subject to the Auditor-General's audits?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, not all Statutory Boards are subject to the Auditor-General's audits. But, in fact, where there are issues that come up – could be in a Town Council, it could be in a Statutory Board, it could be in Temasek – if there are reasons, we will have no hesitation to ask the Auditor-General to go in to do a full audit.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. Sorry, Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I had filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on how the Government manages these two investment entities – GIC and Temasek. I do not believe they have been answered in the Minister's answer earlier.
Firstly, when there are huge investment losses, does MOF demand internal and external investigations, just to make sure that there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct?
Secondly, does MOF benchmark the performance of Temasek Holdings and GIC against other comparable funds, like other sovereign wealth funds? If so, which funds are these and how do they compare?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I did mention briefly in my reply just now that when it comes to performance management, we do assess and monitor closely the long-term performance of our investment entities. The published references are the GIC Reference Portfolio as well as the MSCI equities indices, which are published by both GIC and Temasek respectively.
If you look at both entities' performance vis-à-vis these reference points, they have done well, in fact. It is all published information. They have done well over the long term.
We also track the performance of other fund managers. That is more internal. But in fact, many of these fund managers' performances are published. Anyone can look at how private equities have done – top quintile, top quantile – asset managers, how they have done over the long term. That information is published. So, anyone can look at that data and compare that with GIC and Temasek's performance, which is also published.
The facts remain that even after comparing GIC and Temasek with other leading institutional investors, our two investment entities have done well, creditably, amidst a more challenging investment environment. So, that is for performance management.
On losses, whether or not we require specific audits or reviews to be done, losses happen all the time as part of the investment process. So, you have to really take that into consideration and look at the overall portfolio rather than look at each individual project that does not do well. As I mentioned just now, if you look at the overall portfolio for both Temasek and GIC, their performance has been creditable and, in fact, in many instances, above industry averages.
But in this case, because it is such an exceptional situation, it has gotten so much publicity, it has also impacted Temasek reputationally, Temasek itself has undertaken its review, it has put out information and it has taken the extra step of doing a further review; which it has also said it will do – an internal review, led by an independent team reporting to the board, with the purpose of looking at how it can learn from this experience and improve its own processes.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First, the Minister shared that licensed DPT service providers are required to put in place a risk assessment test, among other things. However, as such measures have yet to be put in place, unlicensed service providers, such as FTX, could still have conducted business activities in Singapore with our retail customers. How does the Government intend to address this gap?
Second, I note that Temasek's investment in FTX, at US$275 million, was a small percentage of their overall portfolio. However, given the concerns around the viability of blockchain and crypto-related industries, will the Minister be willing to share what is the number of companies' dollar value and percentage exposure to service providers and technology infrastructure players related to blockchain and the digital asset space to assure Singaporeans, especially when The Straits Times reported on 24 November that GIC is an investor in the group, with ties to troubled cryptocurrency broker Genesis Trading?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the first question, the gap in regulations will exist, no matter what we do. Even if we have a very comprehensive system in Singapore, it does not stop Singaporeans from going overseas or going online to overseas platforms to invest in cryptocurrency. This is not going to stop that from happening.
I think what we should do is focus on what are reasonable regulations, learning from the recent experiences and put in place a sound regulatory system but, at the same time, continue with the reminders and public education we have been doing all this while for so many years. We will step up our efforts there to let people know the risk of investing in cryptocurrency, that this is highly volatile, it has no intrinsic value; and, really, anyone who does this has to go in with their eyes open.
On the second question, I have already actually answered that in the context of Ms Tin Pei Ling's first supplementary question, setting out the investments that our investment entities make in this digital asset space within the context of their holdings in early-stage companies. We do not go beyond that because we do not go into specific company investments. But within that broad context and the parameters I have set out, I hope Members are assured that the exposures are limited and it is within the context of a very well-diversified portfolio, which will then allow us to still earn good returns on other projects, even though there may well be a few projects where there are losses. But that is the whole point of diversification in investments.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the clarifications. I do appreciate and understand that losses are part and parcel of the investment landscape. I do not think anyone questions when Temasek makes money. And it is not an easy job. But there are two fallouts to this particular collapse of FTX.
One is on the retail investors. There are scammers, opportunists taking advantage of the situation, setting up websites for people to come forward to make claims. Would MAS be looking into how to protect our Singaporean retail investors in this regard?
Secondly, the Deputy Prime Minister talked about reputational damage to Temasek, especially given the fraud allegations in the particular collapse, even with the write-off. Would Temasek be looking to reserve its rights to make any particular claim, should the need arise?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Yes, to the second question. I am sure Temasek is on top of this and will reserve its rights to do so.
On the first question, there are scammers. We are concerned about that. Whether it is in the crypto space, whether it is SMS – there is a whole range of different scams. That is why we have set up a task force specifically on scams and we will do whatever we can to address this problem.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister. Just following up on the Deputy Prime Minister's replies to some of the supplementary questions. With regard to Temasek's independent review of the FTX imbroglio, this independent review, is it an external one, external to Temasek, or is it internal, a Temasek team reporting on Temasek's investment in FTX?
The second question is, what thresholds must be crossed before AGO steps in to audit a Temasek investment or Temasek investment process in a company?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Sir, this Temasek review that it has initiated is an internal one. It will be led by people who are separate from the investment team that made this decision. So, they will be separate, they will not be clouded by what steps were taken and they will report directly to the board, as I mentioned just now.
What further actions might MOF, as shareholder or Government, take? Is this sufficient in this case or what thresholds will be reached in order for us to trigger further action? Quite aside from this case, for which Temasek is doing its part and is pursuing this review, which I would add, separately, that it does this for FTX, but it actually also has done this in the past before when there are similar instances. It does not happen very often. But when there are instances where, for example, there is a write-off in an investment project, where there is a permanent impairment and it is an investment that did not go well, then they would initiate something like this. They have done this before and that is what they are doing again. It is a step-up from their usual review process, which applies to all investments. In this case, as has happened in the past, Temasek feels that this is a significant project and there is something to be learnt from the experience, so, they are undertaking this separate review.
Will we go beyond such a separate review to call in external auditors, for example? I think it is the question that the Leader of the Opposition raised. Certainly, the Government will not rule out doing so, but it is not just a matter of an investment loss. It would be something that we feel has gone wrong within the organisation, possibly there might be negligence, there might be fraud, there might be misconduct. So, it has to be of that significant threshold for us to say, \"Look, something is not right within the organisation; let us commission or get the Auditor-General to go in and do a proper audit and investigation\". And we will not rule out if something like that were to happen.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answers. Sometimes, in these situations, the mood among investors and investment-related decision-makers can change as the narrative shifts. Can I ask whether the Deputy Prime Minister foresees the possibility that investors and investment entities will shy away and have a chilling effect on their appetite for high potential, long-term investments that, nevertheless, have good fundamentals? Because in the Science and Technology sector, there have been investments and developments with a long horizon that bore fruit many years later – whether it was the vaccines that allowed us to fight COVID-19, whether it is monoclonal antibodies that took years to become viable treatments for diseases and so on.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Thank you. That is precisely the advantage that we have as investors. It is a very important strategic advantage that GIC and Temasek have. To have that long-term perspective and not just to focus on the short-term or follow and chase after fads; and then, if the market cycle comes down, you quickly sell your assets and cut your losses.
That is not something we want to do. We want our entities to have that long-term horizon, invest within the risk limits, invest in some new technologies, some early-stage companies, recognising that, as I said just now, many startups will not do well, but a few might eventually prove to be wildly successful and become giants in their own right. So, there is a place for that.
Our investment entities do recognise this and there is an appropriate allocation in their portfolios for such investments. And they will continue to take such risks. But I hope everyone in this House recognises this. And that is why it is important we insulate our investment entities from these political pressures and let them do their jobs well, commercially and professionally, as they have been doing all these years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures against Night Business Operators Causing Noise Disamenity That Affect Residents ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what actions can be taken against night business operators that persistently cause noise disamenity which badly affects residents in a neighbourhood.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, nightlife establishments are required to obtain the necessary land use approval from URA and are regulated by the Police under the Public Entertainments Act.
They must comply with conditions stipulated in their Public Entertainment licence, or PE licence for short. These include noise control requirements, for example, ensuring that any amplified sounds emanating from the premises do not exceed 55 A-weighted decibels when measured at the nearest residential dwelling after 10.30 pm.
The Police conduct regular checks on nightlife establishments to ensure that they comply with the licensing conditions. The frequency of checks takes into account complaints received from the public. Regulatory action will be taken against operators who do not comply with the licensing conditions. This includes suspending or revoking the operator’s PE licence.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I filed this Parliamentary Question on behalf of quite a number of my residents who are affected by this phenomenon. But I truly appreciate the good groundwork by our ground partners, such as the Neighbourhood Police Posts from Rochor, Marina Bay and Kampong Java and also agencies like NEA.
But they seemed to be quite constrained in their work on the ground and I wonder if MHA and other relevant agencies can review and take more effective upstream measures to contain this noise disamenity that comes as a result of night entertainment operators, such as ensuring that before allowing operating, that soundproofing and other measures are put in place first and that the decibel limits are actually looked into, whether it is really effective, that it does not affect the residents, such as restricting or disallowing licences in residential zones and also perhaps studying and granting the Police and agencies like NEA and LTA more power to enforce more effective measures against the errant operators.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I would also like to thank the Member for working with our agencies in managing some of these issues.
Essentially, what we do is that when they apply for such licences, we will do a thorough assessment, looking at how the area is and the feedback received, and there are certain requirements that we also make them fulfill. For example, they must soundproof their unit and also, in their operations, their windows must all be closed and doors as well, unless there are people going in and out. They may also be required to install sound level meters to monitor such noises.
When we hear of such feedback, we will enhance the enforcement and work together as well with the operators. We will continue to work with the Member and we will see how we can manage these together and, at the same time, bring all the agencies together to help address the issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Customers of Home-based or Micro Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the legal and consumer safety nets for customers of home-based businesses or micro businesses should customers feel that they have been unfairly treated or if the businesses have wilfully misrepresented their services and products to them.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA in short, protects consumers against unfair practices that all suppliers, including home-based businesses and micro businesses, might have engaged in. Misrepresentation of goods and services constitutes an unfair practice under CPFTA.
Consumers may approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) for assistance in seeking redress from suppliers. CASE can represent a consumer to negotiate a settlement with an errant supplier or mediate between a consumer and an errant supplier. If negotiation or mediation fails, consumers may file a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal or seek other forms of legal redress.
In egregious cases, CASE will refer errant suppliers to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) for investigation under CPFTA. CCCS may then apply for a Court injunction to restrain the supplier from engaging in the unfair practice. The Courts may also make accompanying orders, which include requiring the supplier to notify consumers of the injunction order and to report to CCCS any change to its business, such as a change in address.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. We have seen in my constituency the blossoming of home-based businesses, especially during and after COVID-19. In response, I have seen more residents supporting such home-based businesses, sometimes, even operated by their neighbours. While the vast majority of the home-based business transactions have yielded very happy results, residents have given feedback that more balance needs to be given to help represent the consumer rights of residents should the deal go south.
As I understand it, if the home-based business is not registered with ACRA, the only way forward is through the Small Claims Tribunal and it is an online self-help platform costing up to $25.50 for a Court application. For many of the consumers, the cost could be an issue and some would appreciate assistance with the mediation process, especially if it involves a neighbour.
Given the above, would the Ministry also consider having organisations like CASE play a bigger role in safeguarding the interests of customers of home-based businesses, especially if they are not registered businesses?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling for her supplementary questions. I am very heartened to hear that in her constituency, her residents are supporting one another's home-based businesses.
I would like to clarify that home-based and micro businesses are subject to regulations like any other businesses and these businesses need to be registered with ACRA. That is an important clarification. And in the unfortunate event that the transaction goes south, like what the Member described, consumers may approach CASE for assistance to seek redress from the errant home-based businesses.
Let me give the Member a quick example. For instance, if the consumer senses that the home-based business is engaging in unfair practices, such as misrepresentation, they can approach CASE and CASE will then take in the details of the transaction and provide advice or help to negotiate on behalf of the consumer or mediate and determine if it should be escalated to CCCS. I want to assure the Member that CCCS, which is an agency under MTI, can and has the power to investigate egregious home-based suppliers under CPFTA.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to check with the Minister of State whether CASE works with the Police in cases where they have multiple complaints from various consumers against the same operator or business provider. To what extent does CASE assess that this could be more than a misrepresentation but bordering on fraud for the cases to be referred to the Police for investigation? Is there a certain threshold, such as the total number of consumer complaints against a particular service provider, before it gets escalated to become a criminal fraud case?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Carrie Tan for her supplementary questions. In fact, CASE works closely not just with CCCS but also with SPF. Together, CCCS and CASE do monitor, for example, sector by sector, including by company, whether they are receiving feedback for certain misrepresentations and we will follow up accordingly.
First, CASE, to represent them to negotiate or mediate and then, if need be, escalate to CCCS for further investigation.
Let me share with Ms Carrie Tan that as far as CCCS is concerned, for example, we can even follow up with the business to enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with CASE. If we feel that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the supplier/business has engaged in an unfair practice, we will ask the company to enter into a VCA. This is serious because this includes an undertaking that the business would not engage in the unfair practice and would also require the business to compensate any consumer who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the unfair practice and, in fact, we will require them to indicate that in the invoice that they issue to their customers.
Let me also share with the Member that as we investigate each case, even as we take a case-by-case basis, there are a few considerations. For example, one, the strength of evidence obtained in the investigation, whether there is sufficient evidence for CCCS to prove on the balance of probabilities that the business has engaged in unfair practice. Another consideration is the extent of consumer harm that is caused by this business' alleged unfair practice. Third is the egregiousness of the business conduct and so on. There may also be public interest concerns.
So, all these are taken into consideration comprehensively and also seriously.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Weightage of Patients' Feedback on Performance Grading of Nurses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether feedback from patients and their families is taken into consideration in a nurse’s performance grading; (b) if so, what is the weightage given to such feedback in a nurse’s performance grading; and (c) how are nurses protected against unfair feedback or abuse by patients or visitors.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Nurses’ performance appraisal is holistic and includes various key areas, such as the provision of timely and quality patient care, display of leadership capabilities and professional and personal development. While institutions take feedback from patients and their family members seriously, this is not used to directly determine the performance grade that a nurse receives.
In general, feedback from patients and their family members is considered an integral part of quality and care improvement for our public healthcare institutions. Positive feedback is conveyed to the nurses and care team to recognise their efforts as well as to encourage and motivate them to keep up the good work. On the other hand, negative feedback is looked into in case there is a need to address any gaps in quality of care in the spirit of continuous improvement.
As for abuse and harassment, our public healthcare institutions take a serious stance against these and staff are encouraged to report such instances to their supervisor or appropriate whistle-blowing channels if necessary. These will be looked into fairly, as it is crucial to protect and support staff against abusive patients or family members accompanying patients. When necessary, Police reports have been lodged before, for the Police to conduct further investigations and actions to be taken.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think she mentioned that it is not considered directly in the appraisal. So, could I just ask and confirm again that the negative feedback about nurses that they receive from the patient or the family will not directly affect their bonus, appraisal or their promotion as well?
Second, I think MOH has shared that the Care Ambassador position will be made permanent and there might be some job redesign as well. Could I just ask for a timeframe for that? This is because I think that will help in terms of having some staff members on the ground who are customer service trained in the wards and can handle some of these complaints and feedback that the nurses receive.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question. I just want to, firstly, mention that the nurses are in the business of patient care. So, it is about making sure that they are taking care of the patients well. And if there is feedback from the patients and family members, we do have to consider this. It is an integral part of the quality and care improvement for public health institutions (PHIs). But this is something we look at in general.
\t
Holistically, when we talk about bonuses, when we talk about their promotion, a lot of other aspects come into play and this something that all nurses would know and that has been practised by the PHIs. We do take the concerns of patients and family members and, if it impacts their work and their performance, we then need to take action. In some ways, it does have some relevance, if it is investigated and if there are some areas where the nurses can improve, this needs to be taken into account. Training may be provided, some support may be provided. So, in some ways, it does impact on their performance and appraisal, but this is not the only factor. Promotion and bonus are things which will come after looking at the whole performance holistically.
On the second issue about Care Ambassadors, I note that the Member has been concerned about the workload and having to balance some of the issues that the nurses have raised. We have been working on this, as the Member is aware. There have been various efforts. The public healthcare institutions, especially different clusters, all have different efforts that they are putting in place. Some of these things we are harmonising to see how we can make sure that all the clusters can also step up and have similar practices amongst them. This is something that is a work-in-progress. And in different institutions, there may be some things that they can do first, there may be somethings that they can do faster and we are letting that happen. But, in general, this is a work-in-progress and we will make the appropriate announcements when it is ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incentivising SMEs to Lease Electric Vehicles for Commercial Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will roll out schemes to incentivise SMEs to pivot to renting electric vehicles for commercial use, in view of Singapore’s Green Plan and climate ambitions.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, the Government has implemented incentives, such as the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme (CVES) and Early Turnover Scheme (ETS), to encourage electric Light Goods Vehicles (e-LGV) purchases, including purchases by vehicle rental companies.
The adoption of e-LGVs in Singapore has grown significantly – from 0.4% of new LGV registrations in 2020, to around 28% this year, to date. This is the highest among all vehicle categories. We will continue to monitor and review the efficacy of and the need for any additional incentives.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The first is whether there are any specific sectors he is targeting for the electric vehicle (EV) transition for both motor vehicles as well as motorcycles.
The second is with regard to EV motorcycles. Just yesterday, I had a resident who is an SME owner and trying to sell electric motorcycles in Singapore. He has concerns about the ability to rent out his motorcycles for commercial use or even private use going forward. My question is whether the Minister can shed some light on which agencies would be appropriate to help such approaches in terms of renting electric motorcycles in Singapore going forward.
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Do we target specific sectors? The answer is no, but with an important qualifier. Basically, because when you make a transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to electric, there is a general benefit to the overall ecosystem in terms of emissions reduction. However, of course, in certain sectors where the utilisation of the vehicles may be more intensive, if the conversion can take place earlier and to a greater extent, then the beneficial outcomes will also be similarly enhanced.
So, from that point of view, for example, we are seeing moves in the taxi and also the bus fleets – we have announced that 50% of our bus fleet will be fully electric by the end of the decade and so on – because these are where there are emissions that might be more intensive because of usage patterns.
In addition, I would say it is also a function of technology because, for example, in the realm of very heavy vehicles, adoption and usage have been varied when it comes to electrification. In fact, other solutions, like hydrogen, appear to be gathering momentum. So, we will have to wait and see.
But the broad answer would be that we are not targeting specific sectors. Rather, we are focused on just promoting the general adoption of and transition to EVs and, eventually, to other cleaner energy forms.
On the second point on EV motorcycles, I must first point out that, today, plug-in solutions already exist. There are motorcycles that can use plug-in recharging and so on, and that already is there. But this, generally, tends to be in the higher power output type of motorbikes. For the broad mass, at the moment, there are different models. Battery swapping is one solution that is being promoted and the challenge with these sorts of solutions is the safety consideration. Because we want to ensure that if batteries can, in fact, be removed from the vehicle and taken to whichever premises, including residential premises, then the attendant risks, including fire hazards, increase as well. And so, we want to be very careful about this.
What we have done is to commence some trials with partners. For example, it brings together the supplier of the motorcycle, the supplier of the charging solution, the user of such motorcycles, like a delivery company and so on, and we have two such trials taking place. On the specific point raised by the Member, the agency that is coordinating this effort is LTA and, if there is a specific query, I would be very happy to ask LTA to follow up on it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opening Rail Lines to New Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport for upcoming rail lines, whether there are any plans to open the rail market to new operators beyond the two existing operators.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, ensuring contestability in our rail system is an important consideration for us. Contestability will help spur operators to improve standards and put in more competitive tender bids. Therefore, when we introduced the New Rail Financing Framework in 2016, one of the changes was to shorten the licence period for rail operators from over 30 years to 15 years today.
However, we also need to consider the unique circumstances and characteristics of the rail industry. The rail industry is a highly complex and large-scale system that delivers an essential service. So, we must allow for operators to reap economies of scale even as they maintain high reliability and service standards. So, any decision pertaining to current and new rail lines, will have to continue to balance these key considerations.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just got two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is in relation to my original Parliamentary Question. Am I right to understand that, at this moment, there are no plans to actually bring in potential foreign players to enter the market, just like what the Government did when it comes to the bus business?
The second clarification is, I do hear the Minister's point on the large-scale system, that is, the MRT networks and all. So, given the requirements for economies of scale and efficiencies at the same time, if we are not bringing in the foreign players, would the Government also consider perhaps having just a single operator to manage the entire rail line to achieve those economies of scale?
\tMr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. In his two questions, I think he has actually traversed the entire spectrum of what could be the industry structure – from a monopoly to competitions. I am not quite sure where he is on the spectrum. But anyway, let me endeavour to respond.
First, we want to really promote competition because of the beneficial impact that it can have – what I have already explained. There is no reason to think, as of now, the equation has somehow shifted in the direction of going towards consolidation.
So, specific to the Members' second question, these are all policy design. So, policy design, as I have emphasised in some previous responses, must be informed by data and the experience and also the evolving circumstances. But, as of now, we think the balance is right in terms of between the need for scale and the benefits that go with it, as opposed to also the desire for greater competitiveness and contestability in our rail system.
As for the involvement of foreign players, I think the way the Member has framed it perhaps may not be an entirely correct characterisation. As I have said, first of all, we have not ruled out, but neither do we have any particular set of considerations that impel us in this direction of bringing in a completely new operator. However, for foreign players to come in, there are other mechanisms. So, for example, through partnerships with local players, so that they can share their expertise and also for some co-mingling of ideas and so on. And that is something that LTA remains open to.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Pass to Attract and Retain Foreign Nurses at Restructured Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"26 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can work with the Ministry of Manpower and consider having an improved Employment Pass specifically to attract and retain foreign nurses at our restructured hospitals.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): The healthcare sector, currently, brings in foreign nurses using the Employment Pass or S Pass. MOH has already been working with MOM to exercise appropriate flexibility under the work pass framework to meet the sector's manpower needs.
We also work closely with our public healthcare institutions to shore up recruitment for both local and foreign staff to augment the healthcare workforce, as well as to ensure that salaries remain competitive.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the quick reply. I have two quick clarifications. One, are we reviewing this work pass conditions because we know that there was very high attrition of foreigners. So, if you are going to hire the 4,000 new nurses, of which many are foreigners, and they come and work with the same conditions, I think we are going to have an equally high attrition rate.
Second, specifically, can we look into whether they can bring their dependants because many left because they want to go back to their families. Again, I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can review that and allow some of them to bring their dependants to Singapore as well
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank Mr Louis Ng for the questions. I understand the issues that he has raised and, in fact, these are some common concerns we have heard. We are definitely looking into them.
As I mentioned earlier, MOH is working very closely with MOM on this and we will look at how we can work on the appropriate flexibility arrangements so that we can manage the numbers that we are looking at.
All these issues are, indeed, the matters that we are currently working on and I hope that the Member can share with the nurses who have given him this feedback that this is something that we take seriously and that we will be working on these matters.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 27 and 29-43 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electric Vehicles Charging Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Transport.
The Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, Singapore aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To attain this national target, we must significantly decarbonise the land transport sector, which accounts for about 15% of emissions.
The electrification of our vehicle population is key to this effort. The carbon emissions of an electric car are half that of an internal combustion engine (ICE) car and this will improve as more renewable sources enter our energy mix.
Our vision is for all vehicles in Singapore to run on cleaner energy by 2040. Based on current trends, many of these – in fact, a significant proportion – will be electric vehicles, or EVs. This year, more than 10% of new light vehicle registrations were EVs, up from 0.3% in 2020. That is a 30-fold increase.
The adoption has been broad-based, with half of all EVs registered to condominium and HDB residents.
To further encourage the EV transition, we need an island-wide public charging network that is safe, reliable and accessible. We aim to deploy 60,000 charging points across Singapore by 2030.
Today, we have over 3,600 charging points, which is more than double the number two years ago. LTA recently awarded a tender to deploy an additional 12,000 charging points across all HDB carparks. And this means that our charging network is going to expand significantly by the middle of this decade.
As we ramp up the EV charging infrastructure, we must also strengthen the governing regulatory framework. Last year, Parliament amended the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act, to assign to LTA the statutory function of promoting and regulating the safe use of EVs in Singapore.
The proposed Electric Vehicles Charging Bill aims to confer LTA with new statutory powers to administer and enforce a comprehensive regulatory regime.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. This Bill serves three main objectives.
The first is to ensure that EV chargers are safe, and safely used. Hence, the Bill proposes to regulate the supply, advertisement, installation, registration, maintenance and use of EV chargers, both portable and fixed, including battery charge and swap stations and pantograph chargers.
Second, to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services through a licensing regime for EV charging operators.
Third, to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network, by mandating a minimum provision of charging points at certain developments and by lowering the resolution threshold for EV charger installation at strata-titled developments.
Earlier this year, MOT and LTA conducted a public consultation exercise on the Bill. More than 70 members of the public and industry players responded and were, generally, supportive of the provisions that have been proposed.
Industry respondents recognised the need for a licensing regime for EV charging operators, so as to maintain standards, but requested that compliance costs be kept low. My Ministry and LTA will work with the industry to ensure this even as we design an effective licensing regime.
Many also supported the proposed charging provision mandate and some even asked for the mandate to be expanded to cover all developments. I will address this later.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now elaborate on how the Bill will help to achieve the three objectives of safety, reliability and accessibility.
First, on regulating for the safe use of EV chargers. Today, while the Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates the installation of EV chargers by Licensed Electrical Workers, the activities of others like charger manufacturers, charger suppliers, charger owners and users are not.
Given the potential fire and other safety hazards, the Bill proposes regulation to cover the entire use cycle of EV chargers and to consolidate the regulatory oversight under LTA.
Clause 6 of the Bill specifies that all chargers supplied in Singapore must belong to a homologated model that meets the national charging standard, which is Technical Reference 25, or TR25, and it was revised earlier this year. The supply of a non-homologated model is an offence with the penalty for individuals of a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum jail term of 24 months, or both, while a corporate entity faces a maximum fine of $40,000.
Clause 15 of the Bill prohibits the advertisement of non-approved EV charger models, including online or digital advertising. The Bill empowers LTA to direct the advertiser to stop further publication of the advertisement, disable access to the offending advertisement or publish a corrective advertisement.
As new and emerging charging solutions may not comply with TR25, Part 4 of the Bill allows LTA to administer a special authorisation regime for such chargers to be trialled under controlled conditions, until they are, eventually, incorporated into our main standards.
To ensure accountability for the proper use and maintenance of EV chargers, clause 22 allows LTA to maintain a national Register of EV chargers. The person in charge and control of an EV charger, which is typically the owner, must register the charger with LTA and will be the registered responsible person required to ensure that it is properly maintained and periodically inspected by a qualified person.
To ensure safe installation, the Bill and accompanying subsidiary legislation will require chargers to be certified as fit for charging electric vehicles by qualified persons, which includes Licensed Electrical Workers (LEWs) and charging equipment specialists. The installation of fixed chargers must also be overseen by LEWs.
In addition, the Bill also has safeguards against unsafe charging. For example, EV chargers capable of charging detachable EV batteries will not be allowed in residences because of the risk of battery fires. Also, a manufacturer or supplier who knows of a safety defect in the charger or charger model it has supplied must inform persons with charge and control of such chargers on how to rectify the defect and, subsequently, report to LTA upon the completion of rectification work.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Part 6 of the Bill introduces a licensing regime for EV charging service providers or charging station operators to ensure the reliability of the EV charging network and services.
The services provided by such EV charging operators will include hiring of fixed EV chargers, EV battery swapping and renting of portable EV chargers.
EV charging operators must obtain a licence, which will be valid for three years and renewable. Licensing conditions will include the purchase of public liability insurance and correcting EV charging service downtime issues within a specified duration.
For a start, the licensing regime will only cover EV charging operators that provide charging services to the public, given the focus on commercial EV charging operators. This coverage can be expanded in accordance with future needs.
The Bill also allows for step-in arrangements in respect of a designated licensee.
Under clause 56, the Minister may, by order in the Gazette, prescribe a licensee that is authorised to provide EV charging services as a designated licensee. For example, this may be a licensee with a large scale of operations in Singapore. If the licence of a designated licensee is revoked or surrendered, the Minister for Transport may, on the advice of LTA, invoke clause 57 of the Bill to authorise a step-in operator to take over the designated licensee's operations temporarily, for no more than 12 months. This will minimise disruption and facilitate a smoother transition for the affected EV users. The intent is for these provisions to be invoked where no short-term commercial arrangement or remedies are available and it will be used as a last resort.
The third objective of this Bill is to promote the accessibility of the EV charging network. With more vehicles going electric, all carparks in Singapore will need to provide for EV charging.
Therefore, Part 8 of the Bill mandates the provision of EV charging infrastructure by developers of specified building works and development owners who carry out certain types of electrical works. These are, typically, new developments or those undergoing substantial renovation.
The mandate, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, consists of two parts. First, developers must install electrical infrastructure that supports at least 1.3 kilovolt amperes of power for every car and motorcycle parking lot in the development. Second, developers must install a minimum number of charging points which would draw at least one-fifth of that amount of power.
To illustrate, a development that is in compliance will be able to support 7.4 kilowatt (kW) charging points with smart charging capability at about one in five lots. And in terms of the actual installation of chargers, the developer can comply with the mandate by fitting out about one in 25 lots with such 7.4 kW charging points.
I am sure everyone understood that technical point. But if I may put it in simple terms, what it means is that one part of the requirement is for the electricity capacity that is to be provided and the technical people have used a specific metric applied to the number of parking lots to establish that cap. The second part of that mandate is on the number of lots. So, while you can have up to one in five of the lots with these chargers, the mandate is really, if you go by slow charging rates, it will amount to about one in 25. That is what it amounts to. So, it is about 4% or 5% of the lots.
But the mandate is designed to provide the flexibility to deploy a mix of charging points with different power ratings at more or fewer lots, depending on the needs of users. For instance, some developers may opt to have more charging lots installed with lower-powered chargers, while others may have fewer lots installed with higher-powered chargers. So, there is a trade-off because, for a given electrical capacity, if you choose to have more high-powered chargers, then you have fewer charging stations and vice versa.
Over the past two years, we have received feedback on the challenges faced by strata-titled developments like condominiums in installing EV charging points. Proposals to install EV charging points may be defeated despite having the majority support of subsidiary proprietors. This is because under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004, proposals to lease the common property to EV charging operators to install EV chargers could be required to meet a resolution threshold of up to 90%, depending on the duration of the lease.
Hence, in consultation with MND and BCA, we proposed related amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act so that proposals to install or uninstall EV chargers in strata-titled developments will only require an ordinary resolution, which can be passed with the support of a simple majority of the subsidiary proprietors voting in a general meeting. Such a proposal must not draw down on the funds of the Management Corporation, and the relevant lease or licence between the Management Corporation and the EV charging operator that enables such a proposal must not last for more than 10 years. So, there is a safeguard around the draw of funds and there is also a safeguard around the duration of the contract.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, as EV charging and related technology evolve, we will need to adapt our laws and regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose. This Electric Vehicles Charging Bill is an important foundation and first step. It is a milestone in Singapore's quest for a sustainable land transport system and in our journey towards net-zero emissions by 2050. And I commend it to all Members to give it their full support. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important milestone in our journey to become greener as a country. As recently as 2020, transport accounted for 16% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is already a lower percentage than the US, UK and the global figure, but it is still a significant piece as we look to cut our carbon emissions. Introducing this framework to regulate safe and efficient charging of EVs is a significant starting step, but it should not be the end.
My speech will not only focus on clarifying how certain provisions in this Bill are going to operate, but also discuss the broader implications on our strategy to transition Singapore's vehicle population from ICE to EVs.
First, I support Part 8 of the Bill which requires developers undertaking certain building or electrical works to install infrastructure to support the supply of minimum electrical charging capacity, as the Minister has shared earlier. This helps to future-proof developments that are presently being constructed even as the national EV strategy is being considered and refined. It is, generally, more cost-effective to plan and incorporate such infrastructural elements at the outset, than to require costly variation works midway through the construction works.
However, when is Part 8 going to come into force? Would present developments that have already obtained preliminary design and construction approvals be required to modify their plans?
Another question I have is, what is the minimum stage that the planning and construction work has to reach before the Minister would consider exempting a development from the new requirements introduced by Part 8?
Further, is there a particular reason why the new Part 8 requirements will not apply to works carried out by the Government or any public authority on land that they own? Given the nationwide push for a greener transport infrastructure, I would have thought that the Government would join the effort and take the lead in equipping its developments with the necessary electrical infrastructure.
Second, a large part of the Bill serves to regulate the devices that are intended for charging EVs in Singapore, the operators of charging stations and the providers of charging services for EVs. As we are contemplating widespread use of EVs and EV chargers, it is key that we have a regulatory framework to ensure the safety and efficient deployment of EV chargers.
From my reading of the Bill, I understand there to be three levels of regulatory control. First, EV chargers must be approved by LTA as an approved model and affixed with an approval label before it can be supplied or used in Singapore. Second, EV chargers must be registered with LTA and specify a registered responsible person before it can be used to charge any EV in Singapore. Third, persons who provide EV charging services in Singapore or engages in conduct as a charging station operator must be licensed.
Is each of the three levels of control necessary, or is it regulatory overkill?
We must be cognisant that each level increases the amount of compliance costs for EV Charging Operators (EVCOs), which could have the effect of increased EV charging costs for end users and even the effect of squeezing out potentially competitive EVCOs from the relatively small market we have in Singapore. In the longer term, this is all going to have a material impact on the cost of EV charging, which I feel will make or break our efforts to get Singaporeans on board with our vision to transit to EVs.
I would like to ask the Ministry if there is a fair valuation exercise built in for EV charging over the next five to 10 years.
While EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, have a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. It will be useful to have a sense of the extent of the fair value EV charging costs in the future at this juncture.
In relation to the first level of control, LTA will only approve an EV charger model if it is satisfied that the model meets the safety and performance standards prescribed by the regulations. The question I have is: have these regulations been prepared and are they ready to be put into effect immediately? What are all these safety and performance standards that will be built into the legislation?
It is also contemplated that LTA-approved models of EV chargers will be identified with an approved label that is affixed to each EV charger which is intended to be supplied, installed, certified or charged in Singapore. What is the applicable fee that would be prescribed for the issuance of an approved label? That would be useful to note.
Further, what is the applicable fee for the issuance of an additional label where LTA approves a proposed alteration or modification to the EV charger model?
Another question is: is the approved label really the most suitable enforcement mechanism? Not only are physical labels susceptible to wear and tear which may cause them to peel off the EV charger; more importantly, who is the intended audience of the label? For the regulator, the presence or absence of a label is unnecessary for it to identify whether an EV charger is an approved model. For an end-user, I am doubtful that the absence of a label would cause them to avoid using a particular EV charging station.
The second level of control is for LTA to register an EV charger if the EV charger is lawfully certified as fit for charging any EV in Singapore and lawfully installed in accordance with clause 24 of the Bill. Given that a certifier is obliged to check that an EV charger satisfies the applicable safety and performance standards here, does it not render the first approval-label stage superfluous? Why is it necessary to separate the approval of EV model and registration of EV chargers into two stages?
Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill provide that the certification will have to be done by a prescribed competent person and a prescribed person. We now know from LTA's announcement that these refer to charger equipment specialists and a Licensed Electrical Worker, or LEW, respectively. Are there any plans by the Ministry or LTA to train and recruit more Singaporeans to be LEWs and charger equipment specialists? Are there any targeted numbers of such specialists to support our EV charging push? While there may already be ITE and Polytechnic courses and programmes in this regard, can we aim to do more, for example, by designing career conversion programmes or Career Transition Programmes around these aims to meet our requirements?
The Bill also requires the registered responsible person for an EV charger to keep and retain records, such as certificates, going back at least two years. Given the overarching theme of sustainability in relation to this Bill, my humble suggestion is that such records can be uploaded and kept in a centralised electronic repository rather than in paper form. This will be in line with our general push to digitalise our systems and records. This would also assist LTA in transposing the necessary information to the register of registered-for-charging EV chargers that it is required to maintain.
I also have a couple of questions on the register to be maintained by LTA. First, what are the concerns that drive the confidentiality provision at clause 22(4) of the Bill? I note from the public consultation feedback that the key concern is over undue disclosure of commercially sensitive data by the EV charger companies. What commercially sensitive information is LTA register expected to contain?
Second, clause 35 requires a manufacturer or supplier of an EV charger who becomes aware of any safety-related defect in the EV charger to give notice to every registered responsible person for a registered-for-charging EV charger of the same model, among others. How would a manufacturer or supplier go about obtaining such confidential information?
Finally, on to the third level of control, that is, licensing of service providers and operators. As a preliminary question, what is the expected duration for which licences will be valid? Will the conditions of renewal be spelt out clearly in subsidiary legislation? I ask these questions because I expect an EVCO to have to invest significant capital expenditure at the outset which can only be recouped by its provision of services over time. It would be important for them to have enough certainty over their projected revenue stream in the mid to long term so as to perform their internal financial calculations for their business.
Also, considering our targets for our EV population and the number of EV charging points, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, does the Ministry have a rough idea of how many licensees it intends to allow to operate in the geographically limited market here?
I recognise that there are potentially a number of operational issues that LTA will need to formulate in consultation with the industry, such as what the optimal licence conditions ought to be. Considering the importance of this area in the next 10 to 20 years as we work to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, there may be value in encouraging a professional body to bring the relevant stakeholders and actors together. I believe the licensing regime introduced under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 was implemented quite smoothly, in part because there already existed professional bodies like the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Singapore (IPAS) that was anchoring the professional development and standards in that space.
Third, Part 4 of the Bill specially empowers the Government to make rules to trial non-approved or non-registered EV chargers. I assume they will automatically apply to the existing regulatory sandboxes that are taking place.
On that note, may I ask if there are any interim findings from the ongoing regulatory sandboxes for battery swapping for electric motorcycles? I had previously raised a Parliamentary Question on this back in October and earlier as well. I note that the Bill is technically broad enough to cover battery swapping services. Can I confirm that notwithstanding the Ministry's position that the charging of detachable batteries at home remains disallowed, it is prepared to proceed to register and license battery charge and swap stations, or BCSS, while the regulatory sandboxes are ongoing?
Fourth, can I check if LTA intends to take a proactive and pre-emptive enforcement stance, instead of prosecuting persons only after a particular safety or other incident has occurred? How does LTA intend to do so beyond mandating periodic inspections of registered EV chargers, which will not flush out cases of unauthorised supply or modification of EV chargers? Also, what are the enforcement capabilities and resources needed by LTA in the future and if it will meet the rise in enforcement needs?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by sharing some thoughts on matters that do not appear to be expressly dealt with in this Bill, but which should be considered as part of our holistic plan to transition towards an EV population.
One, would this Bill and its subsidiary legislation, if passed, regulate the commercial aspects of how EVCOs conduct their business, for example, by imposing ceilings on charging costs or mechanisms to regulate any increase in charging costs? Given that the road tax for an EV is significantly higher, how the EV charging costs compare with the cost of petrol will be key in determining consumer take-up. Some assurances or controls over future increases in EV charging costs will give some consumers the confidence to take the leap of faith and go with the relatively new EV option.
Two, LTA's power to order a step-in arrangement under Part 7 of the Bill is a useful power, but LTA's role in encouraging a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector is equally, if not more, important.
HDB and JTC are likely to be the largest landlords with which EVCOs will contract with in Singapore and such tenders are usually conducted by LTA. Where an EVCO has its licence suspended, revoked or surrendered, instead of externalising the costs to taxpayers by ordering a step-in, a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector would mean that market forces can be counted on to secure a replacement EVCO for continuity of services. Having regard to the large tenders which have already gone out this year, what are LTA's optimal long-term plans in terms of the number of EV charging points, percentage of HDB carparks that are EV charging lots and so on?
Three, are there any plans to develop this legislation in future to go beyond regulating the EV chargers and become an omnibus Act that will cover all aspects of our EV transition?
Mr Speaker, Sir, while EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, has a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. MOT and LTA will have to dynamically continue to manage the relative calibration of all the components to meet Singapore's overall goals and ensure safety at the same time. Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Electronic Vehicles Charging Bill is a step to institutionalising the process for the transition of our transportation infrastructure into the 21st century. The fundamental problem it seeks to address is this: how LTA and EMA will work together to ensure that the charging infrastructure is sufficient during the transition and, relatedly, how such charging costs will be regulated.
I support the Bill but have additional suggestions.
The bulk of my speech will address the hard infrastructure issues that are the primary concern of the Bill. However, I will conclude with thoughts on how soft infrastructure, in particular our Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, can also play a role in helping Singapore usher in the electrification of its vehicle fleet. Throughout, my focus will be on practical considerations associated with this transition process.
Parts 2 through 7 of the Bill empower LTA to constrain unregulated or inadequately maintained chargers by imposing minimal standards. Providers are also required to obtain fixed-duration licences and to meet conditions, such as minimal up times and securing public liability insurance. On the whole, these are in line with best practice international frameworks, such as the UN Global Technical Regulation on Electric Vehicle Safety, albeit it remains somewhat less ambitious than stricter standards, such as the EU Regulation Number 540/2014.
Of paramount concern is whether new EV charging stations will adequately address consumer safety concerns, including the risk of electric shocks, battery-related fire and cyber-hacking.
Fires are a particularly salient concern, given a number of recent reports of HDB fires due to Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and the general density of our multi-storey parking structures – Minister Iswaran alluded to this.
In Sengkang alone, I am aware of at least two over the past two years, and Minister Shanmugam has shared with this House, that there were 18 PMD fires across the island last year, all of which the SCDF and LTA had determined to be due to non-compliance with safety standards.
Beyond fires per se, our humid tropical environment may present greater maintenance challenges which, in turn, calls for more attention to ongoing regulation of the charging infrastructure. What safety features and public education efforts has the Ministry put in place to address such concerns? At the moment, the Bill, in Parts 5, 6 and 10, focuses mainly on technical and/or intended offences.
The pertinent question is how inadvertent violations that compromise safety can best be handled, as this also tends to be the case with PMD-charging-related fires.
Part 8 will expand the charging network by requiring new buildings with car parks to install charging points for – as Minister Iswaran helpfully clarified, the technical mumbo jumbo – around 4% of the total car and motorcycle lots. This is a good start and has been adopted in other crowded Asian cities, such as Tokyo.
The practical challenge here is how to ensure there are sufficient stations for EV owners wishing to charge their vehicles and, relatedly, how to prevent hogging of said chargers after charging is complete. After all, many would enjoy the convenience of being able to charge overnight, which is especially attractive given, at least for now, the lower cost of electricity after hours.
The flip side of the strategy, however, is that it would, typically, preclude the timely relinquishment of the station. One management approach is to adopt the strategy employed by Tesla which charges a per minute idle fee for vehicles that are already fully charged, with a higher penalty rate if all chargers are also simultaneously fully occupied. Even with such a system, there may be insufficient charging for certain user-type, the so-called \"power users\", which would be, for instance, taxi cabs and private hire car (PHC) drivers which are likely to be able to charge only during off-peak hours and require longer charging durations.
Some degree of calibration would, undoubtedly, be necessary, but one interim step may be for LTA to coordinate with PHC and taxi cab companies to obtain the distribution of their registered drivers and adapt initial installation at multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) accordingly. This could mean pursuing an active policy target that seeks the minimum number of charging points per building as stipulated by law.
Part 13 of the Bill, in particular, clause 97, is designed to expand the network for the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) car parks which do not directly fall under LTA and, hence, require more targeted incentive structures to encourage adoption.
In July last year, LTA launched the Electric Vehicle Common Charger Grant (ECCG) to promote the installation of charging infrastructure in non-landed private residences, a practice in line with other nations, such as Canada and the United Kingdom.
This Bill further relaxes the hurdle rate for the installation and removal of chargers, along with other charger management functions, to a simple majority. This is a clear improvement as, previously, some MCSTs may have required as much as 90% vote share to pass the necessary resolution.
My Workers' Party colleague Dennis Tan will suggest a tailored approach to the expansion of coverage, especially for industrial premises. I concur. In principle, MCSTs, such as condominiums as well as commercial and industrial developments, should have a strong incentive for charger installation, given the typically higher income profile of residents' overall heightened environmental consciousness of wealthy households, the ongoing flow of tenants and customers for such projects and the likelihood of a profitable income stream. The ECCG co-funding model should have provided the rest of the necessary boost.
Yet, the barrier to more widespread adoption seems more psychological than monetary. After all, inertia is a powerful force and those of us who have lived in condos and served on condo boards understand how apathetic most condo dwellers are about attending the annual general meeting (AGM). This leads one to wonder whether more can be done to empower MCST and commercial facilities to roll out even more charging stations. Could policy target higher minimum ratio for stations in non-landed private residences beyond legislation? This would ensure that these developments do not inadvertently fall behind even while the HDB rollout accelerates.
Mr Speaker, I will close with some thoughts on how our soft infrastructure can also be adapted and deployed to help with this EV transition.
Singapore already has a built-in system for effecting a controlled phase-out of the existing internal combustion engine fleet. We can do this in at least two ways.
The first is to adopt a fairly aggressive but backloaded strategy consistent with the Singapore Green Plan 2030. This means only permitting the registration of EVs after that year. If we were to do so, this would effectively phase out the approximately one-million-strong ICE fleet over the course of the following decade, give or take several tens of thousands of heavy goods vehicles that may be less amenable to electrification.
The advantage of this approach is that it allows the existing electric charging infrastructure to roll out over the course of the next seven years without too much excess pressure from latent demand. That said, there is an alternative. We can pursue a more gradualist strategy where we begin the issuance of EV-specific COE permits next year, with an even split between the permits available for EVs and ICE vehicles.
To further promote EV adoption, we could even provide temporary incentives that would favour the switch to EVs, such as a 10% discount, for instance, on the COE's face value for EV permits. Then this way we can embark on the EV transition immediately. And as private charging providers receive even stronger incentives for switching now, they will also step up efforts to expand their networks. This solves, in some part, the chicken and egg problem of EV charger installers waiting for greater EV adoption before increasing charging capacity while potential EV purchasers hold off while they await more charging stations to appear. Done this way, incrementally, over 20 years, we would meet our full EV fleet target by 2042, only two years after the 2040 deadline, with a more gradual process that simultaneously begins with the EV transition occurring earlier.
The COE system offers additional tools for us to encourage the switch to an EV fleet. For instance, there is some evidence that drivers of PHCs have expressed reluctance to switch to EVs owing to range anxiety and the much higher operating costs for EVs, estimated at as much as 82% or greater. Yet, since PHCs are utilised at about seven times the rate of the average car, they account for a disproportionate share of emissions.
One way to compel such switches is to designate a special COE category for PHCs that are also EVs. This riffs off a query that my Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua, had put forward, albeit in the context of concerns over whether PHCs were bidding up COE prices. To the extent that this eventually does raise the cost of regular ICE COEs, we can content ourselves that, at the very least, there is a beneficiary, which is, the environment.
Other approaches would be to provide subsidies or to offer a discount off the price of COEs in the PHC-EV category.
Mr Speaker: Minister Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Speaker, may I just seek a clarification from the Member? Did he say that PHC drivers expressed concern about the higher operating cost of EVs? I think he used the number of 80%. Is that correct?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, Minister, I did. This was based off a report in 2022, reported in paultan.org that said \"EVs made up just 8.4% of new cars registered in Singapore with Grab drivers being reluctant to switch\". This is not my own numbers but based on —
Mr S Iswaran: Sorry, paultan.org?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: — paultan.org, which is —
Mr S Iswaran: And it says 80% higher operating costs for EVs?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: That the estimated operating costs for EVs was as much as 82% greater, yes, based on that report.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the EV Charging Bill. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the President of Strides Mobility Services of SMRT which has business units that rent out EVs and provides EV chargers.
I had previously spoken during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate about how it is important to have enough or sufficient charging stations in HDB estates, private estates and commercial buildings. This is in order for the EVs to take off. I am glad to note that the EV Charging Bill has considered some of my recommendations.
With the EV Charging Bill that mandates private buildings to provide charging points and the recent LTA tender to install 12,000 EV charging points across 2,000 HDB car parks, Singapore will be transformed from a city with few charging points to a country with probably the highest number of charging points per capita. This is a strategic and timely move by MOT and LTA.
To realise our vision, we will need to consider ways to achieve fairness, better affordability and confidence for our EV users.
I would like to, first, touch on the affordability of EVs. The lifecycle cost of owning an EV, as compared to owning an ICE vehicle, is much higher. In other words, owning EVs over the lifespan is higher than owning ICE vehicles in Singapore currently. Will the majority of car buyers in Singapore buy EVs just because they are pro-environment or think that EVs are greener? This may not be so, as consumers are very practical and financially savvy.
Even the green-conscious residents in the Nordic countries are also behaving similarly as being cost-conscious. I would like to take Norway as an example. Norway, currently, has the highest rate of EV ownership in the world, with the most number of EV owners in Norway, compared to other countries. Yet, only 26% of the car buyers in Norway buy EVs because they are environmentally conscious. In fact, about 72% of the car buyers confessed that they buy EVs because of financial considerations, according to the survey conducted by the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association.
EV drivers in Norway get to use toll roads for free, enjoy free parking and are exempted from Norway's high purchase taxes. We may not take the same route, but some incentives do help to promote EVs. Currently, the EV buyers in Singapore enjoy some tax rebates and incentives. But is this enough? Would we need to do more, to give this a stronger push? I think we should.
When LTA signals its intention to install EV chargers in all HDB car parks, mass market EV adoption is key to the frequent utilisation of the chargers. To encourage mass market adoption, I also want to suggest that we perhaps give a discount for Category A (Cat A) COE prices for those EV buyers and I suggest that this can be part of the early adopter scheme. Do I only suggest to have 10% discount on Cat A COE? Why only Cat A? Because the Cat A COEs are catered to buyers who are more cost-conscious and it is more likely the Cat A COE cars ply the roads longer than other categories. So, by converting them to EVs, we can have a greater impact in reducing carbon dioxide emission.
But we have got to be careful about this. Instead of creating a separate EV category, as what is suggested by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, because those who are able to pay for the higher value of EVs, we should not subsidise them. And although this eye-catching COE discount early EV adopter scheme can be removed once a critical mass of EVs is on the road or when the prices of EVs have fallen significantly as predicted by industry experts, that would happen in a couple of years’ time.
I would also like to clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – he said the report said that operating a PHC or taxi equivalent, the cost is 82% higher. I really doubt this is so because in my experience of renting out EVs, the cost of owning and operating EVs is cheaper as compared to a hybrid or diesel vehicle because of the high mileage incurred by the PHC or taxi. But the reason why PHC drivers and the taxi drivers are reluctant to switch to an EV is because of the charging facilities right now.
Therefore, I would like to say that the installation of EV charging points in HDB car parks as part of the Government's plan to deploy 60,000 charging points by 2030 will reduce the range anxiety and provide the convenience of charging EVs.
At the same time, it is important to cultivate a good EV charging culture to deter hogging of charging points when an EV is fully charged. But we also do not want to go to the extent where you also charge an idling fee when the EV is fully charged at 4.00 am in the morning. There is a balance of how we want to use the idling charge to encourage good behaviour of charging.
Meanwhile, I understand from some industry players that there are teething issues relating to the installation and use of EV chargers in the HDB car parks which I hope Government agencies can help to resolve.
Firstly, I understand that the first batch of EV charging operators that were awarded to install charging points at HDB car parks faced difficulties coordinating with various agencies, just for clearance to install the chargers. I would like to urge Government agencies, led by MOT and LTA, to help eliminate any possible red tape so that EV chargers can be deployed swiftly in the second tender to install the 12,000 EV chargers. This will lead to a faster transition of ICE vehicles into an EV fleet across our car population.
Secondly, many users of commercial EVs find it difficult to park at HDB car parks, especially at multi-storey car parks, because of the weight of the EVs, which is much higher than ICE vehicles.
Instead, HDB – they replied in The Straits Times Forum page – will assess and grant approval on a case-by-case basis to allow EVs, especially commercial EVs, to park at multi-storey car parks, I hope that LTA and HDB can do a systemic review to facilitate parking of electric commercial vehicles at HDB car parks, which will eventually have EV charging facilities. This will better optimise the use of electric chargers by a range of vehicles and not just private EVs.
Thirdly, we understand that the roll-out of EV chargers at HDB car parks is a gradual process. Currently, only about 200 HDB car parks are installed with EV chargers. Some EV users staying at the precincts beside the existing car parks with EV chargers have to pay parking fees while they charge their EVs overnight. Thus, I hope LTA can work with HDB to consider making an arrangement to allow EV users staying adjacent to the car parks with EV chargers to park for free while charging their EVs. This is a transition period. But it would be good if the agencies can assist until all HDB car parks are installed with EV charges.
Under the new HDB EV charging contracts awarded by LTA, I understand different operators will have different EV charging rates at different HDB car parks due to the different concession fees that they will pay to LTA. I urge LTA to closely monitor the charging fees over time to ensure fairness and affordability.
At the same time, we would like to avoid the situation where, as what the Minister has said, EV users have to pay a higher charging fee should any of the charging operators exit the market.
To install EV chargers, only licensed electric workers or LEWs can do so. As of end June 2022, we know there were 4,000 LEWs in Singapore. However, many of the LEWs are already engaged in other jobs due to the opening up of our economy in tandem with the easing of COVID-19 pandemic restriction measures. Moreover, we also need LEWs to maintain the 60,000 EV chargers in time to come.
Thus, I would like to ask the Minister, as what the Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) has said, whether LTA would work with the industry to generate more trained LEWs to sustain the momentum of installing EV chargers in large numbers. In particular, will MOT and LTA be working with Polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education to train more Singaporeans to be LEWs?
According to a global survey, the number of consumers looking to buy EVs globally has hit 52% and it represents a 22% rise in just two years. At the same time, there are also growing concerns of EVs catching fire.
In the last two years, I also had two fire incidents at HDB flats in my Nanyang constituency that involved battery charging of electric personal mobility devices. There were casualties from these two incidents, including one death, unfortunately. Likewise, the safety of EVs cannot be overlooked.
In China, apparently, there were 680 EV fires in the first quarter of this year alone. That translates to seven EV fires a day. At the same time, there are also reports indicating that EVs are safer than ICE vehicles. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister on key lessons which MOT and LTA have gleaned on the safety of EV and EV charging.
We are in the midst of going through an exciting transformation in the transport sector as part of our quest towards the Singapore Green Plan 2030. The Electric Vehicles Charging Bill has the potential to turbo-charge our transition from the ICE age to the new EV era. But we cannot overlook the transition issues that have been highlighted above and I hope the Minister can address them.
We recognise that the best way to travel around Singapore is by train or by MRT. Please take the train as often as possible. But if you need to drive, consider an EV.
Before I end, I would like to ask Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who was suggesting that after some years, we will not allow the registration of any non-EV vehicles. I would like to ask which year he anticipates that would come. Notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Sir, if I may clarify two points. The first has to do with that report. It has now been raised both by the Member as well as Minister S Iswaran.
The quote was originally by the Grab Group's Vice President for Marketing and Sustainability, Cheryl Goh. She had made this statement in a conference and it was reported not just in my original source but also in The Straits Times. The specific quote is that \"the total cost of owning an electric vehicle remains 82% higher than owning an equivalent internal combustion engine.\" So, that is the first clarification.
The second clarification is that my understanding of the Government's position is that the Green Plan states that they will stop issuing ICE COE permits after 2030. Based on that assumption, my guess is that the complete phase-out of the ICE fleet would occur around 2040, I believe. That is my estimation of the Government's target.
My alternative suggestion would have pushed it back by just two years, but it would actually get a small number, an increasing number of EVs on the road in the interim.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, one of the first widely produced models of the battery-powered EV, the Nissan Leaf, was launched in 2010. Feted as a breakthrough model, the Leaf was considered one of the most efficient and user-friendly electric cars.
A decade later, Singapore is beginning its journey towards electrification.
In March this year, I spoke briefly on the need for greater electrification of our commercial goods fleet and expansion of charging infrastructure for such a fleet during the Committee of Supply debates. The Minister acknowledged that there are fewer viable cleaner-energy solutions currently available for heavier goods vehicles. I am concerned that such goods vehicles may continue to be a significant contributor to our land transport emissions as a result.
There is an important point to make here. Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce and the accompanying last-mile deliveries have seen a surge in demand. The World Economic Forum estimated that last-mile deliveries saw an increase of 25%, with up to 20% of the growth remaining post-pandemic.
As I alluded to in March, with pre-pandemic growth in last-mile delivery increasing carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, a lack of supporting infrastructure to encourage EV adoption could have deleterious effects on our ability to reduce our emissions and meet our carbon-neutral goals as a country.
We should bear in mind that we have a large number of commercial goods and heavy vehicles locally as well as a large number of goods vehicles which come in from Malaysia on a daily basis.
To that end, while the Ministry has focused on using the \"sticks\" of the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Schemes (CVES) and the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy light goods vehicles locally, I would reiterate that a lack of widely available charging infrastructure, particularly for the \"brown\" goods delivery fleets, is a significant roadblock to our green goals.
The Electric Vehicles Charging (EVC) Bill is, certainly, a welcome step in the right direction. With to-be stipulated requirements for charging points in buildings, this ensures that the charging infrastructure is established to match the mandated increase in demand.
As the number of charging points required is correlated with the purpose of the building, I urge the Minister to take a tailored approach to each building. A distribution hub which uses purely EVs may be more likely to require more charging points, compared to a residential block.
I would like to touch on two separate issues with the charging infrastructure – one for residential premises and one for industrial premises.
Mr Speaker, LTA has indicated that 12 charging points will be installed in 2,000 HDB car parks, with a total of 12,000 chargers to be installed by 2025, subject to demand. The longer-term goal was to have 60,000 charging points island-wide by 2030.
As I previously highlighted, an important measure in the deployment of these chargers is the siting and the number of chargers, with a critical mass needed to support charging and minimise queues for charging points.
The EV Charging Bill has taken a step down this path, with a formula-based approach to determining the number of chargers required per building. As of end 2021, we had approximately 3,700 electric vehicles registered on the road, double the previous year's numbers. Moving forward we should expect the numbers to increase exponentially.
I wonder whether the Minister can share more details as to how the Ministry arrived at the formula that is being used to determine the number of chargers which would be optimum for each car park.
Evidently, some calculations have gone into determining that 12,000 chargers might be necessary by 2025. If I assume that an average privately owned EV travels approximately 60 kilometres per hour each day and has a range of approximately 300 kilometres, then the average driver would need to charge his vehicle to full every four days. This could mean that a significant scaling up of charging points would be necessary, given the current trends. Twelve thousand chargers island-wide may not be enough if we are successful in encouraging EV adoption.
Is the Minister able to share with the House how LTA expects to keep up with a possible rising demand? And may I also ask whether LTA is considering building charging points on a larger scale in advance of demand, perhaps even taking on the risk that there might be, in the short term, a little excess and underused capacity?
My concern is that it will be harder to persuade more to convert to electric cars if they see that the charging facilities are insufficient. This is not even considering that the price of many EVs remain relatively expensive.
There is also the possible issue that if more people convert to EVs and the EV car numbers were to go up ahead of the building of sufficient infrastructure, there may be a period of frustration for vehicle owners as they cope with insufficient facilities in their immediate vicinity.
Still on EV charging for residential and public car parks, I have received feedback that there are owners who have parked their EVs at parking lots with EV chargers without actually charging their cars. May I ask whether the Government will take adequate measures to deter such acts at public car parks instead of relying on public feedback through, say, the MSO and, if so, what would they be?
Next, I would like to seek an update from the Minister on the progress of our condominiums, office and commercial buildings and other MCSTs on their adoption of EV chargers in their carparks as their timely participation is also important in our country's EV conversion journey.
I now move on to the topic of commercial and industrial usage of EVs.
Mr Speaker, direct Government support to electrify a delivery fleet and direct Government support to build charging infrastructure in industrial facilities, like distribution hubs, can send a powerful signal that we are serious and committed about leading carbon emission reduction across all segments of our land transport.
I note that we are already on the Combined Charging System (CCS) charging format; several heavy goods vehicle offerings available globally are already built for this charging format. The largest of these vehicles are able to tow up to a Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of 40,000 kilogrammes. This is roughly equivalent to a single 40-foot International Organization for Standardization (ISO) container. While an electric heavy vehicle range might understandably be shorter, say approximately 200-kilometre range on a single charge, Government support would be a powerful incentive to modernise and \"green\" a domestic transport fleet.
I would like to know how would the Government ensure the timely electrification of all commercial goods and heavy vehicles. As a topic for discussion or consideration, would MOT even consider a more prescriptive approach, say, legislating a requirement for a fleet to be completely electrified by a set date and support fleet owners by dedicating public resources to building large-scale fast-charging points at central areas, such as the port and strategically-placed distribution hubs?
Similar to the point made for charging infrastructure for private vehicles, Government funding for charging infrastructure will give industry stakeholders the assurance that the large-scale investment will not bankrupt their company or have too large an impact on their bottom line.
Mr Speaker, in March this year, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu highlighted how our investments in science and technology continued to unlock possibilities in Singapore's development. Specifically, she mentioned how R&D for NEWater and desalination increased Singapore's profile as a leading global HydroHub.
I hope that our Government has also been actively looking for similar R&D opportunities in areas relating to EVs and EV charging (EVC) technology, including charging facility, charging infrastructure or even battery technology. This may help to not only enhance the development and use of better technology in our own electrification efforts locally, but it will also help Singapore in our journey towards a low emission future. It may lead to new technologies which could be exported, giving a boost to the Singapore economy and creating new areas of growth in our manufacturing industry.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the shift towards higher adoption of EVs and a low emission economy is in motion and I look forward to the further ramping up of all efforts to full electrification. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I rise in support of the Bill. I have some questions for the Minister. I would like to know how the Ministry would introduce or facilitate more competition among suppliers and operators of chargers in all areas, including multi-storey car parks in HDB estates. As this is a very new sector still developing and evolving, the number of operators is limited, especially for a small market like ours. My concern is how to ensure that users and consumers can benefit from competitive pricing and, of course, affordability.
My next question, following up on my first point, is how would the Ministry ensure a level playing field for all vendors to compete effectively, for the good of EV owners and drivers? I think it is important that we have a range of vendors. Over time, the smaller suppliers may get muscled out of the market, leaving drivers with fewer choices, at which point, they would be at the mercy of the remaining operators. I hope that the Ministry would implement measures to foster a healthy suppliers' market.
Another point of concern is how do we regulate platform providers to ensure that all imported portable chargers are compliant with the regulations? Would the Minister share how enforcement will be carried out? While we have the legislation, how do we enforce effectively while it is still at this early stage to address fire safety concerns?
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Singapore's EV adoption is well-paced, with electric car registrations in 2022 exceeding 10% of all car registrations. Compared to 2021, this has almost tripled. In fact, this adoption rate has reached a new high of nearly 20% in the past couple of months. This trend has, most certainly, boded well for our national EV objectives. Users are more confident in purchasing an EV, due to availability of EV models, charging infrastructure, competitive costs and access to associated amenities. I want to congratulate and thank MOT for the work well done thus far in our EV transition.
The continued deployment of EV infrastructure over the next 10 years is critical in maintaining our pace. By 2030, there will be over 60,000 EV charging points, of which 40,000 will be located in public car parks, whilst 20,000 will be in private premises. This project is a significant nationwide deployment. As such, it is timely for MOT to introduce the Electric Vehicle Charging Bill to ensure reliable EV charging services and infrastructure.
Globally, nearly 25% of EV fires occur while charging. As such, it is vital that we can minimise the deployment of unregulated or ill-maintained chargers. I agree that LTA should have the power to regulate the supply, modification, advertisement, installation, certification, registration, use and maintenance of EV chargers. Like elevators in our buildings, EV chargers should meet high standards, with timely maintenance to ensure safe operations.
Given the nascent EV charging technology, I would like to ask the Minister how MOT will establish and review the certification and testing standards. How will these new standards affect current owners of EV chargers? What is the impact assessment? In the future, when these standards evolve, how will it affect EV chargers that were already implemented?
To ensure a robust EV charging industry, operators will play a significant role in ensuring that EV charging experience is safe and reliable. As the capital expenditure (capex) investment for an EV charger is substantial, licensing and establishing commercial guidelines are essential to ensure commercial viability, price stability and user reliability.
I would like to ask the Minister if there will be a cap on the number of licences issued and if there will be a minimum baseline load before a licence is required. Also, how long will the licence be valid? Finally, will the licence be in sync with the commercial lifespan of the chargers?
The network and accessibility of the chargers are essential. As a significant proportion of the chargers will be located on private premises, how will the usage of these chargers be regulated? Will there be a distinction between EV chargers solely for private and public use? Can private owners provide charging services on an ad hoc basis? Another example is: if the chargers are located within a private estate or home, can the public pay for and use the charging infrastructure when visiting these private properties? How will this affect chargers on Government premises and Government-linked premises, such as JTC managed properties? Will these EV chargers be reserved only for staff in the building? If there is restricted use clause, will a vehicle that requires emergency charging be able to use these facilities?
The transition phase for any implementation will be dynamic. There will be disruption and I am encouraged that MOT and LTA have mentioned that they will work closely with the industry to facilitate the transition. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I firmly believe that the Electric Vehicle Charging Bill will be pivotal in laying the foundation for Singapore's national agenda towards sustainable development. The Bill is set up to make EVs charging safe, reliable and accessible, in hopes of realising the rapid proliferation of EVs and a cleaner, more sustainable Singapore.
The dynamics of car ownership in Singapore, however, are varied and, indeed, ever-changing. We have people who drive every day, people who drive only during the weekends, people who drive to bring their family around, people who drive because of work and people who drive because driving is their work. And, indeed, I would argue that these varying dynamics need to be taken into consideration, as we single-mindedly eye the prize of a clean sustainable Singapore with the proliferation of EVs.
While the total number of new car registrations dipped in the first half of the year, the number of cars registered for private hire was steadily on the rise. This means that an increasing proportion of cars on the road today are cars that are part of our public transport network, such as our registered for-private-hire vehicles and our over 14,000-strong taxi fleet.
What this means for the EV ecosystem in Singapore is that it is just as imperative to drive the uptake of EVs among private hire and taxi drivers as it is for other vehicles in order for the Bill to realise its long-term goals. I understand that full taxi and private hire EVs on the road are now less than 5% of Singapore's fleet size and we do have some miles to go before we sleep in this critical pivot. We do have some good tailwinds, however, on the matter though, and, through conversations with our leaders and members at the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, I can feel a good buzzing energy about the move towards EV. However, there are some concerns on the ground.
For those among us who drive cars, we are familiar with the anxieties associated with a near-empty tank and an unknown distance to the next petrol station. While our seasoned taxi and private hire drivers are familiar with the rhythms of their workhorses and are able to \"agar-agar\" their refuelling schedules, they seek assurances that anxieties around an empty tank, or battery for that matter, can be dispelled. The ubiquity of charging stations is not enough; their prominence, locatability and predictability of availability are of utmost importance. Simply put, taxi and private hire drivers must be able to easily find and get to charging stations and not be caught by their unavailability, for instance, by a long queue of drivers waiting for the charging point to be freed up, even if the driver had come up with the best of journey planning.
Mr Speaker, these concerns are compounded by two other factors: one, the sheer distance that taxi and private hire drivers travel in a day; and two, the concentration of jobs along major travel nodes. On distance, given that some taxi and private hire drivers easily travel over 300 kilometres a day – multiple times the distance travelled by the average driver – charging becomes a much more pressing need for our point-to-point (P2P) drivers. Indeed, our drivers may even be charging multiple times a day, throughout the day, especially if the vehicle is fully utilised round the clock, shared by the main hirer and his relief drivers.
On concentration, taxi and private hire jobs during peak hours are, predictably, focused on a few major travelling nodes in Singapore. This means that charging station availability is challenged, hindering the usage and experience of an EV from being a truly seamless one. The call, therefore, to ensure the prominence, locatability and the predictability of availability of charging stations is a crucial one, and the placement and rollout of charging points must be one that takes into account the travel patterns of Singaporeans.
Further, it is critical that, as a country, we start off on the right note on setting the norms of the sharing culture of charging points. Until the day when charging points are truly ubiquitous, it would be a situation where there are more EVs needing to be charged than charging points available and there will, certainly, be a transitional period needed while the dust settles on sharing norms.
Should the norm be one where it is first-come-first-served? Or should there be weighted preferential arrangement for vehicles that are used for livelihoods or saving lives?
What would this new norm look like? Perhaps, there could be special decals for certain vehicles. Perhaps, it is setting aside charging points to be used only by certain vehicles within key timeframes. Perhaps, it is allowing corporations the liberty of putting in their own charging points for their employees, partners and members. What is clear though is that there needs to be awareness, education and even public campaigns on the considerations of various driver communities and our suggested sharing norms.
Mr Speaker, in any major technological shift, it is inevitable that early adopters do not enjoy the economies of scale that later adopters enjoy and, therefore, bear heavier fixed costs, as well as running higher costs as a result of a nascent ecosystem. This is the same in the EV ecosystem. EVs are still more expensive to procure than ICE vehicles, and though they promise lower running costs, the nascency of the EV ecosystem still incurs drivers some costs.
For example, a concern for private hire and taxi drivers is the cost surrounding the prolonged usage of car parks while charging their vehicles in these car parks mandated to provide EV charging. Should a private hire or taxi driver need to charge their vehicle, say, after a job in the CBD, a stopover at a charging station in the CBD could set them back at least $2 to $3 an hour. As we figure out how to incentivise early adopters to make the transition to EVs, the last thing we want to do is to disincentivise them. Therefore, I call on the Government to ease the transition of private hire and taxi drivers to EVs by perhaps waiving the costs of parking in such car parks for them as they are charging their vehicles.
The concerns I have outlined here, notwithstanding, I would like to share with the House that there are, indeed, good tailwinds for the adoption of EV amongst our P2P community.
I recall that some time last year, I was a happy witness to Mr Ah Ban, one of our taxi leaders picking up his new EV car. We marvelled about the quietness of the electric car and the technology behind it. We appreciated happily the savings made from moving from petrol to electricity, and we were positive about the changes EVs would make to our lives. And, indeed, Mr Ah Ban, adapted very quickly to the changes he needed to make as an EV driver. Instead of driving for hours on end, running a full tank of petrol to zero, he now drives for four to five hours at a time, stopping to charge his vehicle, and taking a well-needed 45-minute break each time. I was very glad to hear that during those times, besides taking a meal or a drink to replenish himself, he also uses this time to go to the gym for a quick run, as the charging point he frequents has a nearby gym with shower facilities. The move to EV for Mr Ah Ban was an awesome move, not just only for sustainability or his driving trade, but also for his mental and physical well-being.
The Bill paints a vision of a future where the usage of EVs is seamless and ubiquitous – a smarter, more sustainable future. Our P2P driving community and I stand behind this move. However, as a society in transition, we highlight the importance of an inclusive and considered rollout and implementation that take into account a diversity of needs because of the varying types of drivers out there.
While the dust settles on the plan, the unions and our associations will continue to work the ground and engage with our major stakeholders to give our inputs to the implementation plan. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me be a part of this debate.
Minister Iswaran stated in a June 2022 The Straits Times article that electric cars accounted for 8.4% of all new car registrations in the first five months of this year, more than twice the rate in all of 2021. Compared to the whole of 2020, just two years ago, the 8.4% represents a 20-fold jump. To support this growth, the Government has already set to boost Singapore's charging network – 2,000 public housing car parks equipped with EV chargers by 2025 and a network of 60,000 chargers by 2030.
Just last week, on 18 November, Singapore had accepted the United States' invitation to join the Collective 2030 Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Deployment Goal (Goal) which represents a shared aspiration among like-minded countries in transiting to a greener land transport sector, at the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27). To support our ambition of being environmentally responsible in lowering emissions from our land transport, we must create an efficient, economical and effective EV charging ecosystem. Hence, I have a few clarifications to make for the Minister.
Firstly, in regulating the safe charging of EVs, to minimise the proliferation of unregulated or ill-maintained chargers which can pose safety hazards, the Bill will provide LTA with powers to regulate the supply, modification, advertisement, installation, certification, registration, use and maintenance of EV chargers. The Bill will require all chargers in Singapore to be installed, certified and used in accordance with prescribed standards, such as registering before they can be used. Registered chargers will need to be inspected regularly in accordance with the relevant standards.
Hence, I would like to make a few clarifications.
Does this apply to chargers already installed? What are the frequency and cost of this routine inspection? Understandably, LTA is responsible for EV chargers in public spaces. But is LTA also responsible for overseeing the upkeep of EV chargers in condominiums, residences and private offices? Will LTA be adequately resourced in terms of both personnel and capability to carry out such an activity? This involves having personnel with the necessary technical expertise to monitor and manage the supply and modification of EV chargers. With 60,000 public chargers across the country, not including chargers in office buildings, condominiums, landed homes, what is the expected manpower requirement and how do we ensure LTA is sufficiently resourced to carry out this enforcement? Is the Ministry concerned that the Electric Vehicle Charging Operators (EVCOs) may detrimentally affect the grid and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent that from happening? Is LTA best equipped to comprehend and monitor its effects, or should EMA also be involved, too?
Secondly, in order to provide a satisfactory user experience, the public charging network must be reliable. The Bill requires EV charging operators to obtain a licence in order to provide the service. Licensees will be required to meet conditions, such as data exchange, the purchase of public liability insurance and the uptime of their chargers in their network. Licences will be valid for a fixed period and must be renewed.
Hence, I would like to raise a few clarifications.
What kind of information must the EVCOs share? How can we ensure the user's privacy is protected? How is the service uptime determined and what is the expected penalty for not meeting service uptime? With multiple charging firms now offering varied pricing models, how do we ensure that the price structure is fair for customers, particularly penalty charges for leaving a fully-charged EV in an EV lot?
Thirdly, the Bill will mandate developers of specified building works to provide EV charging at their developments. How do we maximise the efficiency of the charging infrastructure network? At present, we have SP Group, Shell Recharge, BlueCharge, Charge+, CDG Engie, Plugshare, all with their own standards, apps, locations and charging speeds. In the long term, as more EVs become available, demand for ICE vehicles will also fall, as will demand for pumps at gas stations. What is the strategy for gradually repurposing land for petrol stations and the labour that backs it up? How do we ensure that the transition from ICE to EVs is done in a manageable way, for both labour and land?
One other topic that I would like to touch on is the recycling of batteries. Though this Bill does not talk about recycling of car batteries, we will start to see many of our hybrid vehicles like the Honda Vezel, Toyota Vios reaching their 10th year and will be deregistered and sent for scrap soon. How are we prepared for scrapping, particularly the recycling of lithium-ion batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles? In Singapore, what percentage of scrapped electric or hybrid vehicles had their batteries removed and recycled? Is the Government working on regulations to ensure that hybrid and electric vehicles are recycled efficiently? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: To support the growth of electric vehicles or EVs in the coming years, the Government has committed to develop a charging network in Singapore, with around 2,000 parking spaces in housing estates to be equipped with EV chargers by 2025, and around 60,000 chargers by 2030.
We aspire to save the environment and reduce carbon emissions from our vehicles. Singapore must develop a resilient and effective EV charging ecosystem. Therefore, I have a few questions.
First, will LTA be responsible for chargers in private locations, such as condominiums and office buildings? What is the possibility of EVCOs affecting the electric grid and how can we prevent that from happening?
Second, to ensure satisfactory service, what penalties will be imposed on users who park their cars in the charging lot for too long? How can we ensure that the charging pricing structure is fair and affordable for consumers?
Considering that the demand for petrol station pumps will decline as Singapore switches to electric vehicles, what are the plans to help petrol station workers transition to other sectors?
Finally, although this Bill does not address the recycling of car batteries, many of our hybrid vehicles will reach their 10th year and will be sent for disposal. How can we recycle lithium-ion batteries in hybrid/electric cars? Is the Government reviewing legislation to ensure that hybrid and electric vehicles can be recycled efficiently and sustainably?
(In English): Notwithstanding the points of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight the impact on three stakeholders: vehicle repair and maintenance companies, EV charging operators (EVCOs) and residents.
First, I would like to speak about this Bill's impact on employees in vehicle repair and maintenance companies. With the expansion of the EV charging network, consumers may now be more inclined to purchase an EV as it poses greater convenience to them and contributes better to Singapore's Green Plan 2030. What would then be the indirect impact on employees in vehicle maintenance and repair companies and how will the Government ensure that the employees do not lose their job because their skills are now deemed less relevant and if the workforce does not have the skills required as the auto industry shifts to electric vehicles and digital services?
In the USA, for instance, earlier this year in August, Ford terminated 3,000 staff, both permanent and contract, in mostly North America and India. This was part of their restructuring efforts to better compete in the race to develop EVs. Reason for termination was due to employees' lack of skills to shift to EVs and digital services in car manufacturing.
According to CNN in 2019, building an electric car requires about 30% less labour than a traditional ICE vehicle. In general, EVs have lesser parts than an ICE vehicle. While Singapore does not manufacture ICE vehicles, we do have a considerable number of ICE vehicle repair and maintenance workshops. The amount of repair and maintenance works is directly proportional to the amount of manufactured parts in a vehicle.
Second, the impact on EVCOs. By 2025, every multi-storey car park will have at least three EV charging points. The proposed licensing regime raises three challenges: first, higher compliance costs; second, the tedious entry into market may prevent smaller businesses from attempting this shift and, hence, limiting market competition; and third, the licensing and certification costs may, subsequently, be passed on to consumers.
While MOT and LTA propose keeping compliance costs reasonable, has there been an estimated range for this? What would the payment structure be like? Would it be a one-time payment, for instance, a monthly instalment, or are there any renewable fees?
Under the licensing requirements, EVCOs are subjected to the following set of requirements, such as data sharing, third party liability insurance, payment methods, cybersecurity protections and service downtime recovery. In this situation, what if EVCOs are unable to afford to ensure the relevant cybersecurity protection and liability insurance? In the future, when there are newer types of technology in EV chargers, would EVCOs need to go through the entire licensing process again and what if the costs associated with that are prohibitive?
Lastly, this Bill states the need for two competent persons to certify a charger unit for both deployment and regular checks. Will the Ministry provide guidance on the endorsement cost which competent persons should charge, or will the Ministry leave this to market pricing?
Moving on to the second part of my speech, where I seek to clarify a few technical points in the Bill.
Clause 25 imposes an obligation on the registered responsible person for an EV charger to cause EV chargers to be inspected by a prescribed competent person in accordance with the prescribed frequency and standards. Within domestic premises, such as landed property, with fixed charging stations, the registered responsible persons are subjected to these periodic inspections. How then will LTA ensure that the competent persons have the authority to enter the private premises? For example, SP officers have previously faced challenges in conducting checks of these private estates' power meters when these were installed inside the home.
Clause 24 deals with unlawful installation of fixed EV chargers. The proposed framework would require in future two competent persons, an LEW and a charger equipment specialist, with different expertise, to inspect the safety of the charger.
First, as the Bill is vague on how the Ministry would determine if one is a charger equipment specialist, it will be useful if there is a framework in identifying this competent person. The eligibility criteria can take reference from the LEW skills structure to be considered as an industry specialist/competent person.
Second, will LTA look into having a skills transformation roadmap to allow for upskilling of workers to be a charger equipment specialist? Also, is LTA working with CET institutions to create curriculums to ensure that sufficient training capacity dovetails with the demand for training of charger equipment specialists?
How many competent persons can LTA produce in the following five years and beyond? Do we anticipate enough talent in Singapore to increase the volume of competent persons required by the market? Training centres may not be able to cope with the sudden influx of demand for training. Regulators will need to take into account the lead time required as we do not want a situation where providers are not able to enter the market because they were not able to complete the relevant training by the deadline.
These are similar points made the hon Members, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Ang Wei Neng, earlier.
The availability of sufficient charger equipment specialists is essential for the timely deployment of EV chargers and ensure market price for endorsements remains competitive. This can also address potential job losses in the ICE vehicle repair and maintenance industry.
Third, as it is common for hardware manufacturers to enforce the need to engage their staff or approved maintenance contractors for repairs and servicing, does LTA anticipate such market practices imposed by EV charger manufacturers? If so, would independent charger equipment specialists be able to certify a charger is fit for use? This would have implications for the cost levied on EVCOs and end users.
Lastly, can the same competent person perform the role of LEW and charger equipment specialist?
Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA, Part 2, clause 5, there is a provision for registering a controlled goods supplier. In clause 6, there is also a provision to add items into the controlled goods list. Hence, would there be any reconciliation between the EV Charging Bill and CPFTA? Would EV chargers be added to this list, be parked under the CPFTA's safety mark? Since there is already an existing safety regulation under controlled goods, parking EV chargers under the same regulation would prevent double certification and duplication of man-hour efforts by regulators.
I wish to also highlight the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST)-related Act amendments and the questions and concerns raised by these stakeholders when I interacted with them.
First, there are some challenges that can result in social issues, the first of which is the issue of idling. Residents may become unhappy with MCSTs and Town Councils and neighbourly disputes may occur. How can we prevent idling? Market-based solutions, such as imposing an idling charge, may not solve the issue as EVCOs, technically, achieve better unit economies for imposing idling charges. I seek the Ministry to study this potential issue and update the by laws that provide Town Councils and MCSTs greater authority to enforce penalties on idling.
Second, MCSTs have shared that, despite the amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act where the threshold for MCSTs will be a simple majority of votes, there are still challenges. When the demand for EVs goes up, who will bear the expansion and upgrading cost of substations for higher power provisions? As condominiums are considered private housing, there are no Government grants to co-fund power upgrades for chargers. Some condominiums do not have sufficient power supply to allocate for EV chargers.
LTA provides the EV common charger grant to support condominiums in installing EV chargers. I would like to ask about the application and disbursement rate for this LTA grant. As there are now market-based solutions where EVCOs lease lots from MCSTs to install chargers and recover investments from the revenue of usage, is this grant still relevant? Would providing grants for MCSTs to co-fund power upgrades be considered instead?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised three broad areas in my speech. First, the impact on relevant stakeholders, such as vehicle repair and maintenance companies, EVCOs and residents; second, the relevant concerns in specific clauses of the Bill; and lastly, questions raised by MCSTs. Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, regular access to reliable and secure EV charging points is a concern for many EV drivers. Introducing and expanding a new infrastructure is always a significant undertaking. But laying a strong foundation early promotes certainty and stability among stakeholders and users. It will help our drivers to use cleaner energy and meet Singapore's sustainability targets in the long run. I have suggestions and clarifications in four areas.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the proposed minimum number of charging points adequate? Singapore plans to phase out petrol vehicles and only allow registration of EVs from 2030 onwards. As such, we need to beef up the number of charging points across the island. However, the Bill proposes a relatively small number of all parking spaces in the development to have charging points. Would this conservative number of mandated available charging points move the needle? Would this encourage higher EV adoption in the near future? Can we not afford to have more ambitious targets?
I understand that there is an ongoing study to determine what will encourage Singaporeans to adopt EVs. The results are slated to be released in the second quarter of 2023. I look forward to reading it. In the meantime, many of my residents are already concerned about the adequacy of charging points.
I note that we have a target of 60,000 EV charging points by 2030. How does this translate to the ratio of charging spaces to the number of EVs? We should establish a national EV adoption or conversion rate target. This would better guide us to determine the adequacy of charging points.
Furthermore, while the spotlight has been on personal cars, electric forms of commercial vehicles are also becoming popular, like lorries and buses. An example is a new ride-sharing service next year that allows SMEs to rent electric vans at 20 locations across Singapore. All this is good news for our sustainability targets and should be encouraged. Are these new developments and increased demands for EV charging factored into our targets?
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, human behavioural issues could undermine the actual availability of charging points. I am aware of complaints about EVs hogging charging points when they are fully charged or not charging. Likewise, there are non-EVs that misuse the parking lots designated for EVs.
LTA explained that EVs, generally, only have to be charged once every five to seven days. This was one of the factors taken into account for setting the target quota. Even so, it would be idealistic to assume that users would, by default, seek out consensus or compromise on a schedule to use the charging points on different days. Moreover, does the target number of charging points take into consideration the prevalence of private hire vehicles and the high mileage that would be clocked by private hire vehicles?
As we work on expanding the infrastructure, can we look into enforcing appropriate parking? Are there deterrent measures or penalties for drivers who park erroneously in lots reserved for EVs? This brings to mind the fines imposed on those who park at designated disabled parking lots. Can we do more to formalise codes of conduct to encourage considerate behaviour for EV charging? Legislation will also not be enough in this case. Active ground enforcement would be correspondingly needed.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, what are the plans to mandate EV charging at existing developments with no upgrading plans? To promote nation-wide adoption, our EV infrastructure must be comprehensive. Can the Ministry clarify what is the projected percentage of buildings in Singapore that would have to comply with mandated provision of EV chargers?
With the ongoing high interest rate environment, there is the likelihood that many developments have suspended plans for upgrading works. As such, how effective will the requirements to increase EV charging facilities be during this period, where plans to upgrade are likely to be suspended?
Additionally, many people go to work in such buildings. Instead of charging their vehicles at work, they would have to compete with their neighbours back home for the limited charging lots. Worse still, they may leave their cars to charge in the residential car park and hog the lot while at work. This may present a missed opportunity towards the adoption of EV vehicles due to the reluctance of building owners to create more charging infrastructure due to current prohibitive costs.
I am glad LTA has reduced the percentage of votes required at a general meeting for MCSTs of strata-titled developments to pass EV-related resolutions. Will the Government monitor the installation rate of EV charging points in strata-titled developments? For developments that consistently refuse to install EV charging points, will efforts be made to engage them and address their concerns? We are looking at the potential exclusion of a significant number of drivers if strata-titled residential buildings deny their residents of EV charging lots.
Concomitantly, I would like to ask the Government to consider providing additional support or subsidies for brownfield sites. Building a new EV charging station on brownfield sites presents many challenges and these are additional requirements imposed on them.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my last clarification is on ensuring fair competition and sustainability of EV charging providers. There are about 22 EV charging operators as of July 2022. Out of this list, slightly fewer than 10 are major players. The rest are smaller providers, with some providing EV charging as a side business. How do we ensure that among providers, there is healthy competition?
On the other hand, how do we avoid the problem of having too many small players and the risk of a fragmented market? From the point of view of EV consumers, there is the concern that a small-scale provider secures the right to provide charging points at their residence, then exits the market prematurely when the business becomes unsustainable. The users would then face supply disruption. We have already seen a similar scenario in our energy market. Will it be like our energy market, where SP steps in to replace a provider that has exited the market?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, COP27 has just recently concluded in Egypt. We are at a crossroads today. We are just coming out of a pandemic. With the Ukrainian war and geopolitical uncertainties causing inflationary pressures as well as disruptions in energy supplies, there is a risk that nations focus on the pressing issues of the day but lose sight of the climate and energy crisis facing the planet.
As such, Singapore must play our part. We must take the long-term view, focus on the clean energy transition and give due attention to the existential crisis of our generation. We must act in time.
The adoption of EVs is important for us to meet our sustainability commitments. For EVs to be successful, the infrastructure must be laid out right. We must be bold and ambitious with our targets to evoke significant changes in attitudes towards transportation. Singapore must always be one-step ahead with our planning to meet future needs and demands in the EV landscape. As part of the Steward Pillar in our Forward Singapore conversations, we must also continue to engage our residents on how Singapore can do better in environmental sustainability, as well as grow our partnerships for a green, liveable and climate-resilient Singapore. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.15 pm until 3.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am working at a Singapore bank and I do not manage any revenue performance target.
With the increasing number of EVs on our roads, it is necessary for us to legislate the charging of EVs to ensure safety and accessibility of reliable chargers all over our island.
As part of the transitional arrangements, the Government is allowing existing suppliers to continue to supply non-approved EV chargers for six months from the commencement of the Bill. I have a clarification for MOT – will these chargers be allowed to continue usage beyond these six months? Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My next question is regarding power capacity. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that public carparks, industrial parks, public and private buildings, bus terminals, hospitals, amongst others, will have enough and the required electric power capacities? In addition, what safety preparations and back-up measures do we have in the event of flooding of areas with these chargers?
(In English): I would like to urge for incentives for private apartments and condominiums to install chargers so that potential owners will have less range anxiety and switch to EVs with confidence.
In line with the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to promote EV adoption, Singaporeans can tap on many business and job opportunities. I urge LTA to collaborate with the private sector players like the banks. For example, UOB has put in place financing to promote the development of the EV sector and the transition to green vehicles.
MOT had also launched an EV Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI) which runs from January 2021 to December 2023. Under this scheme, owners who register fully electric cars receive a rebate of 45% off the Additional Registration Fees (ARF), capped at $20,000.
I would like to ask what is the outlook for EEAI that will be expiring end of next year? Will the Government consider extending the scheme to encourage more owners to switch to EVs?
As 2022 to mid-2025 is the period with the lowest COE quotas in a 10-year cycle, not many owners will be keen to switch to EVs earlier as their COEs are due later, after 2025. Alternatively, would MOT consider a separate COE category for EVs, considering the past few years’ take-up rate for EVs to determine the EV COE quota size?
On the COEs for EVs, can LTA consider extending the COE life from the current 10 years to a longer period, say 12 years, at the same quota premium? This will be another incentive to encourage owners to switch to EVs. The PARF rebate, if any, which is at 50% of ARF at the end of 10 years, should be reduced, in tandem, to 45% and 40% at end of the 11th and 12th year respectively.
Would the Government consider allowing some rebates or incentives at point of purchase and/or for the usage of EVs manufactured in Singapore? For example, waivers of ERP and road tax and free parking at public car parks for a period of time may be attractive to potential EV buyers.
I also urge MOT to consider more incentives for private apartments and condominiums to install chargers so that potential owners will have less range anxiety and switch to EVs with confidence.
We also need a clear framework to minimise inappropriate use and hogging of charging lots and ensure that EVs can have access to chargers easily.
There are more companies awarded tenders to install public chargers these days. Each service provider decides on its chargers and uses its own app to facilitate payment and the chargers’ locations. Will the Government consider developing a single app to integrate all service providers and set a common charging rate across all?
Lastly, I am concerned about the issues of batteries, as in the utilisation of batteries, swapping services and recycling.
I understand that batteries are resource-intensive, requiring up to two batteries for a vehicle on the road. What is the Ministry’s view on this and should we be more mindful about not encouraging battery-swapping schemes?
How would we deal with battery disposals? Old batteries may generate a lot of toxic chemicals and potentially cause explosions. The recycling and disposal of such batteries is still an industry in its nascent stage. What are MOT’s plans for this sector?
As EVs are adopted by the rest of South-east Asia, Singapore can, potentially, become a regional centre for battery recycling and disposal. If we can close the loop by taking care of EVs from purchasing to charging and maintenance and, finally, to disposal, we will be able to transit smoothly into the adoption and development of this sector. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill sets standards, mandates licences and amends processes related to EV charging. It enables Singapore to scale up the provision of EV charging in a reliable, accelerated way. I wholeheartedly endorse this.
I thank the Ministry for holding a public consultation as well and engaging affected industries in preparation for this Bill. I have three points of clarification.
My first clarification is on clause 97, which amends the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. The amendment allows MCSTs to install and regulate EV charging by passing a motion with more than 50% of the votes. This would be a sharp drop from the current threshold of 90%.
It is welcome news for many condominium owners, whose management has been unable to install charging points because a small minority of the residents object. It is also welcome news for Singapore’s Green Plan. More charging points at home mean more drivers making the leap from gas cars to electric cars. It will help us reach our net-zero emissions target.
But I am concerned that the lowered voting threshold is limited. It applies only when the motion does not propose spending from the MCST’s management or sinking fund. Can the Minister explain the intent for this carve-out?
The management and sinking funds of MCSTs are meant precisely for the installation and maintenance of common property, such as charging points. How else should MCSTs fund charging points? Is the idea for operators of charging points to bear all costs and for residents to pay the operator out of pocket? This is not how charging points are funded at most condos around the world, so, any clarification on intent and implementation will be helpful.
My second clarification is on Part 8, which mandates the installation of charging points during major construction works. Let me first applaud the Ministry for increasing its requirements in response to energetic feedback from the public consultation.
The standard for approved electrical load increased from 15% of parking lots to 20%. The standard for the number of charging points increased from 1% of parking lots to 4%. So, my concern is not about standards. Instead, it is about coverage.
The amendment fails to cover redevelopments where the gross floor area, or GFA, increases by less than 50%. Can the Minister share how many building projects from 2018 to 2020 increased the GFA by between 25% and 50%, and how many increased the GFA by between 10% and 25%?
The amendment also fails to cover redevelopments where the new approved electrical-load capacity is less than 280 kilovolt-ampere. Can the Minister share how many building projects from 2018 to 2020 led to a new approved electrical load of between 150 and 280 kilovolt-ampere?
I worry that we have set reasonable standards but applied them to too few building projects. Indeed, it would be unsurprising if redevelopments in the coming years are designed to dodge our threshold for the charging point standards. I hope not.
My suggestion is that we should impose standards even on smaller-scale redevelopments. These standards may be lower, but they must exist. That will ensure a more steady growth in our charging-point provisions. Will the Ministry consider this suggestion?
My third and final clarification is not about what is in the Bill but what is missing from it. Several key ingredients for increasing the provision of charging points are not in the Bill today.
First, let us talk about subsidies. Can the Government share how many charging points have been supported by the co-funding from the EV Common Charger Grant? Are we on track to co-fund the grant maximum of 2,000 charging points by end-2023?
Installing charging points is expensive. If the grant remains underutilised, then there might be scope to increase the quantum of the grant or to expand the number of co-funded charging points per residence.
Second, let us talk about kerbside charging. Does the Ministry plan to install charging points on the kerbs of residential streets and public roads? Street parking is the norm for many Singaporeans in both residential and commercial areas. For some, it is the only place they can park. We should ensure there are options for kerbside charging as well.
In the US city of Seattle, the city government is installing kerbside charging points free of charge if the applicant's home does not have its own parking facilities. We should have our own programme, based on a framework that balances costs, accessibility and any other considerations. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister S Iswaran.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members for their active interest in this Bill and also for their support. They have raised a series of questions and suggestions on a range of issues pertaining to the Bill and I will endeavour to address them. In particular, my responses will focus on the broad policy points pertaining to safety, reliability and accessibility, which are the key thrusts of this legislation.
First, on the issue of safety-related regulations, which will apply to all chargers, including those which are already installed.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether it is excessive to have three separate regimes for approval, registration and licensing. Sir, all three aspects are necessary because they fulfil distinct purposes. The approval regime ensures that only safe EV chargers are sold. The registration regime holds each charger owner accountable for the safe use and maintenance of their chargers. The licensing regime ensures the reliability of EV charging services.
So, there are distinct objectives served by these various components. Together, these regimes minimise the harm from unsafe charging, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has highlighted. I would like to assure the House that we will endeavour to keep the compliance cost reasonable.
That includes the examples that Mr Saktiandi raised, where even if there may be instances where two separate approvals are required, where they coincide with the applicant because it is one and the same, we will endeavour to streamline those processes to minimise friction.
Mr Edward Chia asked if the proposed regulatory regime should be reconciled with or parked under the regulatory regime for Controlled Goods in the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations.
Mr Speaker, my Ministry did consider this. However, those regulations are targeted at the description and advertisement of goods. As I have explained earlier, the scope of this Bill goes further and a dedicated regulatory regime under LTA is what we have assessed to be the preferred and more appropriate option.
Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Shawn Huang have also asked for more details of the homologation, certification and inspection regimes. The regimes will be underpinned by Technical Reference 25 (TR25). These technical standards were just revised earlier this year, in consultation with industry experts and academics. So, Members can be assured that the EV charging industry is familiar with the standards as the industry has played an active role in its review. LTA will continue to work closely with the industry on regular future reviews as well. LTA is also working with industry players to support local R&D on promising EV charging technologies while ensuring safety, such as through regulatory sandboxes.
Mr Saktiandi asked if we have any insights into the charging solutions for motorcycles. The sandboxes for motorcycle charging are in the very early stages. It would be premature for us to infer at this stage. But we do expect to learn quite a bit from these and other sandboxes so that we can, eventually, generalise the application through appropriate regulation.
On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, we take fire safety very seriously. It is a paramount consideration. LTA worked with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to update the Fire Code last year to enhance the fire safety requirements for buildings that install EV chargers.
Under the revised Fire Code, EV chargers must have an isolation switch to cut off the electricity supply to the EV charger to facilitate emergency response. This is in addition to other charger design requirements in the TR25, such as electrical circuit breakers that minimise the risk of electrocution and electrical fires, including in the event of flooding mentioned by Mr Don Wee. But, in general, many Members have highlighted this concern about fires. And this is one of the reasons why we have paid specific attention to this and worked closely with SCDF.
Secondly, several Members have asked how we will ensure adequate charging provision in Singapore.
On Mr Dennis Tan's query, we are planning for the charging demand of a largely electric light vehicle population, taking into account the average mileage of car drivers in Singapore and the effective range of a typical EV. There are different parameters and these are factored into the computation.
But having said that, I want to emphasise that we are dealing with an evolving space. The technology is evolving, the adoption rates and, therefore, the consequential demand are also changing. Usage patterns, both in terms of driving and charging habits, have yet to normalise.
So, we need time to monitor and assess this pattern. But we cannot wait for everything to stabilise before taking action because it is a dynamic situation, it is a situation that calls for a response.
That is why we have focused on this 12,000 charging-point deployment. It allows us to deploy quickly but without incurring some of the heavier capital expenditures (capex) – the capex that is associated with, for example, the upgrading of substations. Instead, we are able to roll out the charging infrastructure in this first phase quickly because it focuses on the more approximate or last-mile type of infrastructure, such as the distribution boxes and so on, and then, of course, the actual charging points themselves.
We want to deploy charging infrastructure quickly to support EV adoption. The data we gather from this adoption will inform how we want to go further. We may not need to wait until 2025 because, if the data comes in earlier and the patterns become more discernible, then we will have to adjust accordingly.
As Mr Ang Wei Neng said, we also need to avoid overprovisioning, especially as the EV population today is relatively small, although the take-up rates are rising. So, in LTA's recent large-scale tender for charging points at HDB car parks, operators start with deploying at least three charging points at each car park, with the flexibility to scale up to 12 charging points. In most cases, this can be accommodated within the current electrical capacity. LTA will monitor the demand and launch further tenders as necessary. So, essentially, we can ramp up supply, if the need arises.
We expect the vast majority of charging points to be low-powered. This optimises the electrical capacity required as charging can be done overnight when there is less demand on grid capacity.
However, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have said, some EV users will require fast charging, such as two-shift taxi drivers. Our low-powered charging network will be complemented with a smaller number of high-powered charging points across the island.
Mr Ang Wei Neng was concerned about the ground issues in implementation. This is a legitimate concern because when we take it to the ground, to the individual HDB car parks, there may be no end of questions around which floor of the car park the EV charging point should be deployed. Many other questions will arise, some of which have been, in fact, expressed in the course of this debate.
That is why we have established a multi-agency committee, which is chaired by Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and the deputy chair is Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng. On this, we have LTA and HDB, among other important agencies that have relevant jurisdiction, in order to make sure that we are able to iron out these sorts of teething issues on the ground as we implement because we do not want these kinds of, if you like, regulatory hurdles to get in the way of a quick deployment of the chargers that we wish to achieve.
As Mr Sharael Taha has highlighted, the role of petrol stations will also have to evolve as EVs become more widespread. Some petrol stations have already started to provide fast chargers for EVs and many electric taxi drivers charge there.
The licensing regime is essential to our plans as it allows LTA to set conditions, such as service uptime, and also to collect data on EV charging patterns. Such data is critical to support the national master-planning efforts to deploy chargers and upgrade electrical infrastructure.
However, accessibility goes beyond the physical infrastructure and it includes user experience. This is where Mr Don Wee's suggestion about developing a single app to integrate all service providers is pertinent. It is, indeed, what LTA has been working on.
Today, LTA's MyTransport App allows EV users to locate and access public charging points offered by various EVCOs. LTA has just launched a beta function displaying real-time charger availability on the app, which more operators will contribute to over time. LTA is also working with third-party platform providers to allow more EV users to access charger information on their platform of choice, including information on real-time availability.
I want to assure Mr Sharael Taha and, indeed, all Members that LTA will be transparent about how licensees' data is used. Commercially sensitive data will only be used for LTA's internal master-planning work. In general, LTA will not require EVCOs to share any personal data and LTA will only use or disclose any data collected from licensees in compliance with directions made under the Public Sector (Governance) Act and other relevant laws relating to confidentiality.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Edward Chia asked about preventing and deterring the inappropriate use of EV charging lots. Today, in HDB car parks, it is already an offence for a non-EV to park in an EV charging lot. EVCOs are also commercially driven to tackle this, because if a car is occupying the lot but not charging, that is loss of revenue.
In some countries, EVCOs have implemented idle fees and time-based pricing to discourage lot hogging. Others are looking into technological solutions to make enforcement easier.
Enforcement aside, motorists must also develop a culture of responsible and gracious behaviour when charging their EVs. So, education and an evolving culture are key.
The fact is, even with enforcement and education, it will take some time for the EV charging behaviour and patterns in Singapore to normalise. We need a collective effort to help nurture the process and allow us all to ensure that this experience is a positive one for all of us.
Several Members have posed more detailed questions about the licensing regime. LTA will provide updates in due course.
Thirdly, let me elaborate on the mandate to provide EV charging at certain developments.
Mr Saktiandi has asked why developments owned by the Government are not subject to this statutory requirement. As with other provisions like parking, Government-owned developments will take reference from our general policy and abide by relevant internal circulars. We have already started, as Members know, to deploy EV chargers on a large scale at HDB residential estates.
I also have it on good authority – from Mr Speaker no less – that Parliament is also looking into the installation of EV chargers in the car park here. So, Members can all model responsible EV charging behaviour and the recalcitrant ones will, I think, face consequences in the Chamber. That is what the Speaker told me. [Laughter.]
Let me now turn to the points raised by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng about applying these requirements to more redevelopments. As EV adoption is still at an early stage and not evenly distributed across developments, the mandate will not apply if existing developments do not cross the specified building or electrical work thresholds for now.
We will monitor EV adoption trends and consider whether the mandate should be extended to all developments in future. The Bill does allow the Minister for Transport to adjust these thresholds through regulations when needed. In the meantime, we encourage developers to plan ahead and invest in the requisite infrastructure.
Mr Louis Ng, in particular, was concerned that the lowered voting threshold for strata-titled developments only applies to proposals that do not tap on MCST funds. The reason for this is simple – it is to preserve a certain equivalence in the current level of accountability and governance for the use of MCST funds. Even then, we expect the lower threshold to be able to facilitate the installation of EV charging points because it is not a very capital-intensive exercise, based on the way it is being carried out today. The more prevalent practice is for EVCOs to pay for the cost of installation upfront and recover it from EV users over time. And as there is greater demand from higher EV adoption, these will form a key impetus, I think, for all developers and owners of developments to further install EV charging infrastructure.
I would like to share with Mr Louis Ng and Mr Edward Chia that the take-up of the EV Common Charger Grant has been growing. So far, we have co-funded the installation of more than 200 chargers at more than 80 condominiums, with 30 applications pending review. So, part of the challenge here is helping the condominium MCSTs navigate the process because they may not know how to go about it and so on. So, LTA and BCA will work with industry players to develop guides to help condominium residents in the process of installing EV chargers.
Several Members have asked about the enforcement of the Bill. LTA will take a pragmatic approach, with safety as the paramount objective. As all chargers must be registered before use, the records of the Registered Responsible Person for each charger will facilitate enforcement efforts. Specifically, on Mr Edward Chia's question, clause 74 of the Bill allows an authorised officer to enter premises where that officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that specific safety-related offences are being committed.
Mr Don Wee asked about the transitional arrangements for existing chargers. After the transitional period of six months after the Act commences, chargers that do not belong to a homologated model cannot be supplied, while unregistered chargers cannot be used. This is to protect the public from potentially unsafe chargers.
In this intervening period, until the Act commences, both on the supply side, suppliers will now take reference from this and will have to ensure that the models they are selling are homologated or belong to the homologated variety. For if they fail, then customers will be back with them within six months to see what can be done to remedy it. And I would urge all who are contemplating procuring the chargers to also take reference from this requirement.
Let me now briefly address Members' queries on the broader EV ecosystem, which, strictly speaking, falls beyond the scope of this Bill.
First, on the long-term market structure of the EV charging industry. I agree with Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Yip Hon Weng that it is crucial to ensure healthy competition among EVCOs. LTA's large-scale tender for HDB car parks was awarded to five operators across 10 areas and allows for further injection of competition through future tenders at these car parks. Thus far, we have seen healthy competition in the EV charging industry, supported by the growth in market entrants over the past two years.
Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked how the Government will ensure that EV charging services are priced fairly. Fundamentally, competition and consumer choice are the most effective means of doing so.
But we will monitor the price dispersion – something that Mr Ang Wei Neng raised. I understand that, today, the price dispersion across different charging is about five cents per kilowatt-hour. But I would like to point out that there is an inherent irony in this because, if there is a wide dispersion in the prices, does that mean that we have a more competitive market? And if we have a very narrow dispersion or, in extremis, just a single price across the whole of Singapore, is that a desirable outcome?
So, we have to think about this carefully. But, in the first instance, our objective has been to ensure that the award of the tenders and so on is to address the key point that Mr Ang Wei Neng has been raising, which is really not having too wide a dispersion.
The other thing to bear in mind is – not unlike what we see with the conventional ICE cars and so on – I am very sure that the EVCOs will provide incentives and other benefits to their regular customers. So, that would be a further discount, if you will, on the prices being paid. So, we need to really look at this in great detail and understand the true impact before we make any further judgements on the matter.
Second, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about manpower development to support the EV transition. Based on a joint study by LTA and EMA last year, the number of licensed electrical workers, or LEWs, is expected to be sufficient to meet the increased demand from the EV transition over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, EMA has been reaching out to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to raise awareness of the prerequisites to become an LEW. EMA has also implemented alternate pathways to allow experienced workers to apply for LEW licences.
As for charging equipment specialists, to respond to Mr Edward Chia, EVCOs have been building up their talent pool and already employ such specialists in-house. LTA is working with the industry to provide clarity on the requirements to be a charging equipment specialist under this regulatory regime.
As Mr Edward Chia has also highlighted, our technicians and mechanics will also need to be equipped to take on the opportunities offered by the EV industry. In September this year, LTA launched the National EV Specialist Safety (NESS) certification, in partnership with SkillsFuture Singapore. Automotive technicians who have undergone relevant training on high voltage systems safety awareness can be certified under this scheme. We will continue to work closely with the industry and IHLs to grow our talent pool.
Thirdly, I agree with Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Don Wee that we must ensure the proper disposal and recycling of EV batteries. To this end, since July last year, NEA has brought into effect an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to ensure the proper treatment and recycling of electric waste. This includes all EV batteries. So, everyone in the ecosystem will have to comply with it.
Finally, both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Don Wee suggested adjustments to the COE system to phase out ICE vehicles. I have only been at MOT about a year, but no conversation on the vehicle system is complete without a discussion on COEs. So, I thank them for bringing it up.
The core objective of the COE system is to limit our vehicle population. We have set the vehicle population growth to be zero and to have an efficient mechanism to allocate the quota. This is the case for all vehicles and an EV is a vehicle.
It is not also good policy to foist too many objectives on a single policy tool. So, I would argue, for Members' consideration, that to use the COE for multiple objectives is not an appropriate or suitable policy formulation.
One of the proposals that Members have made – and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim in particular, I think – is to have a new segment for EVs, if I heard him correctly. If we think through the implications of that proposal, what it means is that we will have to take away supply from the other categories in order to supply a new category called EVs. The total supply for the different segments will reduce further. And for EVs, you will have a specific category. So, I am assuming, in the Member's policy design proposal, EV buyers can only buy EV COEs and not any other COE. And if you think through that, you are going to have far more, minimally, volatility in the price because the supply is constrained and, potentially, higher prices.
It also raises a bunch of questions around how you make that allocative decision – on what basis? Do you allocate 10%, 30%, 50%? And what is the argument that substantiates that allocative decision?
What we do is we treat all vehicles the same because the COE system is designed to control vehicle population, full stop. Whether you are ICE, hybrid, electric, maybe, in future, fuel cell hydrogen, they are all vehicles on our roads. So, we control the population. And then, what we do is we directly incentivise the adoption of the kinds of vehicles that we would like to promote through other policy tools for intervention.
In this case, we have incentivised the adoption of EVs through the EV Early Adoption Incentive, or EEAI, and the enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme, which, together, provide a combined rebate of up to $45,000 off the upfront cost of an electric car. There was a suggestion that maybe we can give a 10% discount. Even at today’s COE prices, $45,000 is significantly higher than that in terms of upfront cost. The Commercial Vehicles Emissions Scheme also provides up to $30,000 in rebates for electric light goods vehicles.
There was another point raised – and I wanted to just make sure and that is why I sought the clarification from the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – because the initial point in his speech was that PHC drivers are concerned because the cost of EVs is 82% higher. I think he said, in fact, operating cost. And when I asked for clarification, he said, no, it is actually ownership cost.
So, I had a cursory look at the site that he was using – paultan.org, I understand, is the site. In fact, the quote goes further than just 82% higher ownership costs. It actually says 82% higher ownership costs in the region, not just in Singapore. So, it is not very clear where the number comes from and, in particular, whether it has taken into account all the schemes that we have in the context of Singapore.
The point I want to make is this. When you consider costs, there are different elements to these. There is the upfront ownership cost, which seems to take into account the specific schemes that we have put in place; there is the operating cost for the life cycle – and on that, I can assure you that, in fact, EVs are very competitive. Because simply on the basis of cost per kilometre, based on today’s prices, it is at least no more than half what it would cost if you were driving an ICE. I am not promoting EVs – or I am not selling them – but these are the facts.
And it does not take into account the maintenance costs. Because an EV has about 20 moving parts, compared to an ICE vehicle which has got, I am told by engineers, 2,000 moving parts. So, when you total it all up, actually, the equation balances out.
Perhaps, what is required is for greater information and awareness amongst those who are making the choices, including PHC drivers, so that they have the full picture. But I thought it was important to make this clarification because we do not want us to be citing Internet sources but without seeing them through in terms of the specific application in our context.
To Mr Dennis Tan’s question, the electrification of goods vehicles is, in fact, one of our priorities. In fact, the light goods vehicles segment saw the highest rate of EV adoption this year, at around 28%. So, it is working and it is working well.
I have already shared that for buses, for example, because LTA is largely the procurer of buses, we will have 50% of our bus fleet, which means about 3,000 out of the 6,000 buses or so will be electric by the end of the decade, and the other half will likely be hybrid. So, we are moving in that direction.
The part that is more challenging is the very heavy vehicles, the big trucks and so on. And the reason is because, from the point of view of propulsion power and so on, there are trade-offs. That is why I mentioned in my earlier speech that hydrogen or related fuel types are being considered quite actively in that regard.
Mr Don Wee asked if the EEAI will continue beyond next year. We are reviewing this, taking into account the upfront cost gap and life cycle cost differential between an ICE vehicle and an EV.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, I thank Members once again for their support of the Bill. I have endeavoured to address all their queries in the main and I would like to assure Members that MOT and LTA will study and, where possible, incorporate their suggestions in the design and implementation of the EV charging system.
Our vision is to have a vehicle population that is electric. But that will require the collective effort of Government, industry, unions and consumers. The Electric Vehicles Charging Bill represents a first but major step in our journey to get there. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I just have two quick clarifications.
First, I absolutely have no difficulty with the notion that the COE should be kept predominantly for focusing on the overall body of vehicles. But that said, if I understand correctly, if LTA will, indeed, stop issuing COEs for ICE vehicles after 2030, would not this, ultimately, be equivalent to issuing a specialised category of EV COEs which will apply to all cars after 2030 and then, you will have an existing stock of COEs for cars from before?
The second point is, I would like to acknowledge that the Minister is correct. I misspoke when I said it was the operating cost. Indeed, it is the full ownership cost that I should have cited. That said, the figure was, as I clarified earlier on, a statement from a Vice President at Grab, which is a local outfit and it was in the context of the Eco Prosperity Conference in June this year. I believe Minister Iswaran was one of the keynote speakers at that conference. So, I do believe that this 82% – again, it is not my estimate, but her estimate – was said in the local context.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his clarifications. I may have been at the conference, but I cannot take accountability for what was said there by other speakers. But I am just pulling out what was on the website and it says the total cost of owning an EV remains 82% higher than owning an equivalent ICE, four-wheeled vehicle – and then, it said, “in the region, Ms Goh said”.
So, I think it is an important point of detail, does the Member not think so? Because the region has got significant variations and, certainly, what it means is that the number that has been cited here does not necessarily take into — I do not know whether it did, but it would appear, at first reading, that it has not taken that into account.
We already have to deal with a lot of misinformation outside. So, at least in the Chamber, when we cite sources and so on, let us just make sure we get the facts right. That was my main objective: to make sure that we got it right, so that whether it is a PHC driver or an HDB family wanting to buy a car or anyone else, they have the full information and the right information so that they can make the appropriate choice that fits their circumstances.
Secondly, I think there is a qualitative difference between what we will be doing from 2030 onwards, compared to what the Member is proposing. Let me explain why.
What we have said is that, from 2030, we will want Singapore to move towards cleaner energy vehicles. So, we will phase out ICE in the flow. And, therefore, all cars will have to be either electric or you would have hybrids or you may have other new cleaner energy vehicle sources. But they are all treated the same, they are in the same bucket and we treat it that way. We are not allocating a specific amount for electric, we are not allocating a specific amount for hybrid and so on. We are just taking it as one policy position.
What the Member is proposing is, actually, to deconstruct the current COE allocation and quota, and create new elements. My point is that this is something I do not think we need to have a PhD in Economics to infer this. Because when you create more segmentation in the market, reduce the supply to each category, the inevitable consequence must be at least volatility and, potentially – and certainly in the kind of environment we are in where demand is strong – higher prices. That might actually end up frustrating the very objective of the Member's proposal.
[(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 S Iswaran]. (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":"State Lands Protection Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, state land is, currently, put to various uses for the benefit of Singaporeans. These include residential, commercial, institutional and utility uses, amongst others.
It is important that state land is protected from unauthorised use and damage, as such acts can impede Singapore's development, create public safety issues and affect public enjoyment of our scarce resources. However, there have been individuals in the past who encroached significantly on state land and refused to remove their encroachments, even after the impact of their actions was explained to them.
One such case, which was reported in the news some time back, involves private landowners who extended their property on to adjoining state land by building structures on it. This act disrupted and delayed PUB's drainage improvement works in the area. The landowners refused to remove the encroachments, despite extensive engagement and multiple deadline extensions granted by the authorities. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) eventually filed charges against the landowners for trespassing on state land under the State Lands Encroachment Act 1883 (SLEA). However, in the intervening period, PUB incurred additional costs coming up with temporary flooding measures, as the encroachments impeded its drainage improvement works.
Sir, this example illustrates that the improper use of state land can have very serious environmental and economic consequences. This Bill, if passed, will put in place an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework, to better support SLA in protecting state land from misuse and damage. The SLEA, which contains the current enforcement framework, will be repealed. Outdated provisions, such as the appointment of forest rangers and penghulus to carry out duties, which are no longer relevant to modern Singapore, will also be removed.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces the fundamental concepts used in the Bill. The Bill defines state land to include lands that are unalienated, vested, surrendered or acquired by the Government. The Bill does not deal exhaustively with all state land. Excluded are unalienated lands managed by PUB, NParks and LTA under their respective legislation. This is to avoid the overlapping of laws and criminalising of activities on state lands that are already under the management of these public sector agencies.
The Bill also includes updated definitions to better reflect and capture present-day activities which constitute unauthorised use of state land. The Bill clarifies the definition of a \"structure\" which, when erected on, under or over state land, may constitute an encroachment. This includes land reclamation works and external features which protrude outwards from buildings.
Sir, Part 2 of the Bill sets out the offences and makes important updates to the penalties for unauthorised use of state land. Part 2 also sets out the proceedings in Court that may be taken to recover state land from improper use and unauthorised activities on state land.
A non-exhaustive list of unauthorised activities deemed to be offences under the Bill includes unauthorised clearance and digging of state land; unauthorised enclosure of state land; unauthorised dumping and leaving of waste on state land; and unauthorised works for the reclamation of land.
Under the new Bill, the penalties have been raised to align with penalties for comparable offences in newer legislation, such as the Parks and Trees Act and the Environmental Public Health Act. These present penalties in section 7 of SLEA are no longer deterrent vis-a-vis a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
The Bill raises the fine. Clause 5 prescribes a penalty comprising a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or both, for the offence of carrying out unauthorised activities on or damaging state land. In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of up to $500 will be imposed for each day during which the offence continues after conviction. Higher penalties may be imposed for a repeat offence of disposing rubbish or waste on state land using a vehicle.
The Bill also provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to pay monetary compensation to the Government, on top of any fine imposed, for any loss or damage suffered by the Government due to the offence, such as de-contaminating polluted soil; the value of any forest products or other substances removed from state land; and the costs and expenses incurred by SLA in abating the encroachment.
In addition, a new provision in the Bill now provides that the Court may order a convicted offender to compensate the Government for the costs and expenses incurred by an electricity or gas licensee or the PUB in complying with a Court order to discontinue the supply of electricity, gas or water.
The Bill thus provides for a wider scope of compensation than what is available under the current SLEA.
Where there is imminent harm or danger that is unlikely to be effectively addressed by the issuance of an encroachment notice, the Bill empowers the Commissioner of Lands to apply to a Court for an interim injunction against a person suspected of an offence under the Bill, before the person is convicted.
This includes situations where there is irreparable damage or harm caused to state land, or where state land may collapse, or cause the collapse of adjacent land, or pose a danger to the public.
Sir, Part 3 of the Bill sets out the powers that may be exercised by SLA to stop improper use of or unauthorised activities on state land.
Today, under current law, SLA must serve a notice giving 28 days for the unlawful occupants to vacate the state land and remove their movable property. If they do not vacate and remove their movable property by the notice timeframe, SLA must obtain a warrant for dispossession from the Court to remove unlawful occupants on state land and seize and forfeit any movable property. SLA must also obtain a Court order for the demolition of unlawful buildings and structures.
Under the existing process, the time taken for the removal of encroachments can be lengthy, during which the offender can continue his or her offence on the state land. In addition, the existing process does not allow for much flexibility to adopt a differentiated approach taking into consideration the complexity and seriousness of each case.
The Bill will introduce a streamlined process to enable SLA to deal with encroachments more expediently, especially those that may pose a public safety concern or delay redevelopment works on state land.
Specifically, the Bill enables an authorised officer to serve an encroachment notice to any person whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe is engaged in the improper use of state land. The encroachment notice will require the person to abate the encroachment by a specified date. It will also include an objection period, during which the person can give an objection if he or she does not wish to comply with the notice.
If there is non-compliance with the notice and no objection is received, the authorised officer can proceed to seize and remove any movable property involved. If an objection is received, the authorised officer may then file a complaint to the Magistrate's Court on the unauthorised activity committed on the state land.
Part 4 of the Bill sets out the circumstances under which abandoned private land may be resumed to become state land. Sir, this is not new. The current SLEA already sets out the mechanism by which alienated land, which has been abandoned for three years or more, may be forfeited to the state. The Bill retains this three-year threshold but makes some changes to update the resumption process.
The process begins when the Minister for Law grants approval for a particular piece of land to be declared liable for forfeiture to the state. Following this, a notice of the declaration must be made in the Government Gazette. This is similar to the current process under SLEA. However, under the Bill, there will no longer be a requirement for a physical notice of the declaration to be posted on the land in the English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages. Instead, SLA will publish the notice in the four official languages in the major local newspapers. This ensures that there will still be adequate publicity of the fact.
Claimants will also now have three months after the notice is published to make a claim to the land in question, instead of the six months under SLEA. Otherwise, the land will be deemed forfeited to the state. Sir, this will expedite the process and align the claim period to comparable legislation in other countries.
Part 5 of the Bill provides for the various powers of enforcement that can be exercised in the administration of the Bill, provided that the relevant statutory thresholds are met. To aid investigation, the Bill empowers authorised officers to:
(a) Enter either state land, or any other land, in or from which the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under the Bill may be committed, and inspect, make documentation of, and take extracts from the land or anything on that land;
(b) Request documents and information from any person reasonably believed to be acquainted with the circumstances relevant to the suspected commission of an offence under the Bill; and
(c) Request an individual found in, on or near any state land to disclose his or her identity and place of residence if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has committed or is attempting to commit an offence under this Bill in relation to that state land.
As in many other laws, the obstruction of an authorised officer in the discharge of his or her duties under this Bill, as well as the intentional tampering with any encroachment notice or summons, will be offences under the Bill. Authorised officers can also compound minor offences by collecting a sum not exceeding the lower of $5,000 or half the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. Sir, on the whole, these new powers will allow SLA to carry out its duties more expediently and effectively.
Part 6 of the Bill provides for the appointment of officers for the administration of the Bill. In particular, SLA may appoint enforcement officers from among public officers, employees of any public authority except a Town Council and any auxiliary police officer appointed under the Police Force Act. The enforcement officer's role is to assist SLA in the administration of the Bill in any particular area in Singapore.
Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes consequential amendments to (a) the Parks and Trees Act under NParks; (b) the Sewerage and Drainage Act under PUB; and (c) the Street Works Act under LTA.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill defines \"state land\" in a way that avoids the overlapping of jurisdiction between the public sector agencies. These amendments will ensure that PUB, NParks and LTA will have sufficient powers to take enforcement action on state land under their respective legislation, as SLA does under this Bill.
Sir, to conclude, the new Bill replaces the State Lands Encroachments Act 1883 with an up-to-date and comprehensive enforcement framework that will better protect state land against improper use and damage, so as to enable public use and enjoyment of appropriate state land and facilitate multiple uses of state land where practicable. This is necessary as land is one of our most valuable resources for the future. These changes will allow SLA and the agencies overseeing the management of state land to take effective measures to protect our state land from damage and misuse.
With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill updates our laws for the protection of state land with modern provisions. State land belongs to all Singaporeans and we must protect it from being damaged or unfairly used for private purposes. I, thus, support this much needed review of the law, but I have three clarifications.
My first clarification relates to the defence against an offence of unauthorised use of state land. Under section 7, someone accused of unauthorised use of state land must prove that they did not know and could not have reasonably expected to know that the land was state land. In some cases, it is fairly obvious that the land is state land, such as setting up makeshift structures or farms in forest areas. But it is less clear in cases involving the boundaries of private property and state land. The average home owner would not know whether their fence crosses into state land. Home owners would likely rely on the expertise of their contractors to ensure compliance. Workmen would also rely on the instructions of their managers. Would reliance on the due diligence of third parties be enough to make up the defence in section 7?
In addition to the OneMap app example in the explanatory statement, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give guidance when someone would not be reasonably expected to know if the land was state land?
My second clarification relates to the process for objecting to an encroachment notice. Section 12(3)(a)(ii) states that the encroachment notice must state a timeline to comply with the notice and to raise objections. However, there is no requirement or guidance on the minimum time that must be provided.
Given that encroachment might involve a person's home and that rectification might be complex or expensive, there must be sufficient time to seek advice on whether to raise objections to the encroachment notice. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm that reasonable time will be given to raise objections, proportionate to the facts of each case?
Also, where objections are raised, the Act is silent on any procedure for the authority to consider the objection and notify the recipient of the results or reasons for rejecting the objection. Instead, it only states that on receiving an objection, the officer may make a criminal complaint to a magistrate. This approach appears to skip the necessary steps to resolve the objection in a clear and transparent manner. Given that land issues can be sensitive due to costs or attachments formed, we should have a clear process to reach a smooth resolution. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if, prior to a criminal complaint, the authority will notify the result of the objection and give time to comply with the encroachment notice?
My final clarification relates to the forfeiture of abandoned land. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how the authority will determine that land is \"abandoned\"? Given the scarcity of land in Singapore, it would be economically efficient to ensure that abandoned land is reclaimed by the state and applied to the benefit of all Singaporeans. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share some estimates of the amount of land that might be abandoned? Will the authority be taking active steps to identify abandoned land and use these processes to recover land as state land, and then reinject it into the market? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely to review the laws pertaining to our state lands. The last review was 48 years ago, almost half a century ago. I wish to seek clarifications in three areas.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should leverage the use of technology for the reporting and verification of state land issues. Residents are our eyes on the ground. We should count on them to report issues that were missed during routine inspections. We have the OneService app that allows for easy, one-stop reporting of municipal issues. Even when issues are reported to the wrong category, they are rerouted to the correct agency to be worked on. This ensures that problems are quickly resolved. Most importantly, this ensures that the resident need not approach different agencies to get their issues settled.
However, it may not be straightforward to give feedback pertaining to state land. There is comparatively less awareness about accessible and reliable information resources. In fact, unknown to most, the OneMap app and website provide extensive information about land ownership in Singapore. Clicking on the land lots on the digital map displays the responsible agencies and contact information. I would like to ask whether SLA tracks how often the public uses the information from OneMap to report or clarify issues. Is there adequate awareness about OneMap? Does SLA intend to promote its use amongst the public?
Can residents, in fact, use the OneService app to report or seek clarification on state land encroachment cases? Is there a one-stop public hotline for residents who are less tech-savvy? When there is less ambiguity and a simplified reporting process, problems can be quickly identified and resolved.
OneMap is a comprehensive resource on land ownership in Singapore. However, what is on a digital map may differ from actual ground. Unlike a map, there are no clear boundary markers on the ground. Misunderstandings or unintentional encroachment may arise when the resident property and state property are bordering each other and if the boundary is unclear. At present, the onus is on the individual to prove that, only on a balance of probabilities, he did not know and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that the land concerned was state land.
Can the Ministry clarify how can the individual prove this? How does one prove that they do not have the knowledge? How do the authorities differentiate between ignorance and negligence in checking? Can we do away with this concept in the first place?
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when multiple Government agencies have a stake in managing a piece of state land, ambiguity must be kept minimal. For example, the greenery on a piece of state land is centrally maintained by NParks. Cleaning comes under the Department of Public Cleanliness in NEA. Despite the clear distinction, these issues are often intertwined. When there is illegal dumping on a piece of state land, NParks' maintenance work could be hindered before the problem is resolved.
This could manifest in other problems that inconvenience the residents living nearby. Examples include pooling of water that leads to mosquito breeding or pest issues. Which agency is, ultimately, responsible for resolving the issue at hand? The landowner or the maintenance agency? Is there a system in place to designate the responsible stakeholder, with the aim of resolving the problem as soon as possible?
Some recent policies and initiatives may contribute to the complexity of enforcement. For example, there is the Community in Bloom project under NParks, where residents can plant greenery in common spaces. This may lead to the assumption or misunderstanding that residents can do more with the land outside their property and contrary to the intent of this Bill. Residents may use such land to create composts or do micro-farming, in the name of sustainability. This is usually innocuous and with good intentions. How do we strike a balance between giving residents discretion and a stake in improving their living environment, while preventing encroachment on state land?
Land encroachment becomes a potentially sensitive problem when religious artifacts or buildings are involved. In fact, it is not rare to see religious paraphernalia, such as altars and statues, left at the foot of trees or on an empty plot of land. I wonder if agencies have made exceptions for such cases because of their religious nature. Nevertheless, laws should be applied fairly and consistently. What is the protocol for agencies to deal with encroachment when the offence is one of a sensitive nature? Can they count on guidance and support from religious organisations to do so when it is necessary?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third clarification concerns the management of abandoned land. When and how long does it take for the Government to conduct such necessary inspection before determining whether land has been abandoned for three years or more? I make reference to the discovery of skeletal remains of two sisters in an abandoned house in Upper Thomson. The house remained in a dilapidated state for more than a decade before the Public Trustee's Office took ownership in 2015.
During this period, the first set of skeletal remains was detected in 2006 after NEA officers entered for a mosquito check. The second set of remains was then found in 2015 by BCA contractors who were there to erect a temporary roof. From this example, it appears that it took a long time before any intervention was done. Will there be a system of coordination between SLA and the Public Trustee's Office to better handle similar situations in the future?
Another example is the Chee Guan Chiang House, which has largely been abandoned. Located on prime land, it received conservation status in 2008. However, it is largely derelict, though it is supposedly own by Lee Tat Development. What constitutes abandoned land? Is it just when there is no claim or when there is also a lack of development?
With the new laws in place, will the Government take proactive measures to quicken the process of managing and inspecting abandoned properties? In line with the Upper Thomson example, abandoned land may prove an opportunity for criminals seeking to dispose of evidence.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, land is a precious commodity in land-scarce Singapore. The new laws highlight the severity of misuse and encroachment of state land. They reflect the Government's resolve to use our land prudently. When the time comes to put an empty plot into use, be it for building an HDB estate, a hospital, a public amenity and so forth, it will not cost excessive resources and time to reinstate it to a useable state. I, therefore, support the higher penalties against land encroachment and misuse, which would serve as deterrence.
More importantly, we need to put our residents at the heart of what we do. I take a personal interest in this Bill because there is state land in my constituency. State lands do not just concern the state, or the Government, so to speak. Clarity is critical for the quick resolution of problems pertaining to state land. We live in a densely populated country. Residents will often find themselves being in close proximity to state lands. When these lands are not properly managed and issues simply take too long or even years to get settled by the Government, residents are inconvenienced.
The Government must be resident-centric. We must ensure that we have strong enforcement as well as streamlined measures to manage state lands in the most effective and efficient way. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I have some clarifications as well as suggestions on how the Bill can be expanded in the future.
Firstly, I note that the proposed Bill will halve the notice period for abandoned land to be claimed from six months down to three months. While I understand that this enhances SLA's operational efficiency, I have two questions.
First, how does SLA work with other agencies, such as NEA, if there are concerns by neighbours of any threats on the abandoned land, for example, dengue or other public safety concerns, during this notice period?
Second, as the effect of shortening the notice is significant, I am concerned that three months may be too short as landowners may have legitimate reasons for being uncontactable – for instance, if they have migrated overseas. I note that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned publication in major newspapers. Will there also be digital outreach? What efforts will SLA make to ascertain that landowners have received the notice by the end of the three months, if possible?
Secondly, the Bill introduces much stiffer penalties for encroaching on and damaging state land. The maximum fine for all unauthorised activities on state land will be raised by about 10 times to $50,000. However, there have been cases in the past of the elderly, for example, who encroach on state land by secretly growing vegetables, having small religious altars or even sleeping rough in patches of forest. These retired seniors' activities hark back to a simpler time for them and are, generally, not harmful to themselves or others and it can prove very challenging for them to pay the higher penalties.
I understand that SLA encounters about 180 cases of encroachment every year. Could SLA provide an anonymised breakdown of the profile of individuals who commit these offences? This could help us to really understand if the increased penalties are, in fact, proportional as a deterrent.
In other cases, residents of private landed estates may, inadvertently, encroach on state land by expanding gardens, walkways, or even part of their homes, into small areas in between houses. While land grabbing should certainly not be encouraged or excused, these residents do sometimes face challenges when coordinating with the authorities about the management of this public space. For instance, state land might not be maintained for a long period of time, turning them into breeding grounds for mosquitoes. In such situations, residents may take over the land and take care of it as they perceive it to be abandoned.
In such instances, the Bill should be supplemented by greater coordination efforts between SLA and home owners to encourage communication on land management concerns and ensure the timely management of state-owned spaces. In addition, it would be helpful, in particular, in landed estates, if there could be a more systematic and efficient way in vesting state land into the care of a particular agency for building and maintenance – for example, where such lands have formed useful but informal shortcuts for residents over time to access amenities, such as bus stops, outside of their estates. Some may hope to make such shortcuts safer and official with pavements and light fixtures. Currently, the considerations, timelines and processes for doing so are unclear.
Lastly, the Bill also allows enforcement officers to enter and inspect any land without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that the land is being used illegally. They can then issue notices to the offenders to leave the land or fine the offenders.
Since no warrants or criminal proceedings are required for these actions, what measures will SLA take to prevent trespassing or scams under the pretext of a legitimate inspection?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am heartened by the Bill's provision to ensure that state lands are well taken care of. However, even as we protect what the eyes cannot see, we must not forget to protect what is harder to see but is also under threat – our sea spaces.
Singapore's waters are some of the busiest in the world, but they are home to over a third of the world's coral species. Unfortunately, about 60% of these reefs have already been lost to land reclamation. Singapore needs to establish stronger regulations on land under water as well – our seabeds – to allow remaining marine life to flourish. I sincerely hope that just because we are occasionally able to sight beautiful creatures in our waters, including blacktip reef sharks, dugongs, or even turtles and anemone fish, we should not take such things for granted and accept the status quo. We must be more proactive in protecting such gems.
Singapore, currently, has one marine park set up in 2014 – that is, the Sisters' Islands. Here, it is an offence to fish, collect coral, or moor boats, without NParks' permission. However, this marine park accounts for just 0.04% of Singapore's marine area. SLA manages the islands near Sisters' Islands, namely Saint John's, Lazarus and Kusu. There are multiple users of the waters around these islands, including recreation and research, to name a few.
Commercial fish farming also exists in the waters off these islands, which have an impact on the seabed, water and shores.
During COVID-19, visitor volume to these islands increased by 60%. It is good that more Singaporeans are appreciating our natural environment. But increased carrying capacity comes with increasing impact and strain on the lands. Given the rising interest, I would like to ask what SLA envisions with regard to the protection and enhancement of these Southern Islands and their heritage.
The Southern Islands' management, currently, straddles several Government bodies – NParks, SFA, SLA, URA and MPA, to name a few. Perhaps the next step towards protecting state lands would be to have a more coordinated whole-of-Government approach to protect land on these islands and the surrounding waters to engage stakeholders with a more systematic framework and build institutional knowledge.
Additionally, a more robust environmental protection framework would foreground the importance of protecting our precious land space, seabed and marine space while ensuring that any plans to develop tourism or commerce in these areas can be enacted in a sustainable way.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, land is more than simply living spaces. While many of this Bill's amendments come across as administrative in nature, people do form emotional connections with their environments. With our limited resources, as we continue to develop regulations governing the space around us, we must balance different stakeholders' needs and wants while actively forecasting for the future. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill.
Let me now address the questions raised.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked whether the increased maximum fine for offences under clause 5 is a useful and proportional deterrent. In particular, she cited cases involving individuals who are sleeping rough on state land, or retired seniors who engage in unauthorised cultivation on state land.
The enforcement framework set out in this Bill covers all manner of encroachment offences, taking into account the different circumstances of trespass. The Bill, therefore, sets out a maximum penalty since some forms of trespass can cause severe damage.
Not all cases are, eventually, prosecuted in Court. Furthermore, for those prosecuted, the penalties imposed by the Court upon conviction will, ultimately, depend on the surrounding facts and circumstances. There is no minimum punishment for any of the offences in the Bill.
Also, in practice, SLA, generally, does engage and will continue to engage those encroaching on state land. There would be an opportunity to rectify the encroachments first, absent irreparable damage or danger due to the encroachment.
In cases involving rough sleepers on state land, SLA works very closely with MSF who will engage and provide support to these individuals. This could include referring them to suitable shelters or accommodation, in the interest of their safety and well-being.
With regard to cases where enforcement action is taken, Mr Louis Ng asked about the defences available to those prosecuted under the Bill. This includes whether reliance on the due diligence of third parties would constitute a defence under clause 7 of the Bill. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked, in relation to the same clause, how individuals who encroach on state land can prove that they did not know and could not have reasonably been expected to know, that the land concerned was state land.
The scenarios under which a defence may be constituted are varied and will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Nonetheless, the Members' underlying concern appears to be situations where an individual does not know that they are encroaching on state land.
Let me first draw Members' attention to clause 5 of the Bill. The elements of the offence in this clause are engaging in the listed activities on state land without lawful authority and intentionally. Wholly accidental incursions would not be an offence. Also, as I mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land, before taking enforcement action.
On the specific example raised by the two Members on private home owners, the property owner should also take responsibility to ensure that there is no encroachment onto adjoining state land. This includes engaging a registered surveyor to carry out surveys to confirm if there are encroachments.
If encroachments are found from the surveys, owners should check with SLA on whether the encroachment must be removed.
SLA will also be embarking on public education efforts after the Bill is passed, to raise public awareness of the new Bill and also address any misconceptions.
Moving on to the process for abating encroachments.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the timeline to comply with or raise objections to the encroachment notice. Mr Ng also asked if the Authority would notify the result of the objection and provide time for individuals to comply with the notice before Court proceedings are initiated.
Let me, first, address the issue of the objection and compliance period. The removal of the fixed 28-day notice period is intended to provide SLA with greater flexibility to deal with encroachments more expeditiously, if appropriate or necessary, based on the circumstances of the case.
To provide some context, this draws on SLA's experience with past encroachment cases, where members of the public had requested that SLA take action against the reported encroachments quickly. This is often because the encroachments might have posed disamenities and obstruction to the public.
In addition, there might be cases where SLA needs to take action more quickly, for example, where there is ongoing harm being done to the state land.
Nevertheless, SLA will strike a balance between giving individuals time to rectify their encroachments and stopping the harm done by these encroachments. In general, SLA will provide a reasonable timeframe for owners to comply with encroachment notices, taking into consideration the nature and scale of the encroachments.
On whether the Authority will notify potential offenders of the results of the objection, I would like to, first, clarify that once an objection is filed, clause 16 of the Bill allows the Authority to refer the matter to the Courts. The usual Court processes, after making a complaint to a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, will then apply.
That said, generally, SLA will respond to the potential offender on SLA's position on the basis of his or her objection, before filing a complaint to the Court. Alternatively, the encroachment notice may be cancelled if there is merit in the case contained in the objection.
Apart from the process for objection, the Member's concern may also relate more broadly to whether there is sufficient notice given before matters are escalated to the point of legal action.
As I have mentioned earlier, SLA, typically, engages those encroaching on state land before commencing any enforcement action.
Most encroachment cases are resolved amicably. However, if there is a need to issue an encroachment notice, reasonable time will also be given to comply with the notice or to raise objections. This will be proportionate to the facts of each case.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about encroachments involving religious artefacts or buildings. Mr Yip rightly pointed out that our laws should be applied consistently and fairly when it comes to encroachments which could cause public obstruction or damage to state land.
First and foremost, the setting up of any structures or the leaving of any objects on state land without lawful authority would constitute an encroachment. That being said, similar to the approach for other types of encroachments, agencies, typically, engage owners of any religious items placed on state land. Agencies will explain that these are unauthorised encroachments, before taking enforcement action, if needed. Where appropriate, SLA also works with the relevant religious organisations to ensure that the matter is handled sensitively and with respect.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about safeguards to prevent trespassing under the pretext of a legitimate inspection under the Bill.
Authorised officers and enforcement officers must declare their office and produce their identification card when asked. The owner of the private land can demand to see their credentials and when the officers seek entry for inspection or other purposes provided for in the Bill.
As stated in clause 26, subsection (3), if officers do not declare their office or produce their identification card when asked, it is not an offence for any person to refuse to comply with their orders. These provisions are directed at preventing illegal trespassing and scams, such as what Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin had described.
On the issue of public awareness and feedback, I thank Mr Yip Hong Weng for his suggestion to leverage the use of technology in interfacing with the public on state land issues. Indeed, OneMap is an example of our multi-agency effort to provide reliable, timely and accurate location-based information and services to the public.
While SLA does not have data specifically on how often the public uses information from OneMap to provide feedback on state land, SLA does track the usage of OneMap. SLA regularly promotes OneMap through various social media channels. It has also broadened its efforts to raise awareness of the services on OneMap to industry and members of the public. For example, SLA has signed collaborative Memoranda of Understanding with industry players, such as real estate agencies, developers and business chambers, to promote the use of geospatial solutions. SLA will continue to review ways to raise awareness of OneMap.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also raised important considerations about coordination between agencies and adopting a resident-centric approach in resolving land-related issues.
When the maintenance of land straddles the purview of multiple agencies, we will ensure that agencies coordinate our responses such that the issues relating to state land are resolved promptly.
We recognise that it can sometimes be confusing for members of the public to identify the agency-in-charge. We have taken efforts to streamline our touchpoints with the public and to address their feedback effectively and efficiently. For instance, members of public can report or clarify state land issues using the OneService app, which is a one-stop platform where residents can provide feedback on municipal issues, without having to figure out which Government agency to contact. SLA will then follow up on any feedback or clarifications relating to state land issues. In addition, members of the public can also contact SLA’s hotline to report any unauthorised use of state land. SLA will assist to direct feedback to the relevant agency if it is not within SLA’s purview.
Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the process of forfeiture. Forfeiture of land is uncommon. We have encountered about five cases in the past 10 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we recognise that the issue of forfeiture should not be taken lightly as it involves private owners' rights.
To address Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng’s questions, in general, we do not actively identify abandoned land to pursue resumption. We, typically, take action when alerted to pieces of abandoned land that could pose a hazard to public safety or health. This could arise from public feedback on maintenance and safety issues, as pointed out by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin. The reduced claim period will help to expedite the forfeiture process, so that agencies can commence any necessary works to address safety and health issues on the abandoned land.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also highlighted situations where there are pressing concerns, such as dengue, which might require a quicker response. In such cases, SLA will coordinate with the relevant agencies to consider the options available to address these concerns, even before the forfeiture process is completed.
The cases of abandoned land that we have encountered thus far involve mainly isolated strips of land like back or side lanes. These are, typically, incapable of independent redevelopment.
On Mr Yip Hon Weng’s query on the type of land that qualifies for forfeiture under the Bill, land is deemed to be abandoned and forfeited when no claims are established to it within the stipulated claim period. In other words, the lack of development of a piece of land does not, in itself, allow the state to forfeit the land.
Also, for cases involving land owned by deceased individuals without beneficiaries, such as the Upper Thomson Road case cited by the Member, the Government becomes entitled to the land, pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act 1967. The Public Trustee's Office has separate existing procedures to dispose of the land that has so accrued to the Government, in accordance with the Civil Law Act 1909 and the Probate and Administration Act 1934.
As for Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s queries on the process for determining if land is abandoned, SLA will carry out checks with agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, to trace the whereabouts of the owners.
SLA will only commence the forfeiture process if it appears that the land has been abandoned for three years or more and the owners cannot be traced from SLA’s checks.
To Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin’s question on the resumption notice, as mentioned in my speech earlier, a declaration will be made in the Government Gazette. This is similar to the current process under the State Lands Encroachments Act.
In addition, as mentioned in my opening speech, SLA will also now publish the notice in the four official languages in major local newspapers, including the digital versions.
This improves upon the current process, where SLA affixes the physical notice on the land, as greater publicity can be secured through publishing the notice in the local media. This includes cases where the potential claimants are not physically in Singapore.
Even after the land is forfeited, any person who can establish a claim to the satisfaction of SLA, within six years from the date of forfeiture, can still be entitled to receive compensation for the value of the land. Taking this into consideration, potential claimants should have sufficient time within which they can claim compensation for their interest in the land.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how we will strike a balance between protecting state land from unauthorised use and facilitating community use of state land.
As Members would be well aware, Singapore has limited land resources. As custodian of our state land and properties, SLA is also continually looking for innovative ways in which our state land can be used to benefit the community. Where there are suitable vacant state lands which are not required for immediate development, SLA will also work with other agencies to put out these sites for public recreational activities. The current list of these Community Use Sites can be found on SLA’s website.
The Member has also mentioned NParks’ Community in Bloom initiative. We encourage members of the public to take advantage of these initiatives.
Our concern with unauthorised cultivation and plantings on state land is that these can create potential health hazards, such as mosquito breeding hotspots, and impede the maintenance of state land. Unauthorised use of state land for activities can also affect public safety and, potentially, damage the land.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe I have addressed the salient issues raised by Members relating to provisions within the scope of the Bill.
Separately, there were a number of comments relating to matters outside the ambit of this Bill.
First, I thank Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin for her suggestion on the vesting of land to facilitate maintenance. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin may wish to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this matter. We will help provide her feedback to the relevant agencies.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also spoke about increasing protection for Singapore’s marine spaces, in particular, for the Southern Islands. While the question of marine spaces is not within the scope of this Bill, I agree that this is an important issue which should be further studied and we will convey her feedback to the relevant agencies.
SLA will also consider her suggestions in its management of the Southern Islands. Generally, the enhanced enforcement framework under the Bill will also better support SLA in protecting state land in the Southern Islands from unauthorised use and damage.
I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill, and I believe I have addressed their questions and suggestions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, 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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" — [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 5.11 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drop-out Rate among Students Enrolled in Integrated Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education (a) for each of the past five years, how many students who were originally enrolled in the Integrated Programme (IP) had dropped out of IP; (b) what are the main reasons for the same; and (c) what steps have been put in place to help students opting to drop out of IP after completing Secondary 3 to join schools offering \"O\" Level examinations as Secondary 4 students.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past five years, 3,900 students were admitted into the Integrated Programme (IP) on average each year. Around 200 students, or 5% of each cohort, left the programme before completing Year 4. The majority of these students chose the \"O\" Level pathway while a large proportion of the remaining students relocated overseas.
As most IP schools also offer \"O\" Level classes, students moving out of IP can choose to remain in the same school. For those transferring to other Secondary schools, transfers are, typically, completed before the end of Year 3, to give students sufficient time to prepare for the \"O\" Level examinations in the new school environment. The receiving schools provide academic bridging and socio-emotional support to help the student cope with the changes and adjust to the new school environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Technology to Enhance Care and Safety for Seniors Living Alone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health in the past five years, what studies have been undertaken regarding the use of technology to enhance care and safety for seniors living alone, including the use of motion sensor technology, to identify seniors who have fallen or become immobile, while still preserving personal privacy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH has funded several studies on using technology to enhance care for seniors at home. Under the National Innovation Challenge (NIC) on Active and Confident Ageing, we launched the Care-at-Home Innovation Grant in 2015 to enhance the efficiency and quality of care for seniors at home through technology.
One project was NTU’s Homecare and Caregiving Model for Optimising Services for the Elderly. They developed a web-based health management system integrating technology and various home care services, such as smart home sensors, medication adherence and meal planning and delivery. With the sensors, seniors felt reassured that their caregivers could be contacted immediately during emergencies. The system improved the productivity of care staff and led to better care outcomes like increased medical adherence and reduced hospital admissions.
We have also funded another study by Tan Tock Seng Hospital titled \"Project Carer Matters 2\" via NIC. One of the study objectives is to leverage technology to create a safe home environment for seniors, by developing an automated sensor-enabled fall detection and rescue system. The study is, currently, ongoing.
The Government will continue to explore how promising research projects can be scaled up and deployed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Converting Underutilised Multi-storey Car Parks and Other Common Areas into Bicycle Parking Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will consider converting underutilised multi-storey carparks to be used for bicycle parking spaces; and (b) what other common areas can be converted to provide for more bicycle parking spaces.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB will consider repurposing underutilised multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) to other uses, subject to factors, such as technical feasibility, safety considerations and whether there are potential disamenities to residents.
According to LTA’s Code of Practice (COP) 2019 for vehicle parking, bicycle lots are to be separated from the car park area. COP also states that the route taken for cyclists to reach the bicycle parking lots should also avoid vehicular ramps and driveways. These requirements are meant for the safety of cyclists. Conversion of car parking spaces to bicycle parking facilities in existing MSCPs would, generally, not meet these safety requirements.
For new public housing developments, bicycle parking is provided at the void deck of blocks for the convenience of our residents. Dual bicycle racks are provided to optimise the space usage at the void decks. In addition, under the Green Towns Programme (GTP), HDB will be installing up to 40,000 dual bicycle racks in 23 existing HDB towns by 2024.
If there is a need to increase bicycle parking for some blocks that have high demand, the Town Council may seek consent from HDB to install additional bicycle parking racks at the void deck or other locations near the blocks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Accidents Involving Children Aged 18 and Below","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the trends in traffic accidents involving children aged 18 and below; and (b) whether he can provide an update on the inter-Ministry or inter-agency efforts and resources spent in further enhancing road safety awareness in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2018 and 2021, the number of persons aged 18 and below who died or were injured in traffic accidents decreased from 500 in 2018 to 280 in 2021. As economic and social activities resume as we emerge from the pandemic, the 2022 figure is estimated to be about 350, based on extrapolation of the data from January to October 2022. This is lower than in 2018.
The Traffic Police (TP) has implemented various initiatives to promote road safety awareness among children. In July 2022, TP and MOE jointly developed an online interactive learning resource called Road Safety Challenge! TP also regularly provides specially curated road safety talks to school children. The talks cover a variety of topics, such as how to cross the roads safely and how to ride safely as a cyclist or as a passenger in a bus or car. In addition, TP organises road safety training for children through the annual Singapore Traffic Games, formerly known as the Shell Traffic Games. The most recent Games took place at the Road Safety Community Park on 9 November 2022, where school children practised road safety rules and etiquette through role playing three types of road users – go-kart drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
TP installed road safety banners at all Primary schools to educate students on good road safety habits, as part of the Singapore Road Safety Month 2022. TP also collaborated with the Singapore Road Safety Council to produce videos to remind motorists on safe driving behaviour in school zones.
Regulation and enforcement also play key roles in promoting road safety for our children. In July 2021, composition fines and demerit points for specified traffic offences committed in School Zones were increased. Motorists will now incur two additional demerit points for each specified traffic offence and an additional $100 for each composition fine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Alarms linked to Larger Healthcare Network for HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider including personal alarm systems linked to our senior care centres and the larger healthcare system under HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors programme to give our seniors greater peace of mind to live independently and safely in the community.
Mr Desmond Lee: Together with MOH and GovTech, HDB has implemented personal alarm systems linked to nearby Active Ageing Centres and a 24/7 helpline at 53 rental blocks with relatively higher concentrations of seniors. This has allowed us to better understand the requirements and resourcing involved in the provision of such systems.
We are reviewing the feedback on the personal alarm systems from current users and service providers, before considering any further expansion to more rental flats as well as sold flats under the EASE programme. We will keep the Member’s suggestion in mind during our review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Banks Offering Alleged Scam Victims Final Settlement Sums Lower than Scammed Amount","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government is aware of banks offering alleged scam victims offers of final settlement which can be significantly lower than the scammed amount while Police investigations are ongoing; and (b) whether the Government will consider regulating this practice to ensure that scam victims who accept such offers are nonetheless not precluded from commencing further claims to recover their money when investigations conclude that the banks are at fault for allowing the scams to succeed.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects banks to treat customers fairly. When handling cases of suspected scams, the banks must promptly investigate the relevant transactions performed. They must consider whether they have fulfilled their own obligations and whether customers had done their part to protect their own accounts. The Police will also investigate the scam, but they do not determine the culpability of the banks in allowing the scam to succeed.
Depending on the outcome of the banks’ investigations, they may offer goodwill payments to customers. In such cases, banks are expected to give customers sufficient time to consider any such offer. A customer may decline an offer if he is not satisfied with it. He may then approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for mediation and adjudication. FIDReC is an independent and impartial institution that provides a low-cost dispute resolution service for financial institutions and their customers.
Any customer who accepts an offer of goodwill payment will be bound by the terms of the offer. Should new information come to light that is materially different from the premise upon which the customer accepted an offer from the bank, it is within the customer’s rights to request the bank to relook the case, or approach FIDReC for assistance.
MAS is working with other Government agencies to design a fair and effective framework for shared responsibility amongst relevant parties when a scam occurs, and one which incentivises each party to be vigilant against scams. This will complement the processes mentioned earlier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Increase Supply of HDB BTO Flats in Non-mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development what steps are being taken to increase the supply of HDB's BTO flats in lower priced non-mature estates as opposed to mature estates and prime location public housing.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past two years, there has been strong, broad-based demand for housing. HDB has thus committed to ramp up BTO flat supply in the immediate two years of 2022 and 2023 and is prepared to do more if needed.
While HDB has streamlined development processes to support the BTO ramp-up, there remain constraints at certain planned BTO sites. For example, some of these sites may be currently occupied by interim uses that cannot be vacated earlier or there may be existing encumbrances on-site. For sites with environmental or heritage concerns, additional time will also be needed to conduct the necessary studies and public engagement of the relevant stakeholders.
Nonetheless, HDB strives to maintain a healthy supply of NME BTO sites at every BTO launch. For example, for the November 2022 BTO exercise, HDB launched almost 6,000 flats in NMEs, a supply that is larger than the total number of BTO flats launched in a typical BTO exercise. For 2022, we have launched more than 23,000 flats, an increase of 35%, compared to 2021. More than half of these flats are in NMEs.
MND and HDB will continue to monitor demand closely and make the necessary adjustments to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans, especially those seeking to buy their first home. We will continue to offer a wide range of flats in different locations to meet diverse budgets and housing needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Work Sites to Ensure Clearance of Land is In Accordance with Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there has been a step-up in checks on worksites to ensure any clearance of land is done in accordance with regulations; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to ensure that upcoming projects, such as the Bayshore housing projects, will have the necessary environmental assessments completed before clearance of forests and woodlands is done.
Mr Desmond Lee: Activities on worksites can only proceed after the necessary approvals from relevant agencies have been obtained and their requirements have been met. This can include conducting environmental studies and putting in place the monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of the development.
Relevant agencies conduct checks on worksites regularly. There are stiff penalties for carrying out unauthorised activities at worksites, including land or vegetation clearance, before the necessary approvals are obtained or if the requirements imposed by agencies are not met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Abuse Cases Identified through Signal for Help Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the past five years, how many children suffering from domestic abuse have been identified through the Signal for Help programme under the Break the Silence campaign; and (b) if the data is not available, whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend in the number of children identified.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: \"Signal for Help\" is not a programme, but a hand signal that can be used by survivors of family violence to discreetly indicate that they need help. MSF started promoting the use of the hand signal in November last year, as part of the Break the Silence campaign.
Since \"Signal for Help\" is not the only way which survivors of family violence make their reports, we do not track specifically the number of cases reported using the signal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collection of NRIC and Personally Identifiable Information by Security Officers at Commercial and Private Residential Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information what recourse do visitors to commercial and private residential facilities have when security officers at these facilities ask to collect their NRIC numbers or other personally identifiable information in contravention of the Security Association Singapore and Personal Data Protection Commission guidelines.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Security officers can check a visitor’s photo ID, such as one’s NRIC, during registration to verify their identity. To contact the visitors when necessary, they may also collect certain information, such as name and contact number. For buildings or compounds that collect NRIC numbers, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)’s Advisory Guidelines for Management Corporations require them to implement tighter measures to secure the collected personal data.
If a visitor thinks that security officers have not observed PDPC guidelines, he or she should seek clarification from the Management Corporation’s Data Protection Officer and seek an amicable resolution of the matter. The visitor can lodge a complaint with PDPC if the matter is not resolved.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Admission to Shelter when Case is Reported at Family Service Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the (i) average and (ii) longest waiting time for intake into a shelter from the time a case is first opened at a Family Service Centre.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: MSF does not track the time taken for a case that is opened to be referred to a shelter. The time from case opening to a decision that a client requires shelter depends on FSC’s assessment of the client’s needs, whether the client has alternative accommodation with family or friends, and the client’s availability to be seen by FSC in the first place.
Clients with urgent needs, for example, those experiencing family violence and are currently staying with the perpetrator, are prioritised for admission to a shelter. There is sufficient availability in our shelters, and clients with urgent needs are, typically, admitted to shelters on the same or next working day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing Effectively with Overpopulation of Birds in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development whether, in relation to the handling of complaints pertaining to overpopulation of birds in HDB estates, NParks should play a lead role in dealing with the complaints to ensure there is proper ownership and effective handling of the complaints.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are, generally, responsible for managing residents’ feedback on disamenities, including those from pest birds, such as pigeons and mynas.
NParks has been working closely with Town Councils and other agencies to address feedback related to pest birds, through upstream mitigating measures. For example, NParks advises Town Councils on the pruning of trees to discourage the roosting of birds and shares best practices for pest bird removal operations. Town Councils can make use of their operating funds to implement these measures.
In addition, as bird-feeding and human-generated food sources are key drivers of pest bird population growth, NParks works with Town Councils to raise public awareness about the negative impacts of illegal bird-feeding. NParks also conducts surveillance and targeted enforcement against such acts, while partnering agencies and Town Councils to encourage proper food waste management by residents and food establishments.
Continued collaboration between Town Councils and agencies is key to effectively managing pest bird-related feedback. NParks will continue to advise and support Town Councils on such matters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Shortfall in Gas Supply from Sumatra and Impact on Businesses and Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the gas supply from Sumatra being set to fall from 2023 (a) how will this affect businesses and residents; (b) what sources will the Ministry tap on to make up for this shortfall in supply; and (c) what is the uptake rate for EMA’s Request-for-Proposal to import electricity.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: While our Piped Natural Gas (PNG) supply from Indonesia will decline from 2023, this will not affect consumers’ electricity supply. Our Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal has sufficient capacity to meet all of Singapore’s gas needs on its own. Singapore’s gas users can buy gas from multiple gas suppliers, including term LNG importers, which can supply LNG to gas users under Gas Sales Agreements with durations of one year or longer.
To safeguard our energy security in the longer term, we will continue to diversify our energy sources, such as by maximising solar deployment and importing low-carbon electricity from the region. The Energy Market Authority has launched Request for Proposals (RFPs) for electricity import projects and has received more than 20 proposals to import electricity from five countries – Australia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Thailand. We remain on track to meet our electricity import target of 4GW by 2035. Collectively, these measures will reduce our reliance on natural gas and make our power system more resilient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Knowledge and Understanding of Palliative and End-of-life Care amongst Healthcare Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how will the Ministry enhance the knowledge and understanding of palliative and end-of-life care amongst healthcare professionals; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making these topics a strategic priority in the curricula for all doctors and nurses.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There has been significant efforts in palliative care training for healthcare workers over the years. The National Outcomes Framework for Medical Graduates, introduced in December 2018, guides medical schools in developing their curricula and specifies core learning outcomes on palliative care. Over 100 physicians have undergone the Graduate Diploma in Palliative Medicine programme.
Our local nursing schools provide palliative care training to all nurses. Most recently, the Palliative Nursing Competency Framework was rolled out in October 2022.
In addition, MOH is working with partners, such as the Singapore Hospice Council and the Agency for Integrated Care, to increase awareness of palliative care and end-of-life issues amongst healthcare professionals through training courses, seminars and conferences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Data from \"Buy Now, Pay Later\" and Licensed Moneylender Arrangements in Consumer Credit Reports","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether credit payment data from \"Buy Now, Pay Later\" (BNPL) arrangements and licensed moneylenders are included in consumer credit reports; (b) what are the considerations for their inclusion or non-inclusion; and (c) what is MAS doing to step up consumer education about the debt risks of taking up BNPL credit arrangements.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Financial institutions (FIs), such as banks and non-bank credit card issuers, provide about 98% of all credit extended to Singapore households. The remaining 2% includes credit extended by non-FI entities, such as licensed moneylenders. \"Buy Now Pay Later\" (BNPL) transactions remain very small, compared to other means of consumer payments, accounting for less than 0.5% of total credit card and debit card payments last year.
We currently have separate credit information sharing schemes for FIs and non-FI lenders, such as licensed moneylenders and BNPL providers. This is, in part, a reflection of market realities. As loans from FIs account for the vast majority of consumer borrowings, FIs are likely to gain only marginal additional consumer credit insights while non-FI lenders can use the expanded dataset to target lower-risk FI customers. We have, therefore, not currently compelled FIs and non-FI lenders to set up a common consumer credit sharing process.
However, for BNPL, in particular, the recently launched BNPL Code limits the risk of consumer over-indebtedness. It formalises safeguards, such as suspension of account on default, no compounding interest or fees and no bankruptcy proceedings. This limits further the benefits of a common credit bureau for FIs and BNPL providers. In addition, where consumers make use of credit cards to make payment for their BNPL transactions, existing unsecured credit rules, such as caps on FI-borrowings, would further mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness.
Nevertheless, similar to credit information sharing schemes for FIs and licensed moneylenders, there are benefits to setting up a BNPL credit bureau to facilitate sharing of consumer outstanding amounts and delinquency status amongst BNPL industry players. The requirement for BNPL providers to participate in a BNPL credit bureau is enshrined in the BNPL Code. BNPL providers will also each ensure that consumers have access to account statements consolidating the total outstanding balance of purchases made through the respective BNPL provider. MAS will monitor developments in the BNPL sector and continue to engage the industry as part of subsequent reviews of the BNPL Code as necessary.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), through MoneySENSE, also regularly shares content on the importance of money management and financial budgeting on MoneySENSE’s website and social media channels. These include advising consumers to beware of spending beyond their means as a result of using BNPL schemes and other instalment plans and highlighting the potential costs of such schemes, such as late payment fees for missed instalments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Warranty Period and Maintenance Costs for Retractable Clothes Drying Racks in HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the retractable clothes drying racks that are installed as part of the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) for flats built between 1987 and 1997 (a) what is the warranty period for these racks; (b) what steps can be taken by residents should their racks not work after the warranty period; and (c) what is the role of the Town Council in the maintenance of the racks after they have been installed and how is such maintenance funded.
Mr Desmond Lee: The External Retractable Clothes Drying Rack (ER-CDR) was designed to meet HDB’s stringent testing requirements. While HIP works are ongoing, residents can visit the HIP Information Centre located at their precincts or call the centre’s toll-free hotline should they require assistance with their ER-CDRs.
There is a one-year defects liability period during which the contractors will rectify any faults reported by residents. As ER-CDR is considered common property under the purview of the Town Council, residents can thereafter contact the Town Council for assistance with major maintenance, replacement or repair works.
As with other household items used daily, we encourage residents to take good care of their ER-CDRs, adopt proper usage and carry out their own routine cleaning or maintenance. Upon installation, the contractor will hand out leaflets that guide residents on how to clean and maintain the ER-CDRs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Property Tax Collected from Owner-occupied and Non-owner-occupied HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in each year since 2000, what percentage of the total property tax is collected from (i) owner-occupied HDB flats and (ii) non-owner-occupied HDB flats respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The requested information spans over two decades and we are unable to provide such a long time series of data. For the period 2018 to 2022, owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied HDB flats contributed an average of 1.3% and 1.4% of the total property tax (PT) assessed each year respectively1 .
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Total PT assessed refers to the PT assessed from all residential and non-residential properties and does not take into consideration any PT rebates or exemption."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Diploma and Degree Courses Taken up by Prison Inmates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many prison inmates have taken up the Diploma in Business Practice (International Supply Chain Management) course offered by Ngee Ann Polytechnic since 2018; (b) how many prison inmates have taken up the Bachelor of Science in Logistics and Supply Chain Management programme offered by the Singapore University of Social Services since 2020; and (c) whether there are plans to increase the number of such courses offered.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since 2018, 120 inmates have taken up the Diploma in Business Practice (International Supply Chain Management) course offered by Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Since 2020, 15 inmates have taken up the Bachelor of Science in Logistics and Supply Chain Management programme offered by the Singapore University of Social Sciences.
About 400 inmates per year undergo education programmes, including those leading to the General Certificate of Education (GCE) \"O\" Level, GCE \"A\" Level, GCE Normal (Academic), GCE Normal (Technical), National Institute of Technical Education Certificates (Nitec), diplomas and degrees.
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is continually expanding the number of education courses offered to benefit more inmates. New education courses introduced in 2021 and 2022 include the Nitec in Business Services, in partnership with ITE College Central. SPS takes into consideration the interests and aspirations of our inmates, the skillsets in demand in the various sectors and the feasibility of conducting such courses in prisons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Costs Orders Sought by Public Prosecutor against Defence Counsel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law for each year between 2018 and 2022 (a) what is the number of cases in which personal costs orders are sought by the Public Prosecutor against a defence counsel; (b) how many of such orders are granted by the Courts; and (c) what are the maximum and median quantum of personal costs orders (i) sought by the Public Prosecutor and (ii) granted by the Courts respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Courts decide on whether costs should be paid by Counsel. This is so in both civil and criminal cases. This is a power that the Courts have always had. Costs will, generally, be ordered against a defence counsel in criminal cases where (a) the defence counsel acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently; (b) the conduct led to the incurring of unnecessary costs; and (c) it is just, in all the circumstances, to make the order.
There were at least 16 cases between 2018 and 2022 in which the Courts ordered defence counsel to personally pay costs, including civil cases initiated by accused persons which were related to their criminal cases. The maximum and median quantum of the personal costs orders imposed in these cases were $20,000 and $3,750, respectively.
Cases where personal costs orders were sought by the Public Prosecutor against a defence counsel are not specifically tracked. These are steps which take place within the context of Court proceedings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Costs Orders Sought by Accused or Defence Counsel against Public Prosecutor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law for each year between 2018 and 2022 (a) what is the number of cases in which the accused or their defence counsel have sought costs orders against the Public Prosecutor; (b) how many of such orders are granted by the Courts; and (c) what are the maximum and median quantum of costs ordered against the Public Prosecutor respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: Such matters relate to orders made within the context of Court proceedings and are not specifically tracked. The Courts decide on such matters, based on established principles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Development of Probate E-service System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether he can provide an update on the progress of the development of the Probate e-service system that was announced in Parliament in March 2022.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Family Justice Courts (FJC) have been working on a probate e-service that will make the probate process easier and simpler for applicants with straightforward probate applications.
As announced in March 2022, key features of the probate e-service will include the automatic population of data through integration with MyInfo and the use of guided questions. Applicants using the e-service will no longer need to file death certificates if the relevant information can be obtained by the e-service directly from a Government agency. FJC is also studying how the application process can be further streamlined, including by reducing the number of steps that an applicant needs to take before the relevant application is granted. FJC will also explore whether digital signing capabilities can be added in future enhancements.
FJC is engaging stakeholders, including members of the family Bar, on the probate e-service and will consider their feedback in the final design of the system.
FJC, currently, intends to launch the system in the first half of 2023, although this is subject to developmental progress. The system will, initially, be used for straightforward probate cases, with capacity progressively ramped up over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expiry of Singapore's Gas Supply Contracts with Malaysia and Indonesia and Future of Piped Natural Gas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry following the recent renewal of a five-year gas supply contract with Indonesia (a) when are Singapore's remaining gas supply contracts with Malaysia and Indonesia expected to expire; and (b) whether piped natural gas is still expected to feature in Singapore’s energy mix by 2030.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore imports Piped Natural Gas (PNG) from Malaysia and Indonesia through PNG importers. Gas supply contracts are negotiated by PNG importers on a commercial basis. We are unable to divulge the specifics of these contracts, including their expiry dates, as these are commercially sensitive.
Even as we seek to decarbonise our power sector, natural gas will continue to play an important role in the energy transition and feature in Singapore's 2030 energy mix. To safeguard our energy security, Singapore will continue to ensure that our energy sources, including our natural gas supplies, are well diversified. For example, since 2013, we have supplemented our PNG supply with Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which allows us to import gas from further afield.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Target Timeline for Import, Sale and Farming of Insects for Human Consumption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the target timeline for (i) allowing the import and sale of insects as food for human consumption and (ii) issuing licences for domestic insect farming for human consumption.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is conducting a public consultation on the regulatory framework for the import, local farming, processing and sale of insect products for human consumption. The public consultation will end on 4 December 2022. SFA will consider the feedback and announce details when ready. This would also depend on industry readiness to meet the regulatory requirements and consumers' acceptance for such products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Dyslexia-friendly Font and Features as Texts in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has considered using dyslexia-friendly font and features in schools for such texts to be inclusive for students on the dyslexia spectrum.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Students with dyslexia have difficulties matching language sounds to print. However, dyslexia is not a visual problem that can be addressed by special fonts. There is limited research evidence that \"dyslexia-friendly\" fonts improve reading speed or accuracy, although some students may express a preference for them.
MOE will continue to support students with dyslexia in their reading and spelling using methods that are evidence-based, such as the teaching of phonics, and strategies for spelling, oral reading fluency and reading comprehension.
To aid legibility of texts for all students, including those with dyslexia, MOE and schools use fonts, such as sans serif fonts, that cater to all students and avoid fonts that are cursive or decorative.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost of Placing Child in Place of Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the past five years, what is the annual average monthly cost of placing a child in (i) a place of safety and (ii) the Singapore Boys' Home or Singapore Girls' Home.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children and young persons (CYPs) may reside in a place of safety, should they require care or protection. This includes the Singapore Boys' Home (SBH) or Singapore Girls' Home (SGH).
Over the past five years, the average monthly cost of placing a CYP in a place of safety is $3,000. This figure does not include additional items incurred at SBH and SGH, such as the provision of in-house medical services, school and security set-up, which are required to cater to CYPs with higher risks and needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Length of Service of Nurses Successful in Applications for Permanent Resident Status","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health in the past five years, what are the annual average and median lengths of service of nurses who are successful in their applications for Permanent Resident status respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The data requested is not readily available as the existing employment data among public healthcare institutions does not track the specific movement of Permanent Resident nurses who have switched employers but remained in the public healthcare sector. Based on anecdotal feedback, nurses who have obtained Permanent Resident status are likely to stay in service longer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Streamlined Process for Patients to Enrol in Healthier SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health to better monitor the demand and take-up rates under Healthier SG, whether there will be a centralised system for patients to make scheduled appointments through phone calls or the HealthHub mobile application.
12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether eligible patients who do not register with a general practitioner (GP) under Healthier SG will be systematically targeted and incentivised to sign up; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider enrolling them automatically with their nearest available GP with the option to change it subsequently.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There will be a centralised system for residents to sign up for Healthier SG. To facilitate residents in their choice of a general practitioner, clinics frequented recently or near their home will be prioritised in their options. The preferred mode of enrolment is for residents to take responsibility and make a conscious decision to embark on a journey towards better health instead of automatic enrolment. We are working with the Agency for Integrated Care and grassroots organisations to reach out to eligible residents to encourage them to enrol in Healthier SG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding List of Registrable Basic Medical Qualifications to Increase Pool of Qualified Singaporean Doctors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing and expanding the list of registrable basic medical qualifications to include more medical schools and (ii) setting up a system to convert overseas Singaporean doctors who currently have non-registrable qualifications but who can demonstrate the necessary knowledge to render the appropriate medical care in Singapore, so as to increase the pool of qualified Singaporean doctors practising in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The list of registrable basic medical qualifications is governed by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), which reviews the list from time to time to meet the changing healthcare needs of the Singapore population. The last review was completed in 2019, where basic medical qualifications from 103 universities globally are recognised by SMC. MOH and SMC will continue to monitor and assess if the list of registrable basic medical qualifications should be reviewed and expanded.
To the Member's second question on facilitating Singaporeans with non-registrable qualifications to practise here, there is already such a system in place. They can register with SMC to take a Qualifying Examination. Individuals who pass the examination can be registered with SMC to practise in Singapore. This ensures the quality of overseas-trained doctors practising in Singapore, while ensuring that their aspirations to return home and practise are met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Tobacco Import and Wholesale Licences Approved in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Health what is the number of new tobacco import and wholesale licences approved in each of the past three years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Eight new tobacco import and wholesale licences have been issued in the past three years – six in 2020, two in 2021 and none in 2022 \t– as of 28 November 2022.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Flats Owned by Singapore Citizens, Singapore Citizens and Non-resident Persons, and Permanent Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development for each year from 2010 to 2022, how many HDB flats are owned by (i) Singapore Citizens, (ii) Singapore Citizens and non-resident persons and (iii) Singapore Permanent Residents, respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: Public housing in Singapore, primarily, caters to the housing needs of Singaporeans. Subsidised Build-To-Order (BTO) flats can only be purchased by households with at least one Singapore Citizen (SC). This means that the main applicant must be an SC and, his/her co-applicants, if any, must be an SC or Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs). In addition, SPR households are only allowed to own a resale flat, but they are not eligible for housing grants and must have been SPRs for at least three years. Non-resident persons are not allowed to own an HDB flat.
In each of the years from 2011 to 2021, (a) between 780,000 and 970,000 units (or between 93% and 95% of the HDB flats) are owned by households where all owners are SCs; and (b) the number of flats owned by SPR households fell from about 47,000 units (or 6%) in 2010 to 44,000 units (or 4%) in 2021. This could be attributed to the implementation of revised policy in 2013 that SPR households are required to wait three years from the date of obtaining SPR status before they can own an HDB flat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extensions Granted to Individuals Who Renounced Permanent Residency to Dispose of HDB Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development for HDB flats required to be disposed of within a six-month grace period by individuals who renounced their permanent residency (a) how many extensions to the grace period for such flats have been granted in each of the past 10 years; (b) what are the reasons for granting the extensions; and (c) how many of such flats have not been granted extensions and are not disposed of within the six-month grace period.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB flat owners who cease to be Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs) are not allowed to retain ownership of their flat and must relinquish their interest in it. Should the flat owner fail to relinquish his interest in the flat, HDB will compulsorily acquire it.
Any request for extension of time will be considered on a case-by-case basis. One example of the reasons for consideration is where incoming owners require more time to raise money to effect the change in flat ownership.
HDB does not track the number of such requests. Nevertheless, as shared with the Member in our reply to his earlier Parliamentary Question, the number of owners who ceased to be SPRs in 2022 and are pending the disposal of their HDB flat remains small, at about 90 flat owners, or less than 0.01% of HDB flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility of Buyers Below Age 35 for Subsidy and HDB Loan for BTO and Resale Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development for buyers of BTO and resale flats who are below the age of 35 and earning an income at the bottom quintile and the median for their age group respectively, what is the (i) average subsidy they will receive, (ii) maximum HDB loan quantum eligible to them, (iii) average remaining amount of cash payment required and (iv) average monthly HDB loan repayment amounts by way of cash and CPF respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: The (a) average amount of grants received, (b) maximum HDB loan quantum eligible, (c) median remaining amount of cash payment required and (d) median monthly HDB loan repayment amounts by cash and CPF, for buyers of Build-To-Order (BTO) and resale flats who are below the age of 35 and earning an income at the bottom quintile and the median are tabulated in Table 1 below.
18 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for National Development of those who are successful in their ballot for an HDB BTO flat but choose not to select a unit subsequently, how do the reasons provided differ between applicants of flats in mature and non-mature estates respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: From HDB's past sales launches, about four in 10 applicants who were successful in their ballot for a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat chose not to select a flat. The reasons for not selecting a flat are similar across applicants of flats in both mature and non-mature estates. Common reasons cited by such applicants were their preferred units not being available, wanting to apply for flats in other sales exercises or having decided to purchase a resale flat instead.
While some of these applicants may have genuine reasons for not selecting a flat, they do crowd out others with more pressing housing needs. As such, HDB encourages all applicants to book a flat when they are invited to do so. Those who choose not to do so will be issued a non-selection count. First-timer families who accumulate two non-selection counts will have their subsequent flat applications moved to the second-timer category for a year. Second-timer families who accumulate two non-selection counts will not be able to participate in subsequent sales exercises for a year. This is to be fair to those who have more pressing housing needs. Nevertheless, HDB may exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis to waive the non-selection count if there was a limited number of flats available for selection.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Success Rate of Applicants for HDB BTO Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development with regard to HDB's BTO applications in mature estates in each of the last three years (a) how many applicants are successful in their BTO flat application at their first attempt; (b) what is the median number of attempts for a BTO flat before obtaining a successful application; (c) how many applications required more than five attempts for a successful application; and (d) what is the maximum number of failed attempts that an applicant put in for a BTO flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Generally, we see high demand for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in the mature estates (MEs). Given the strong demand and limited flat supply, not all flat applicants applying for BTO flats in the MEs can secure one. As such, we encourage applicants to apply for flats in the non-mature estates (NMEs) in order to improve their chances of securing a BTO flat. Virtually all first-timer (FT) families who apply for NME BTO flats were given a chance to select a flat within their first three tries, and almost 90% were given a chance to select a flat within their first two tries.
From 2019 to 2021, the percentage of all FT families who were successful on their first ME BTO attempt was between 20% and 24%.
Of all FT families who were successful for ME BTO flats in each year from 2019 to 2021, the median number of ME BTO attempts before a successful ME BTO application was one. It would not be representative to look at the maximum number of unsuccessful ME BTO attempts made by an FT family before they succeeded. This is because there are some applicants who may not have an urgent need for a BTO flat and may be applying exclusively to ME BTO projects or more attractive BTO projects only. Nevertheless, our records show that over the past three years, of all FT families who were successful for ME BTO flats, less than 2% took more than five tries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of NEST Singapore Limited","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower with the setting up of NEST Singapore Limited which is a new corporate entity by the Ministry to operate Purpose-Built Dormitories in partnership with the private sector (a) what measures will be put in place to ensure oversight of this new entity by the Ministry; and (b) whether this new entity will be operated on a for-profit or cost recovery basis.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM will set up NEST Singapore Limited (NEST) as a Company Limited by Guarantee, with its own board of directors and management. The board and management will be responsible for the proper governance and stewardship of NEST. The set-up of NEST will help drive innovation and transform practices in migrant worker housing and grow capabilities in dormitory management.
The two NEST purpose-built dormitories will be subject to the same licensing and regulatory requirements under the Foreign Employees Dormitories Act (FEDA) as any other dormitory operator in the market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply given by the Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo) at the Sitting of 30 November 2022: (proc text)]
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): My suggestion to the Member is to encourage the resident to call at one of our ServiceSG Centres. The alternative is that through a partnership between IMDA and the People's Association (PA), there are also 38 Community Centres that offer a scaled down version of what is available at the ServiceSG Centres. To give the Member a sense of the scale that ServiceSG Centres are able to help residents with, in terms of services, each one of these ServiceSG Centres, typically, will be able to work with the residents to go through more than upwards of 400 types of services offered by the Government. The 38 Community Centres where there is a partnership between IMDA and PA, they also offer upwards of 200 services that they can help residents to complete. [Please refer to \"Government Assistance for Residents who are Not Digitally Literate\", Official Report, 30 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 78, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mrs Josephine Teo circulated with leave of the Deputy Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my statement made at the Sitting of 30 November 2022. My statement should read as follows:
The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): My suggestion to the Member is to encourage the resident to call at one of our ServiceSG Centres. To give the Member a sense of the scale that ServiceSG Centres are able to help residents with, in terms of services, the ServiceSG centres at Our Tampines Hub and One Punggol, typically, will be able to work with the residents to go through more than 400 frequently transacted services offered by the Government. The other three ServiceSG centres located in CCs also offer over 200 services that they can help residents to complete.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":5306,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221130/vernacular-30 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - EV Charging Bill.pdf","fileName":"30 Nov 2022 - Mr Sharael Taha - EV Charging Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":5307,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20221130/vernacular-Don Wee EV 30Nov2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee EV 30Nov2022-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}