Hansard, 2005-09-19

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2006) To (2006) Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 19 Aug 20 Aug 12 Sep 15 Sep Mr Gan Kim Yong 20 Aug 21 Aug 26 Aug 27 Aug 06 Sep 10 Sep Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng 20 Aug 25 Aug 24 Sep 02 Oct Mr Leong Horn Kee 25 Aug 29 Aug 17 Sep 23 Sep Miss Penny Low 25 Aug 03 Sep 09 Oct 13 Oct Dr Warren Lee 25 Aug 25 Aug 18 Sep 30 Sep Mr Wee Siew Kim 25 Aug 27 Aug 04 Sep 09 Sep 03 Oct 10 Oct Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 25 Aug 26 Aug 03 Sep 05 Sep 09 Sep 16 Sep Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 26 Aug 28 Aug 09 Sep 09 Sep 10 Sep 10 Sep 19 Sep 21 Sep Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 26 Aug 28 Aug 05 Sep 06 Sep 19 Sep 21 Sep 25 Sep 30 Sep Column: 1295Mr Inderjit Singh 29 Aug 03 Sep 18 Sep 24 Sep Mr K Shanmugam 29 Aug 06 Sep 15 Sep 20 Sep Mr Sin Boon Ann 31 Aug 06 Sep 07 Sep 07 Sep Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 01 Sep 04 Sep Mr Chew Heng Ching 02 Sep 02 Sep Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 02 Sep 03 Sep 05 Sep 07 Sep 11 Sep 26 Sep Mr Khaw Boon Wan 02 Sep 03 Sep 17 Sep 23 Sep Mr Lee Hsien Loong 02 Sep 03 Sep Mr Lim Hng Kiang 02 Sep 03 Sep 06 Sep 08 Sep 12 Sep 16 Sep 27 Sep 01 Oct Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 02 Sep 03 Sep 14 Sep 19 Sep Encik Yatiman Yusof 02 Sep 10 Sep 16 Sep 19 Sep 23 Sep 24 Sep Mr Hawazi Daipi 03 Sep 07 Sep 27 Nov 08 Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 03 Sep 05 Sep Dr Ong Seh Hong 03 Sep 10 Sep 14 Sep 16 Sep 22 Sep 26 Sep Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 03 Sep 11 Sep Mr Chan Soo Sen 04 Sep 10 Sep 20 Sep 26 Sep Mr Teo Yock Ngee 04 Sep 08 Sep 21 Oct 28 Oct Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang 05 Sep 12 Sep 15 Oct 23 Oct 29 Oct 02 Nov Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin 05 Sep 13 Sep 15 Sep 18 Sep Mr Zainudin Nordin 05 Sep 07 Sep 18 Sep 23 Sep Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M 06 Sep 07 Sep Column: 1296Mr Chay Wai Chuen 07 Sep 09 Sep 03 Oct 14 Oct Dr Tan Sze Wee 07 Sep 09 Sep 13 Sep 13 Sep Mr Lee Kuan Yew 08 Sep 22 Sep Prof. S Jayakumar 08 Sep 25 Sep 07 Oct 15 Oct Mdm Cynthia Phua 09 Sep 11 Sep Mr Goh Chok Tong 09 Sep 18 Sep Mr Mah Bow Tan 10 Sep 12 Sep 28 Sep 01 Oct Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 10 Sep 16 Sep Mdm Ho Geok Choo 11 Sep 14 Sep 17 Sep 23 Sep Mr S Iswaran 11 Sep 16 Sep Mr Wong Kan Seng 11 Sep 13 Sep Mr Teo Chee Hean 12 Sep 14 Sep Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 15 Sep 16 Sep 20 Sep 21 Sep 24 Sep 25 Sep 20 Oct 29 Oct Mr Heng Chee How 16 Sep 25 Sep 26 Sep 28 Sep 18 Oct 22 Oct Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 16 Sep 20 Sep Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen 17 Sep 23 Sep Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 17 Sep 28 Sep Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 18 Sep 23 Sep 25 Sep 25 Sep 02 Oct 07 Oct Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 18 Sep 23 Sep Mr Ang Mong Seng 18 Sep 23 Sep 27 Sep 29 Sep 06 Oct 11 Oct Dr Chong Weng Chiew 18 Sep 23 Sep Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 18 Sep 21 Sep Mr Low Thia Khiang 18 Sep 23 Sep Mr Matthias Yao Chih 18 Sep 23 Sep 11 Oct 14 Oct Dr Ng Eng Hen 18 Sep 20 Sep Mr Ong Kian Min 18 Sep 25 Sep Column: 1297Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 18 Sep 01 Oct Mr Chiam See Tong 19 Sep 30 Sep Dr Ong Chit Chung 19 Sep 19 Sep 17 Oct 17 Oct 31 Oct 31 Oct 02 Nov 02 Nov 04 Nov 04 Nov Mr R Ravindran 19 Sep 20 Sep Dr Wang Kai Yuen 19 Sep 23 Sep Mr David T E Lim 20 Sep 21 Sep Dr Lee Boon Yang 20 Sep 25 Sep Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 25 Sep 30 Sep Mr Lim Boon Heng 25 Sep 03 Oct

Mr Inderjit Singh

Mr Chay Wai Chuen

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat

CHEW HENG CHING Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

30th August,2005 (1) The Money-changing and Remittance Businesses (Amendment) Bill (2) The Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill (3) The Professional Engineers (Amendment) Bill (4) The Architects (Amendment) Bill (5) The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill (6) The Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill CHEW HENG CHING Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he can provide (i) an update on the number of reported dengue cases over the last six weeks; and (ii) the number of fatalities due to dengue fever for this year; (b) what new measures the Ministry is planning to implement to combat dengue fever; and (c) how the Ministry co-ordinates with other Ministries and relevant agencies like the Ministry of Health, Land Transport Authority and National Parks Board to ensure an efficient, speedy and effective response to public feedback on potential breeding grounds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the indulgence of the House, I will make a statement later.

OK.

2. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the latest known number of public and private sector apartments that are required to, but have yet to get the rivets of their windows replaced; (b) what measures the Ministry has taken or will take to ensure that the owners of these apartments comply with the requirement by the deadline set; and (c) what are the implications for flat owners if they are unable to comply by the deadline.

3. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development if he will consider postponing the 30th September 2005 cut-off date for retrofitting windows in view of the fact that many owners of HDB and private apartments may have difficulty in meeting this deadline.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 2 and 3 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, first of all, let me explain why we carried out the window retrofitting exercise. Last year, the incidence of falling windows rose sharply, from 107 cases in 2003 to 133 cases in 2004. They were mainly caused by corroded aluminium rivets in casement windows. In a high-rise built-up environment like ours, falling windows pose a serious danger to the life and limb of our residents. To address this, we required all casement windows fitted with aluminium rivets to be replaced with stainless steel rivets. In view of the large number of windows involved, we gave a one-year grace period.

In the last one year, BCA and HDB embarked on a major campaign to raise public awareness on the need to retrofit their windows. This was done through direct mail to HDB residents and to management corporations of private estates, press releases, newspaper and radio advertorials, constituency exhibitions and other forums. BCA and HDB trained additional window contractors and linked them up with home-owners. Town Councils and Management Corporations were also roped in to help coordinate the window retrofitting exercise in their estates.

The response from residents has been encouraging. To date, the vast majority, or about 94%, of households required to retrofit their windows have already done so. Dr Lily Neo asked whether the deadline for retrofitting would be extended when it expires on 30th September this year. My Ministry will not be extending the deadline. It is not in the interest of public safety to do so. The grace period of one year has been more than adequate. The vast majority has had no problem complying. The small minority who has not yet done so will be given additional help to do so. Dr Amy Khor asked for a breakdown of these residents. To-date, about 12,000 units have not yet fixed their windows. Of these, 4,000 are HDB units and 8,000 are private units. They constitute about 3% of 150,000 HDB flats with casement windows that need to be retrofitted and about 20% of private flats.

Dr Khor also asked what additional measures would be taken to help those who have not retrofitted their windows. HDB and BCA have increased the number of hotlines that home-owners can call to seek assistance, and deployed more staff to tend to queries. They have also appointed more window contractors to meet the increase in demand. Home-owners who need assistance can call the HDB or BCA hotline for help.

BCA and HDB have also taken stern actions against errant contractors who tried to take advantage of the current situation. Errant contractors who are found to be involved in malpractices like over-charging, providing misleading information or rendering poor service, would be fined or debarred from HDB contracting works. So far, HDB has taken action against 49 contractors.

Dr Khor asked about the implications for flat owners who are unable to retrofit their window rivets by the deadline. With the stepped up efforts by HDB and BCA, I expect that virtually all home-owners will be able to meet the deadline. Those who still have problems retrofitting their windows should contact HDB or BCA for advice and assistance immediately. After the deadline, BCA will take action under the window retrofitting order against home-owners who do not have valid reasons for not fixing their affected windows.

May I remind all flat-owners that this exercise is to save lives. With the cooperation of everyone, I hope we will be able to make our housing estates safe for our families, our friends and ourselves.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, since the deadline is barely two weeks away, what would the valid reasons be for home-owners who do not retrofit their windows by the deadline. Would financial difficulties be one of the valid reasons?

I would also like, in this regard, to ask the Minister how many home-owners have approached HDB for help regarding the retrofitting of their windows due to financial difficulties. What help or advice has the HDB given to these residents? Has any home-owner been assisted by the HDB and allowed to pay the retrofitting cost, say, by instalments as the Minister had, during the Committee of Supply

debate last year, said that home-owners in financial difficulties could approach the HDB Branch Office for assistance and some consideration could be made to allow them to pay by instalments?

Sir, the number of residents who have approached HDB for financial assistance directly is not significant. There are a few cases which have come to the HDB directly, others have come to the MPs. In my own meet-the-people session, I have several cases also. In all these cases where the HDB assesses there is genuine financial difficulty, HDB will direct them to the relevant community organisation. Where such assistance is not available, it will also be prepared to do the retrofitting exercise and collect the payment on an instalment basis. It has also come to my notice that some contractors have, for the very poor cases, been carrying out this retrofitting exercise either on a complimentary basis or on an instalment basis. So there are several avenues available for such financial cases to be assisted. But I must stress that these are, by and large, in a minority. I think the number of cases that have come to our attention has not been significant. Where they have genuine difficulties, they have been given assistance of one form or another. I do not think this is the main issue.

Sir, may I ask the Minister how he intends to enforce this ruling on the change of window rivets? Is he going to have random checks on private apartments and HDB flats? Would he be lenient to those with good reasons for not being able to meet the target deadline?

May I also ask the Minister how is he addressing the complaints about some HDB-recommended contractors who over-

service beyond requirements, some who overcharge, and some disappear after collecting the deposits? How many of such complaints has his Ministry received?

There have been complaints about errant contractors and they are the culprits who either overcharge or run away with the money. Each and every complaint is investigated and, so far, HDB has taken action against 49 contractors. However, a lot of the complaints have been found to be due to misunderstanding on the part of the contractors as well as the home-owners. For example, some of the contractors, having inspected the windows, found that the windows needed repairs other than changing of the rivets. In those cases, they recommended additional works to be done and of course these additional works cost money. Because there was a misunderstanding as to what needed to be done, home-owners may have thought that they were being overcharged. All those misunderstandings have been clarified to the satisfaction of both parties. So I do not think we need to worry about that. But I do admit that there are contractors who have tried to take advantage of the situation.

I also know of contractors, through their own volition, who have given either free service or allowed instalment payments. Where there are cases of contractors taking advantage of the situation and where we can prove it, we will either fine them or debar them from the contractors registry system under HDB. If there are any complaints of this nature, residents can always call up the hotline and they will be investigated.

The first question pertains to enforcement. BCA can either enforce it through the window retrofitting order or the Building Maintenance Act. But that is

not the point. The more serious point is that we want everybody to have a sense of urgency to change or check their windows and to make sure they do not fall down. It is not possible for BCA to go round checking every single house which has not complied. If they want to do it at the end of the period, they will reserve the option to do so. But what is more serious, and this is where I would like to urge all home-owners to be aware, is that when a window falls down after that date, they can be subject to severe penalties. Although there were one or two cases in the past where the windows had fallen down, after investigations, BCA and HDB had not taken action against the owners. But after 30th September, if such an incident happens, depending on the investigations, home-owners may be subject to far more severe penalties.

My advice is, first of all, get your windows fixed and, even after that, check your windows regularly. If there is anything that is not quite right, please approach either a window contractor, the HDB or management corporation, for assistance.

Sir, I just want to clarify with the Minister whether the 4,000 home-owners who have not retrofitted their windows are from the list of HDB known cases, ie, HDB's subsidised cases. I will give him an example. Aljunied Town Council has been monitoring the cases and it has also been helping the residents. In total, Aljunied Town Council has actually helped 9,000 cases to change their windows. This is on top of the 4,300 HDB cases that have been done by the Hougang Branch Office. The number of cases that have not changed their window rivets, which need to be changed, may not be the number that the Minister has stated so.

In addition, because of a complaint, I have actually gone down to visit two

blocks of flats. There are two categories of residents: one is those who are in financial difficulty and the other category is those who do not know how to call the agency. There are about 10 to 20 of these cases in each block. How is the Minister going to help these cases?

I think the Member is doing a very good job in going round to help the residents. I am quite assured that I do not have to do anything much. Having said that, if there is any help that is needed over and above what she is doing, she can always approach the HDB Branch Office and they will render every assistance possible. Those in financial difficulties, we will find a way to help them. But the difficulty is in determining what constitute genuine financial difficulties. If they stay in a 5-room flat and they have a 52-inch plasma TV in the living room, I do not think we are going to help them. But we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

As for the numbers, there are two categories. The first category would be those under the goodwill repair scheme. These were the ones where the windows were originally fitted by HDB, and based on HDB's records, have not been changed since then. Under the goodwill repair scheme, HDB will co-pay part of the cost and

will arrange for the retrofitting to be done. The other category will be those who have changed their original windows when they renovated their flats.

For both these cases, HDB will be monitoring the numbers. In the first instance, for the goodwill repair scheme, I think there are slightly more than a thousand cases left, and HDB has assured me that they will be able to complete it before 30th September. The other cases are the cases including those mentioned by the Member for Aljunied. For these cases, we will have to take special steps to try and get them to retrofit before the deadline.

One of the common complaints is that the contractors are all busy and, therefore, they cannot meet the deadline. There are over 600 contractors registered by BCA. There are another 24 which are term contractors specifically designated by HDB. There are other term contractors which have been appointed by Town Councils. The total capacity of all these contractors is more than 20,000 windows a month. This is more than adequate to meet the demand of those who have not yet submitted their requests for retrofitting. It is only those who are either not aware or those who have real financial difficulties. I think these are the cases that are left and for them, as I said, HDB is prepared to work with the Town Councils to identify cases and to see what assistance can be rendered to them, including advising them on what needs to be done.

Mdm Khor, one last question from you?

Sir, whilst the number of cases that may need financial assistance may not be very big, but in order to make a one-off financial assistance package more transparent to the residents, could the Ministry consider having some means test or income qualifying criteria, say, $1,500 or $450 per capita, and then get a contractor to undertake the retrofitting and allow them to pay by instalments? It is something akin to the LUP scheme where we have actually given financial assistance for needy residents. This will make it more transparent and a lot easier for the different constituencies to deal with residents who need financial assistance.

The other question that I would like to ask the Minister is with regard to people who are not able to get contractors to retrofit the windows by the deadline. Could the Ministry coordinate and release names of contractors who are able to

render the service and meet the deadline, because the feedback from residents is that they have made umpteen calls to many contractors and most, if not all, actually said that they could not meet the deadline and can only do it after September?

Sir, I will look into the Member's suggestion about the financial assistance scheme, but please rest assured that those who need financial help will be able to find them somehow or other, including from the branch office.

As regards residents not being able to get contractors to meet the deadline, I have indicated that there is a list of 600 contractors. If Members look at the HDB's website, they will be able to see that each zone has easily got 20-30 or more contractors whose order books are still not full and who are able to take new jobs. It is only a matter of taking the trouble to look for them. But even after all this, if they still have difficulty, they can call up the HDB hotline. Or if they go to the Town Council office, they have got a whole list of other names that they can call. So it is not a matter of contractors not being available. It is a matter of trying. I think this is really something that we need to instil in our residents as well - a sense of urgency.

This accident is something that can happen. We do not want it to happen, but it can happen and it can happen to any household. And if it does happen, the consequences can be very serious. We are very fortunate that so far nobody has been seriously hurt or even killed. But imagine a full window falling down from 10-20 storeys and hitting somebody. For us to quibble about not getting contractors without making the effort, I think it does not do justice to the serious consequences of such a thing happening. So I would urge everybody to please make the effort. If they are really not able to

pay, we will find a way to help them. And for those who really do not know what is happening, there are enough people on the ground going around who are able to help them and provide information to them.

So I think there is no excuse - other than for these two groups - for anybody to say that there are not enough contractors around or that they are not able to do it on time. We have given them 12 months. For the last 11 months, all the contractors have been doing work on a steady basis, and most home-owners have complied. So for the rest who still have not done it, please make the effort.

4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport why was the decision to acquire Hock Kee House and to evacuate the residents and shopkeepers taken so late, causing inconvenience to them with such short notice, when two years ago the Land Transport Authority was already aware that the building was unstable.

First, let me assure Members that the Government decided to acquire Hock Kee House in August this year after careful and extensive monitoring and review, and only after all other options were found to be not feasible. Let me explain why the decision to acquire Hock Kee House could not have been taken any earlier. I will also explain the reason for the short notice, namely, to minimise further delay to the construction of the Circle Line.

LTA learnt in 2003 that Hock Kee House was built on footings and not on piles. The professional assessment then was that while the building would likely experience some cracks, its stability

would not be affected and that the building could be preserved despite the deep excavation works. There was therefore no basis to acquire Hock Kee House in 2003. Instead, LTA closely monitored the situation and the condition of the building. It also strengthened the design of the temporary works for the Circle Line construction in order to reduce the settlement of the building during the excavation.

In April last year, after the Nicoll Highway incident, excavation works next to Hock Kee House was temporarily suspended. Despite this, Hock Kee House continued to settle. By late last year, it had become clear to LTA that more had to be done to ensure that Hock Kee House could withstand the further ground movement that was likely to occur when deep excavation resumed. LTA then engaged two separate and independent engineering consultants to review the situation.

The consultants in their reports of March 2005 and July 2005 respectively concluded that Hock Kee House would be unsafe once deep excavation works resumed. Moreover, any strengthening works, such as underpinning the building, may, on the contrary, de-stabilise it. In short, it was not possible to strengthen Hock Kee House effectively. LTA then explored other possible solutions, eg, re-aligning the Circle Line, but found that these were also not feasible. Finally, after monitoring the situation and exploring alternatives for close to a year, the Government concluded that it had no choice but to acquire and demolish Hock Kee House.

Acquisition is a last resort. Only when ground conditions and extensive studies showed conclusively that there were no alternative solutions did the Government finally decide to acquire and demolish Hock Kee House so that construction of the Circle Line could proceed safely.

LTA had to strike a difficult balance between giving the occupants and owners adequate time to move out, and minimising further delays to the Circle Line works. LTA was mindful that the larger public interest was to bring the Circle Line into operation as soon as possible. It therefore decided to acquire the building sooner rather than later, and to give special assistance to the residents who would be inconvenienced by the short notice.

LTA has put together a special financial assistance package over and above the normal compensation for land acquisition to assist owners and occupants in relocating quickly. Most of the owners have also been given ex-gratia compensation, on top of the statutory compensation. LTA has also worked with the HDB and the Singapore Land Authority to assist those who need alternative housing and business premises. To date, 34 out of 35 unit owners have indicated that they would move out by the deadline of 3rd October and, in fact, so far, occupants from 12 units have already moved out.

We appreciate that because of the short notice to move out, the occupants of Hock Kee House have been put to a fair amount of inconvenience. We sincerely apologise for this. We are very grateful that the occupants have cooperated with the different Government agencies so that Hock Kee House can be demolished, and the construction of the Circle Line can resume as soon as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that the LTA and the Ministry have worked to help the residents. Many of them have seen me. Some of them are not happy with the compensation. I hope that the Minister will ask the Ministry and the LTA to

continue working with SLA and the other Government agencies to see that the owners can receive fair and adequate compensation, including ex-gratia payments, where necessary.

Sir, I can assure Mr Othman Haron Eusofe that LTA will indeed continue to work closely with the other Government agencies to assist the occupants and owners.

Sir, the owners who are not satisfied with the compensation can appeal to the Appeals Board (Land Acquisition). The Appeals Board would then review the appeals and decide accordingly.

Sir, the Minister mentioned that most of the occupants have already indicated that they would be able to move out by the deadline, except for one. In the event that they are not able to do so, what further assistance will be rendered to them, including the one person who has not given the indication that they will be able to move out by the given deadline?

Sir, so far, the discussions with owners and occupants have indicated that they are all able to. In fact, the last owner has not been able to confirm because he is still engaged with the tenant on the compensation to be paid to the tenant. But we are quite confident that they will be able to come to a successful conclusion in due course, and within the deadline given by LTA.

5. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Transport if the Land Transport Authority has completed its study on the feasibility of opening the Buangkok MRT station and, if so, can the

Minister provide the date when the station will commence operations.

Sir, the Buangkok station was not opened when the North East Line commenced operations in June 2003 because of a lack of developments around the station that would provide an adequate ridership to sustain the station's operations. Mr Chong would recall that at that time, the area within 400 metres of the station was practically vacant.

Since 2003, HDB has been accelerating its housing developments around the Buangkok station. As at early this year, HDB has completed 960 housing units in the vicinity.

Of these, about 390 units are within 400 metres from the station. Several other HDB Build-to-Order projects, such as the Coris, Atrina and Aspella, have also been launched, and are currently under construction. The Singapore Land Authority has also recently sold a site for the development of a private condominium south of the station. When completed, all these projects would add about 3,400 housing units to the area.

Sir, the LTA had earlier assessed that there need to be about 2,000 to 3,000 completed dwelling units within 400 metres of the station to sustain operations. There are currently only about 500 housing units within this radius, and taken together with HDB's current construction programme, this critical mass would most likely be reached only some time in 2008.

Therefore, using the current guideline, there is still insufficient residential support in the immediate vicinity of Buangkok station to sustain the station's opening. Nevertheless, I have noted the many appeals by Mr Chong and his residents for the station to be opened. I have therefore asked LTA to review and assess the

potential ridership in the area and the likely patronage of Buangkok station if it were to open. The review will take into consideration the latest schedule on the completion of new residential developments around the station. LTA expects to complete its study in a few months' time.

Sir, could the Minister ensure that LTA works within the time framework expected, ie, complete the study within one to two months, effective 29th August 2005?

Sir, if he had listened to my answer, I told him that LTA would complete the study in a few months' time.

Sir, I think the media report indicated that the Minister stated on 29th August that LTA would complete its study within one to two months, and that he would hurry LTA along, if necessary.

Sir, I had said that I had asked LTA to try and complete the study within one to two months. Unfortunately, LTA has come back to me and explained to me why they are unable to do it, and that it would take them a few months. We will leave it to LTA to make sure that it carries out the study in a proper manner.

6. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in the light of the rapid rise in world oil prices raising alarms even in the US, (a) what is the impact of high oil prices on our economic development; (b) how has this affected job creation; (c) how will high oil prices affect the ordinary Singaporean especially in terms of food, transport and electricity costs; and (d) will the Minister consider

additional utility rebates to help needy Singaporeans manage the high utility bills as a result of the high fuel costs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, despite oil prices more than doubling since end-2003, the economic impact on Singapore has so far been relatively muted. The Singapore economy grew by 8.4% in 2004, and 4.0% in the first half of this year. This is because the higher oil prices were due to exceptionally strong global economic growth, especially in the US and China. The strong growth has also lifted demand for Singapore's exports. This has more than offset the drag on domestic activities arising from higher energy costs.

The latest oil price spike, however, reflects a substantial supply disruption in the US caused by the hurricane Katrina. Higher oil prices and the interruption to economic activities caused by the hurricane are forecast to lower US GDP growth by as much as one percentage point in the second half of 2005. However, this negative impact of Katrina is expected to be transient. The US economic growth momentum should recover in early 2006.

Higher oil prices and the slowdown in the US will also affect the Singapore economy negatively. The drag on economic growth comes mainly from slower growth of Singapore's exports, accentuated by the direct impact of higher oil prices on domestic demand. However, economic growth for the rest of this year should remain positive. At this point, we continue to expect GDP growth in 2005 to be within the forecast range of 3.5% to 4.5%.

With continuing economic growth, employment should register further gains in the near term. Some businesses may adopt a wait-and-see attitude and hold back on expansion until the current

uncertainties ease. But, overall, with rising demand, most employers will continue to add head count.

As for households, the increase in the consumer price index (CPI) has been limited, despite the surge in international crude oil prices. Between December 2003 and July this year, the CPI had risen by 1.6%. While the cost of fuel and utilities had risen 10.6% over the period, prices of other consumer items had shown much smaller increases or had declined. Food and public transport costs, for example, rose by 2.7% and 1.6% respectively. But prices of household durables, clothing and footwear were among items showing declines.

On utility rebates, the Prime Minister had included in his Budget speech in February this year the topping up of the utility accounts of households under the Utilities Save (U-Save) Scheme. The first instalment of the rebate was recently given out in July 2005. The second instalment will be given out in January 2006. Singaporeans should be extra careful in their use of fuel and electricity in this period of high oil prices. Separately, needy Singaporeans who require extra help can also turn to the various existing help schemes like the ComCare Fund programmes and Re-employment Assistance Programme.

7. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many households in Singapore are in arrears of their utilities bill; (b) what is the average bill size; (c) how many Singaporeans had the pay-as-you-use electricity metering scheme installed in their homes after this scheme was introduced; and (d) how many continue to

have their utilities cut off despite the installation of this meter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as of end July 2005, 7,340 utility accounts are in arrears, or 0.68% of the total number of accounts.

The average utilities bill size varies based on the consumption for different household sizes. For June 2005, the average utilities bill varies from $48 for a HDB 1-room flat to $142 for a HDB 5-room flat.

The Pay-As-You-Use scheme, or PAYU, was launched by SP Services in May this year to help HDB households whose electricity supply has been disconnected due to arrears. It enables such households to have their supply reconnected, while allowing them to settle their arrears over time. As of end July, 1,054 households in arrears have joined the PAYU metering scheme.

With pre-paid meters, PAYU customers can check their credit balance and better manage their electricity consumption. There is an emergency credit of $3 that they can tap into when the credit falls below $1. This allows the customer time to top up his credit and avoid disruption in electricity supply.

On the number of PAYU customers who get their electricity supply cut off despite having PAYU, I am afraid this information is not readily available, as it depends on whether and when PAYU customers top up the necessary credit in their cards.

8. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health with regard to the temporary closure of TTSH Accident and Emergency (A&E) services to ambulance cases, (a)

how many times has TTSH A&E been closed in the period of January to July 2005; (b) what is the average period of such closures; and (c) what is the impact of these closures on the workload of A&E departments and waiting times for A&E physician consultation (excluding triage time) and beds of NUH, AH, SGH and CGH.

9. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the hospital average length of stay for TTSH, NUH, AH, SGH and CGH for 2000 to 2004, excluding 2003 for SARS; (b) what is the hospital average length of stay in 2005 for (i) all disciplines (ii) the discipline of geriatrics (iii) the discipline of rehabilitation medicine; (c) what is the number of patient admissions for each hospital from 2000 to 2005; and (d) why do some hospitals have a longer average length of stay than others, even for geriatrics and rehabilitation medicine when patients' demographical differences are probably not significant between hospitals.

10. Dr Tan Sze Wee asked the Minister for Health (a) if the standard procedure of warding chickenpox patients in the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) instead of Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) has been changed; (b) if so, what is the number of chickenpox patients admitted to CDC and TTSH for this year compared to last year; (c) whether the recent rise in dengue fever infections has consumed additional beds in CDC and TTSH; and (d) if so, what are the numbers for CDC and TTSH compared to the rest of the four general hospitals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will take the next three Questions together.

Yes.

Dr Tan Sze Wee asked a number of questions related to

the bed situation in public hospitals, including admissions and length of stay, the closure of Tan Tock Seng Hospital's (TTSH) Emergency Department and the handling of chickenpox cases. Let me address these in turn.

Hospital Admissions

Although Singapore is a small city-state, there are demographic differences in the patients seen by the different public hospitals. Different hospitals see different types and ages of patients, have different medical departments, and treat different ratios of non-elective to elective cases. For example, in 2004, the median age of Tan Tock Seng Hospital's patients was 59 years, compared with 55 years in Singapore General Hospital (SGH), 52 years in Alexandra Hospital (AH) and 51 years in Changi General Hospital (CGH). The median age is 44 years for National University Hospital (NUH), partly due to its pediatric service. As another example, TTSH sees more rehabilitative medicine patients than other hospitals. In 2004, it treated 3,367 such patients, while CGH had the second highest volume of 510 such patients.

The average length of stay in a hospital is therefore determined by a range of supply and demand factors, such as the demographics of the surrounding population, the conditions treated by the hospital, and the availability of step-down or alternative care services.

Specifically, since 2000 when the average length of stay for public hospitals was 5.9 days, there has been a gradual decrease in this figure. The average length of stay in public hospitals for the period from January to June 2005, across all disciplines, was 5.6 days. NUH had the shortest average length of stay of 4.9 days, while TTSH had the longest length of 7.0 days. By discipline, the average lengths of stay for geriatric and rehabilitative medicine from January to

June 2005 were 9.4 and 19.7 days respectively.

The total number of patient admissions in acute care public hospitals increased slightly over five years, from 297,000 in 2000 to 303,590 in 2004. The figure from January to June 2005 was 150,290. The number of admissions varies depending on each hospital's capacity. For the first half of 2005, AH with the fewest beds had 10,530 admissions, while SGH with the most beds had 34,870 admissions.

These statistics show the comparative situation in our hospitals. What is more important, however, is for each hospital to continue to ensure that their patients get appropriate medical treatment. If a patient needs to stay longer than the average length of stay in order to receive proper medical care, his doctor must ensure that he stays. While we monitor the length of stay in order to make hospital operations more efficient and more effective, we must also be careful not to make statistical data more important than the quality of care that patients receive.

Closure of TTSH's Emergency Department

The Emergency Department is one of several units in a hospital. The number of cases that can be treated by the Emergency Department varies, depending on the situation in the other units. For example, if there are a large number of dengue cases taking up many beds, then the Emergency Department's capacity to manage cases will be affected.

Between January and August 2005, TTSH's Emergency Department was closed about 9% of the total operating time. In 2004, similar closures at TTSH comprised 1% of total operating time. During such times, ambulance cases are

sent to the nearest hospital which can confirm it has available capacity. However, the most critical cases are still admitted even if closure is declared.

The declaration of "full house" at TTSH's Emergency Department is not something that is done lightly, since it has a knock-on effect on the operations of other hospitals. We will continue to closely monitor the situation across hospitals.

Chickenpox and dengue fever

In the past, chickenpox patients were typically admitted to the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC). If a patient's choice of ward class was unavailable at CDC, he would be warded at TTSH. The number of chickenpox cases admitted to TTSH and CDC in the first half of 2005 was about 100 cases a month, while there were about 50 cases a month in 2004.

However, as chickenpox is a relatively mild disease that can be managed outside a hospital setting, TTSH and CDC have since July 2005 only admitted patients with chickenpox if there is a medical indication for hospitalisation. In August 2005, only eight such cases were admitted. Patients with chickenpox are no longer admitted for the purpose of isolation. My Ministry is monitoring the situation and has not detected any public health impact arising from the revised admissions policy.

Minister Yaacob Ibrahim will be addressing this House on the national strategy for tackling dengue. So I will just respond to Dr Tan's specific question here.

The number of hospitalisations for dengue fever has increased since May 2005, corresponding to the increase in the number of notifications of dengue fever. In May 2005, the utilisation of bed

days for patients with dengue fever at public hospitals ranged from 0.8% at NUH to 2.7% at TTSH/CDC. By August 2005, dengue has taken up 6% of available bed days in TTSH/CDC, AH and CGH, and around 3% for NUH and SGH.

The Minister for Health had during an earlier session addressed this House on the issue of hospital capacity. The Ministry will continue to undertake immediate and longer-term measures, to ensure that there is adequate capacity in public hospitals and that no patient will be denied access to medical care.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for providing the answer to my question. However, I was asking the question because of the reply that was made in the previous sitting regarding the capacity of the beds in Tan Tock Seng Hospital resulting in the A&E situation. I find a bit startling to realise that, based on his reply, for the period 2005, Tan Tock Seng A&E has actually closed down about 9% of the time which, on an annualised basis, amounts to about one month per year which is quite alarming, compared to last year which was only 1%. Perhaps, he may wish to clarify that.

The second point is that with the rest of the other questions I have on A&E, what is the knock-on effect on the other hospitals' A&E workload, as a result of Tan Tock Seng A&E closing down? What is the patient waiting time in the rest of the acute hospitals that have A&E services that were being overflowed now as a result of Tan Tock Seng A&E being closed down. The additional questions are actually relating to length of stay. What I have asked for is the average length of stay for rehabilitative and geriatric patients in Tan Tock Seng Hospital and across the other public hospitals which the Senior Minister of State has actually provided. However, what the Senior Minister of State has not

provided is the average length of stay of rehabilitative and geriatric patients in the other hospitals as well. We note that the average length of stay has a bearing on ---

Dr Tan, what is your question? Can you ask your question?

The question I wanted to ask is that, for the average length of stay, the Senior Minister of State has actually accounted that by age alone because Tan Tock Seng Hospital has a high rate of patients. But if you account by the age itself, Tan Tock Seng Hospital could, in terms of efficiency or turning round the patient, look at it as well. So perhaps one of the factors, besides providing the building of hospital beds because the length of stay has a bearing on the hospital bill, is that the length of stay should be looked at as one of the performance indicators of hospitals as well.

First of all, I would like to explain that the reason why the percentage of time it has been closed has increased is due to the larger number of cases that the Emergency Department has been seeing because of dengue, and that certainly has a knock-on effect on all the hospitals which is why tackling the dengue outbreak is very, very important. But in the meantime, we have formed an expert committee to look at the problem of admission of dengue patients to all the hospitals as well as the Emergency Department to see if our resources could be used more efficiently so that the closure will be less frequent.

With regard to the length of stay, it is more than just the age that differentiates the hospitals. The type of patients is also different. For example, Tan Tock Seng Hospital sees a disproportionate number of stroke patients for rehabilitation as opposed to rehabilitation for other causes, and hence there can be a disparity in the

length of stay for rehabilitative patients. Specifically, for example, in NUH, rehabilitation medicine patients stay an average of seven days, whereas in Changi Hospital, it is 22 days, and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, it is 33 days, and a large part of this difference is because of the different types of patients.

11. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact of the Retirement Age Act on the employment of older workers; (b) have there been any studies done to establish whether there is a positive or negative link between the extension of the legal retirement age and employers' recruitment and employment policies pertaining to older workers; (c) how many older workers have benefitted from the extension of the legal retirement age from 60 to 62; and (d) has the Ministry received any complaints of violations of the Retirement Age Act and how were these resolved.

Sir, the Member asked if raising the retirement age has had any impact on the employment of older workers. To address the Member's specific query, let me first describe the changes observed for the labour force participation rate (LFPR) for older residents.

The labour force participation rate of older workers aged 55 and above has increased and shown an upward trend since 1993, when the Retirement Age Act was extended. The increase was greater for females than for males. Let me ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute some

tables to Members. Sir, for females, the labour force participation rate has also increased for younger cohorts so the reasons for increases are more likely to be due to improving educational and changing societal norms. Against this underlying uptrend, the impact of extending the retirement age is harder to isolate for females.

For males, a smaller increase was noted for those aged 55 to 59. Prior to 1993, the rate hovered around 71% but increased to 77% in 1996. In 2004, it was 78%. LFPR increases for those aged 60 to 64 have been smaller for both sexes.

MOM's assessment is that extending the retirement age had some effects on the LFPR for older males, but the increases were limited. Thus, legislation itself would not be sufficient in raising the participation rate of older workers. Indeed, if other issues related to employability of older workers are not addressed holistically, the re-employment rate of older workers may worsen as employers may be fearful of keeping such employees till retirement. We therefore need to examine other fundamental issues related to their employment and employability, including the mindsets of both employers and older workers themselves; cost considerations related to remuneration and benefits; job opportunities and work processes. The Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers is currently studying how to enhance the employability of older workers.

Since the introduction of the RAA in 1993, MOM has received an average of five complaints a year, alleging unlawful dismissals on ground of age. We have investigated all these allegations and complaints. Most of the cases were resolved amicably through conciliation, with some cases being withdrawn as their claims were unsubstantiated. Over the 12 years since the RAA was established,

there has been only one case in which an order for compensation by the employer was made, and another case where the company was ordered to reinstate the worker.

12. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for the Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS) to be set at 60 years only, given that the retirement age in Singapore is at 62 years and (b) whether his Ministry will consider extending the DPS coverage to be in line with the official retirement age, be it 62 years or more.

Sir, the Dependants' Protection Scheme, which is an opt-out scheme, was targeted at younger members and their families in the event of the member's death or permanent incapacity. Such families are likely to have less savings to fall back on. Keeping the age limit lower, currently at 60, has also kept premiums affordable and ensured a high participation rate of 1.64 million members. Premiums now range from $36 for members aged 30 and $260 for those aged 55 years, with a sum assured of $46,000.

Dr Ong has asked if the age limit could be extended. This is possible and indeed we did raise the age limit from 55 to 60 years in 1995. But actuarial studies showed that we would have to charge significantly higher annual premiums if we raise the age limit further and this may increase the opt-out rate. So while we want to serve especially the older workers and their families, we may not be actually serving them if we raise the coverage of the insurance scheme. In addition, CPF members, beyond the age of 60, would likely have dependants who are older and economically active, and have less need for protection. It may also result in

adverse selection as members who are less healthy and therefore in greater need for protection would continue with DPS while those who do not need it will opt out. Over time, this adverse selection would result in higher claims payout and further increase the premiums for older members who are insured. Older members may not be able to afford higher premiums and protection would lapse when they default on payments.

CPF members who would like to have extended insurance coverage can do so by buying insurance schemes using their own cash. CPF members can also use 100% of their CPF Ordinary and Special Account savings to purchase approved investment-linked insurance policies under the CPF Investment Scheme to cover themselves up to the age of 62. For these reasons, CPF Board kept the age limit at 60 when it privatised the DPS.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: does he not agree that actually those older workers who still have to work are likely to have more dependants and who will need the protection? In his answer to an earlier question, he said that we need a holistic approach when we want to raise the retirement age, and in PM's National Day Rally speech, he also mentioned that there is a need to change the mindset of the workers as well as the employers. I think the Government also has to change the mindset and be more flexible. If there is a need to raise the premium, they can still tier it so that if you want to extend it beyond 60, they can raise the premium and for those who want to opt out, they can opt out. I recently had a case of a family who approached me for help.

So what is your question?

I think there is a need to raise the coverage. In fact, the

older and lower income workers need more protection.

Sir, while I share the concern of Dr Ong with regard to the need for coverage, we must, in meeting the needs of insurance coverage, bear in mind that the system must be affordable to the people we really want to help. I have said earlier that this scheme is an opt-out scheme targeted at younger members and their families in the event of the member's death or permanent incapacity.

We must realise if we extend the coverage to the older age group, the premium will increase, including for the current oldest age group that is 55 to 59. Even, currently, we find that for the older workers, the rate of participation in the DPS is much lower than that for the younger age group. So if we extend the coverage and therefore increase the premium, it is likely that the proportion of older workers covered would be much lower.

Sir, will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary be able to give us an indication of the difference in premium if we were to raise the age limit of the Dependants' Protection Scheme from 60 to 62?

Sir, I do not have the figure for the difference that members would have to pay should the years of coverage be extended. To give an illustration, for the age group of 34 and below, the proportion of members covered is 41%. In comparison, for age group 55 and above, the percentage of membership covered is only 6%. This illustrates the fact that when premium rises with age, older workers find it expensive and thus opt out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Senior Parliamentary

Secretary said that when they go to age 55, the premium goes up to $250-plus, but there are still people who will buy it for one simple reason. He mentioned that workers can use their CPF savings to buy investment-linked protection, but those can cover only up to 2.5 times the premium. The lower income workers are unlikely to have high savings in their CPF account because, if I remember correctly, investment-linked insurance policy is only up to 2.5 times. So, to have a protection of, say, $50,000 you will have to spend at least $20,000.

So, Dr Ong, what is your question again?

Sir, the question is: there is really a need to continue to protect workers who are gainfully employed after the age of 60.

Sir, actually, members can cover themselves by buying their own personal insurance coverage and there are so many options in the market. What we are trying to say is, because this is a mass insurance scheme for workers, the cost is kept low and we want to maintain the low cost so that as many workers as possible can enjoy the scheme. It is simple logic. But what we want to do - and I would like to stress this - is that this scheme helps as many workers as possible who can afford it and we want to make it affordable. Members can, of course, take their own additional insurance protection.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join this by asking a question? Can the SPS help us with this logic, or lack of it? If the Dependants' Protection Scheme is good for up to 60 years and people can opt out of it, what is the difficulty of extending for two more years, if we want elderly workers to continue to work? I do not buy the argument of higher premium. If the higher

premium is indeed so high, then people would opt out of it.

The other issue is that cross-subsidy does not necessarily have to take place. We can price age-adjusted premium. So, I would urge the Ministry to look at this seriously and extend this protection for our workers in their last two years.

Sir, I have replied to the questions the hon. Member has raised. Let me just repeat one point I made earlier, ie, that for age group 34 and below, the percentage of members of that age group who participate in DPS is 41%. For those 55 and above, it is only 6%. The figures speak for themselves.

I will allow one last question from Miss Penny Low.

The SPS mentioned that the age was extended in the year 1995 and, obviously, this means that the older age group will also be paying a higher premium. I think this goes with the basis of insurance itself. But I would like to go back to the basis of insurance, which is the SPS' mortality table. When was this mortality table revised? Is it up to date with the current life expectancy? Surely, with a longer life expectancy, the premium towards the end itself has to be readjusted.

Sir, I do not have those figures but, essentially, the members are asking for protection, ie, wider and better protection. But there is another area that we have to talk about, which is cost, and I have talked about it. While we want to have good coverage for every worker and to participate in the scheme, we should not make it more expensive. Actuarial studies have shown that if we increase the coverage, there will be higher premium, and I have given two figures to indicate that if we increase

the premium, it is likely that, for the older workers whom we want to cover and help, they would not benefit from this because they may not find it affordable.

We have to move on. Mr Arthur Fong.

13. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the number of single parents, both male and female, below the age of 50; and (b) how many of them are receiving public assistance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, based on the Census of Population of 2000, there were 17,200 households headed by single parents below the age of 50 with at least one dependent child aged 16 years and below. Out of this total, there were 3,300 male single-parent households and 13,900 female single-parent households.

The Public Assistance Scheme is meant for those who are unable to work due to old age, illness or disability, have no means of subsistence, and have no one to depend on. As of 31st August 2005, there were 33 single-parent households under the age of 50, receiving help under the PA Scheme. Of these, 11 of them were male single parents and 22 female single parents. As of 31st August 2005, we also assisted another 2,450 households with single parents under the age of 50, with the various Government social assistance schemes. The assistance includes subsidies for childcare and kindergarten fees, and short-term cash assistance for their daily needs.

If single parents require assistance on family matters, they can approach the Family Service Centres and other professional neighbourhood-based agencies. There are also specialist agencies for single-parents, such as Help Every Lone Parent (HELP) Family Service Centre and As-Salaam Family Support Centre which, among other things, run support groups for single-parents and their children.

Can I just ask the MOS what the Ministry's criteria for applying and qualifying for public assistance for single parents are?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we do not have specific criteria for single parents. Under the general social service, we have fixed certain criteria. The single parents apply under the generic criteria and we will consider them case-by-case, based on their suitability. Like I mentioned just now, 33 of them are entitled for public assistance. If they do not enjoy public assistance, we will refer them for other social assistance schemes, such as KiFAS, CFACS and so on.

14. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports why Melvynna Tambunan, a medal hopeful in the next South East Asian Games in Manila, should be prevented from representing Singapore just because she is not a member of a judo club.

Sir, the

selection of athletes to represent Singapore at major games, such as the South East Asian (SEA) Games and the Olympics, is done by the Singapore National Olympic Council, based on nominations submitted by the National Sports Associations (NSAs). In the case of judo, the Singapore Judo Federation (SJF) makes the nominations.

The SJF bases its selection criteria on several key factors, such as participation in local and international competitions, regular attendance at national team training, and the athlete's commitment to the sport. Whether the athlete is a member of an SJF-affiliated judo club or not is one of the factors that is also taken into account, as the judo clubs help to ensure a certain acceptable minimum standard of training and performance.

Ms Melvynna Tambunan, at 24, is a four-time national Under-57 kg champion. I understand from the SJF that Melvynna was not selected for the national team for the upcoming SEA Games because she only made herself available to participate in one of the two stipulated international competitions. This was inadequate for the Federation's coaches to sufficiently assess her performance. Furthermore, Melvynna did not attend the national team's training sessions regularly in spite of having clearly been told to do so. Her non-selection was not due to her not being a member of a judo club.

I hope Melvynna will not be too disheartened but rather continue to train hard and perform well in competitions. This will put her in a strong position for selection for the national team for future games.

Sir, does the SNOC leave the decision of whether or not a sportsman is able to represent a country entirely to the decision of the club or the federation which nominates him or her?

Sir, by and large, the selection of the national team is left to the NSAs because they know the athletes and the sports best. The national coaches identify, train and groom athletes on a regular basis and can better understand each athlete's strengths and weaknesses so that SNOC relies on the recommendations of the respective NSAs because of the domain knowledge the NSAs have.

At some point when the SNOC makes a decision, each NSA has its own appeal process that each athlete can go through to appeal for reconsideration to be recommended for selection at the SNOC.

Sir, is the SNOC entirely satisfied that the selection and nomination by the various NSAs are carried out objectively and without prejudice or bias?

Sir, I believe, at this point in time, SNOC is satisfied that the processes have been given due consideration. I think every NSA, as I have mentioned, the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) provides a code of governance with regard to issues including the selection and recommendation of sports persons. In this particular case, I was informed that the NSA has offered the particular athlete to appeal for reconsideration and the athlete has decided not to appeal to the respective NSA.

I am sorry to be belabouring this point. I just want to know whether or not the SNOC independently satisfies itself that the process has been transparently and objectively carried out.

Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, I believe the SNOC is satisfied that every athlete has followed through the different criteria that it has set forth. Every NSA has broad

criteria that require each athlete to go through before a recommendation is made, basically, from participation in international competition to attendance at national training sessions. So, I think SNOC looks into each NSA's recommendation and leaves it to the NSA.

On Mr Sin's query whether SNOC goes into each and every NSA's procedure and to be convinced that each NSA has gone through the due process, at this point in time, I believe they have, but I have to go back to SNOC again to request them to give us an indication whether they are satisfied that every NSA has gone through specific processes that they have put in place.

I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that the SNOC would independently verify that the specific processes are indeed carried out.

I give Mr Sin the assurance that we will get back to the SNOC, and SNOC will then subsequently let us know that it has gone through the due process and evaluated each and every recommendation from the NSAs appropriately.

15. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in view of the escalating cost of petrol, (a) is the Government collecting more revenue from the flat tax on the higher selling price of petrol; and (b) will the Government consider a small reduction in the petrol tax, so as to alleviate the rising cost of transport due to rising fuel prices.

Sir, the Government does not collect more

revenue when the sale price of petrol goes up. Since February 2003, petrol duty has been levied as a fixed rate per litre. In other words, petrol duty revenue depends on the volume rather than the price of petrol.

The petrol duty is a tool to discourage the excessive use of cars and to promote greater use of public transport. This objective remains valid despite the change in petrol prices. There is thus no need to review the petrol tax. We must not fall into the trap of adjusting tax rates every time there is a price change. We import all the oil that we consume. Rather than insulate ourselves from global price

changes, we must learn to adjust our consumption in accordance with these price changes. This is the same with all goods and services - to let prices act as a signal of market demand and supply and to adjust our behaviour in response to these price changes. The fact that there is a tax on petrol should not make our response to price changes in petrol any different to that for other goods and services.

Sir, what is the Government planning to do to help alleviate this rising cost of petrol, especially for transport companies, taxi operators and the commuters who are really affected by it?

The other question is: since crude prices have actually dropped a bit after the Katrina storm, why is it that the petrol pump prices have not dropped?

As I mentioned in my reply, prices serve as a very useful signal. And for us in Singapore, where we import all the oil that we consume, I think all of us, as consumers, will have to adjust our behaviour in recognition of these price changes.

As for the changes in the pump prices at the petrol kiosks, this is set by the petrol companies and it goes up and down based on demand and supply, and based on the prices that they import the refined products, not just the crude products.

Sir, the Minister has explained to the House how petrol duty is being used as a way to curb usage of cars. We all know that we have limited land space and car usage is intensive of our land space. My question to the Minister is: in light of technological developments, such as the development of hybrid vehicles, which are going to be much less intensive in fuel, will this not undermine the policy intent of our petrol duty? And if so, what would be the Minister's response to this?

As a general policy, we encourage the use of alternative fuel and energy. This is to give us a greater diversity and also reduce our dependence on oil and petrol. As for the use of hybrid vehicles, we have to leave it to technological developments. As and when technology allows hybrid vehicles to be competitive, we will see a greater use of hybrid vehicles. For the time being, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources has in place some schemes to encourage and weigh in favour of such conservation of energy, including the use of hybrid vehicles.

Sir, as the Minister correctly pointed out, prices go up but, apparently, it does not seem to be coming down. Is there some kind of a cartel operation amongst the oil companies that are working in Singapore in this direction?

The Government does not control oil and petrol prices in Singapore. If you look at the actual increases in crude oil prices and the increases in refined products, I do not think the prices today fully reflect this

increase. So I think the petrol companies have gone some way to try and ameliorate the increases that they face, especially in refined products.

Sir, I would like to seek a clarification following the Minister's reply to Prof. Ivan Png on hybrid cars. The Minister said that it is technology that is keeping up the prices of hybrid cars, as opposed to standard cars. But I think it is quite clear, for example, in the case of Prius, it is not technology that is inflating the prices. The Prius is very popular in other countries. China, I now hear, is building the largest factory for the manufacturing of Prius. It is our limited market, I understand, that is restricting dealers from bringing in these cars. I know that the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources has been trying to promote the use of hybrid cars but, frankly, it needs the help of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Finance as well.

Can I ask the Minister how he will support the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources in pushing the use of hybrid cars, particularly, in this climate of escalating petrol prices which I do not think anyone can optimistically expect would go down in the near future?

If indeed all these cars are so competitive and are much cheaper, then I think consumers will react correspondingly and the demand will go up, and the dealers will import these cars.

16. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he could provide the statistics of bicycle thefts for the past five years; (b) whether there is an increasing trend of such thefts; (c) what are the "hot spots" of such thefts;

what is the plan of his Ministry to overcome such a problem; and (e) will his Ministry consider the re-introduction of mandatory registration of all bicycles.

Sir, the number of cases of bicycle theft averaged around 400 cases a year from 2000 to 2004.

In the first half of this year, 435 cases were reported. Sir, in the past, Police had sometimes grouped bicycle thefts under theft and other offences. The trend came to Police's attention late last year and has since been closely monitored. This may account for the higher number of cases reported for the first half of this year. Police has noted the recent increase in bicycle theft cases, and is working with various groups to

deal with the problem in a comprehensive manner.

There are, however, no particular geographical locations or 'hot spots' that are more prone to bicycle theft. Bicycle theft cases take place island-wide at areas ranging from common areas of public housing estates to streets, commercial premises, landed residential premises, outside MRT stations and at private apartments or condominiums.

In 2004, nine out of 10 bicycles stolen in public places were not secured at designated bicycle bays. Instead, the vast majority of those stolen were secured to lamp posts, railings and pipes.

Police has been working closely with grassroots organisations and the local community network to formulate Community Safety and Security Programmes (CSSP) to deter and detect bicycle theft.

One recent example was the "Lock-your-ride, Mark-your-bike - Bicycle Theft

CSSP Project"

by the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), Residents' Committees (RCs) and Neighbourhood Committees (NCs) in Pasir Ris East and West Divisions, and the Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC). The CSSP project team developed an education programme to educate bicycle owners on how to protect their bicycles from theft. This encompassed encouraging residents to use locks and chains to secure their bicycles and introducing a database of bicycle owners and their bicycles in the Pasir Ris area, under which bicycles would be prominently marked with serial numbers to deter theft, and the respective owners' particulars and contact details would be recorded in the database. When a stolen or lost bicycle is recovered, this database will help identify the owner.

Another initiative is a project by Ang Mo Kio Police Division and Temasek Polytechnic to design a bicycle bay lock that locks all the important components of the bicycle. Thus far, this new bicycle bay lock has been implemented in 31 blocks in Sengkang with a total of 180 stands.

Sir, besides engaging the grassroots organisations, Police will continue to work with relevant agencies such as SMRT to install CCTVs at strategic locations at various MRT stations, like Pasir Ris, Tampines, Kembangan MRT stations, to deter bicycle thieves and detect suspicious activity. Efforts to engage SMRT staff to look out for bicycle theft have also been helpful, with the arrest of a bicycle thief by Pasir Ris MRT staff on 1st April this year. This initiative is currently being monitored and evaluated for possible expansion to other neighbourhoods in Singapore.

In addition, Police will continue to educate the public through crime

prevention exhibitions and house visits, which will be conducted throughout the year.

As to whether we should re-introduce mandatory registration of bicycles, Sir, the Ministry of Transport is of the view that such a move would not only be regressive but unnecessarily subject bicycle owners to onerous requirements. Bicycles have been exempted from registration requirements since 1982 as they are increasingly used for recreational purposes rather than as a mode of transport. Developed countries like the UK, Japan, USA, EU countries, Australia and New Zealand also do not require bicycles to be registered.

17. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education (a) if there is too much emphasis on life-science education as the primary and secondary schools, Institutes of Technical Education, polytechnics, funding agencies and universities are all investing in life-science studies and research; (b) if students have been influenced into thinking that life-sciences hold the key to the future and in taking up life-science as their future choice of study; and (c) whether this will reduce the crop, in particular good students, in taking up studies in engineering and physical sciences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not surprising that interest in the life sciences has caught on in our schools and tertiary institutions. It is now recognised, not just in Singapore, but all over the world, that the life sciences are opening up new economic opportunities and will have a major impact on human society in the 21st century.

But while there has been increasing interest in the life sciences, the number of students pursuing engineering-related

disciplines or the physical sciences remains substantial. If we look at the candidature for the 'O' levels, for instance, the number of students at the 'O' levels taking Biology and Chemistry has increased in recent years, to 30% for Biology and 43% for Chemistry in 2004. But the 'O' level Physics candidature has also increased, to 42% of all 'O' levels candidates. I should also mention that more than half of our students take combined Sciences at the 'O' levels and about 90% of students who take Combined Sciences take Physics in combination with either Biology or Chemistry. So Physics is very much alive in our secondary schools. Likewise, while at the 'A' levels, Biology and Chemistry candidature has grown to 26% and 65% respectively, 'A' level Physics candidature remains a significant 60% of all candidates.

The picture is similar at the tertiary level. ITE's Biochemical Technology course, which is its only life sciences related course, had an intake of 160 students in 2005, which is 1.3% of ITE's annual planned intake of 12,000. More than 50% of ITE students take engineering-related courses. At the polytechnics, about 2,200 students signed up for chemical and life sciences courses in 2005, compared with 4,800 students taking up engineering courses in 2005. For NUS and NTU, about 850 students entered life sciences courses in 2005, compared with about 4,400 students in engineering and nearly 600 students in the physical sciences.

Singaporeans have been and will remain pragmatic. Ultimately, it is the availability of jobs and perceptions of career prospects that will determine the popularity of various courses. But no one can know, with any certainty, exactly what types of skills and knowledge will be demanded in future. Therefore, our educational institutions avoid making large bets on the future, or moving well ahead

of the job market. Their pattern of intake of students into different disciplines reflects current economic opportunities as well as the future demands that can already be anticipated by industries. It is based on industry feedback. The tertiary institutions also seek to ensure a good spread of talent across all the key disciplines.

At the school level, we provide a foundation of learning across a broad base of subjects, to give our students greater flexibility to further their studies in different areas. At the post-secondary educational institutions, some specialisation and ---

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 17-18, 20, 24-25, 27-31 and 34 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 19, 21-23, 26, 32-33 and 35 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1453-1474.

Sir, despite our high standards of public health, Singapore is experiencing its worst ever outbreak of dengue fever, at least since the 1980s. As at 17th September this year, the number of dengue cases has reached a high of 10,237, including 318 Dengue Haemorrhagic Fever (DHF) cases. There were 697 dengue cases in the week ending 17th September, a new peak. To date, eight people have died from dengue fever and DHF this year, the same figure as the whole of last year.

Over the last two years, in response to the dengue threat, the National

Environment Agency has stepped up its efforts to control breeding of the Aedes mosquito which transmits the disease. NEA stepped up its inspection programme from about 55,000 inspections a month last year to about 59,000 inspections a month this year. It also beefed up its manpower resources. By the end of September, NEA will have a total of 510 personnel for dengue operations, more than four times the manpower last year.

Efforts by the community have also played a significant role in preventing mosquito breeding. In April 2004, NEA launched the Mozzie Attack programme in partnership with grassroots organisations and CDCs. By June 2005, all 84 CCCs had their own Mozzie Attack programmes. And the number of dengue prevention volunteers under the Mozzie Attack Programme has doubled to 4,000 this year.

Sir, these collective efforts have been effective in keeping down mosquito breeding. In fact, the total number of breeding sites found in NEA inspections actually fell to an average of 1,100 a month this year, down from 1,600 a month last year. Most of this reduction is because fewer breeding spots are being found in homes. I hope residents will continue to do their part to control mosquito breeding.

Understanding the problem

Yet, despite all these measures, we still have a serious problem. Even though we have reduced mosquito breeding, the number of dengue cases in Singapore has continued to rise. In fact, there is a resurgence of dengue worldwide in the tropics, and many countries in South-East Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, have reported much higher levels of the disease in 2005.

Singaporeans are naturally concerned about the rise in dengue cases. We do not fully understand why this is happening. There are many possible factors, including rising temperatures, increased strength of the virus, increased biting rates of mosquitoes, lower immunity especially of the younger population, or the interplay of several of these factors. Possibly mosquitoes are breeding in non-traditional sites that we have not yet discovered.

Sir, we have formed a panel of international and local experts on dengue to study the sudden upsurge in dengue, and advise the Government on the best strategy to deal with the problem. The panel will also enhance the existing research programmes on the disease.

Breaking the cycle of transmission

It will take time for us to fully understand the full reasons for the rise in dengue cases in Singapore. Meanwhile, we need to take urgent action to avoid a public health problem and clogging up our hospitals.

Whatever the deeper causes, one thing is clear: dengue can only be transmitted through the Aedes mosquito. So there are two things that we must do to break the cycle of transmission. First, we need to further reduce the mosquito population. Second, we need to isolate dengue patients from mosquitoes, thus preventing people infected with the disease from being the source of further infections. Both measures require the combined efforts of the Government and Singaporeans.

Immediate action against mosquitoes

Our immediate task is to reduce the mosquito population to levels that pose little threat to people. We will continue with our localised efforts to track clusters

of dengue cases. But we will also move beyond these localised efforts with an anti-mosquito blitz in all constituencies.

Sir, the blitz started last weekend in Ang Mo Kio, Hougang, Marsiling and Yishun. 700 volunteers from NEA, PUB, SCDF, HDB, and LTA, together with the Singapore Pest Management Association and Singapore SOKA Association, combed the estates thoroughly to search for and destroy breeding habitats. We chose four estates that have experienced more dengue cases this year in order to find out the state of mosquito breeding and if there are new types of breeding habitats of the Aedes mosquitoes that have previously not been detected. During the two-day operation, the volunteers covered the common areas of over 1,600 blocks of flats including common corridors, perimeter drains, open grounds, bin centre rooftops, pump rooms, and playgrounds. A total of 172 breeding sites were found and destroyed, which is about one breeding site for every 10 blocks of flats checked. Of the breeding sites found, 29% involved breeding in flower pot trays and water containers in corridors, 26% in discarded receptacles in open areas, 39% in outdoor areas such as perimeter drains, bin centre rooftops, and 6% in tree holes. This shows that we need to do more to promote household responsibility, deter littering, and to bring about better housekeeping in our estates. We need to make collective efforts to keep our neighbourhoods free from mosquito breeding.

During the 2-day exercise, there were 16 occasions when we detected mosquitoes and carried out fogging. I understand that there are some doubts about the efficacy of fogging. However, according to the World Health Organisation, thermal fogging is still an effective means for killing adult mosquitoes, and complements searching for and destroying all possible mosquito breeding sites.

This 'carpet-combing' blitz has helped to reduce the breeding sources of mosquitoes, and to better understand the breeding habits of Aedes mosquitoes. No new types of breeding habitats were found during the blitz. There were also some 2,000 potential breeding sites identified over the two days, which will be monitored and removed permanently, if possible. The information gathered in this exercise will be shared with all the Town Councils. NEA will be carrying out another 'carpet-combing' operation next weekend and plans to cover all the estates within the next six weeks. An in-depth analysis will be carried out on all the findings, in consultation with the expert panel.

Additional Government measures against mosquitoes

Beyond the blitz, we must sustain our efforts against mosquitoes. Keeping Singapore mosquito-free cannot be a one-off effort. The Government has thus committed an additional $30 million towards measures in the fight against dengue.

Sir, let me now inform the House of the measures that Government is taking.

Dedicated Pest Control Operators for Town Councils

Following the blitz and information provided on the breeding sites, NEA will proceed to work with the Town Councils to put in place a better and more comprehensive system to prevent mosquito breeding. Already, three Town Councils, namely, Hong Kah, Jurong and Sembawang, have programmes dedicated specifically to controlling mosquitoes. NEA is currently assisting other Town Councils to put in place such dedicated mosquito programmes islandwide through the Pest Control Operators (PCOs) by October. These PCOs will have to submit reports to the Town Councils and NEA.

Having dedicated PCOs will also build up institutional local knowledge of mosquito breeding habitats. This should help bring down the number of breeding sites in common areas in our housing estates, such as perimeter drains, linkway roof gutters, bin centres and pump rooms. We are also asking all the Town Councils to appoint a dedicated Environmental Control Officer (ECO) on their staff. The ECO will be responsible for all public health programmes including dengue prevention.

Waterlogged public areas and drains

In addition, the Government will clear waterlogged public areas to break the cycle of breeding. We will be cleaning our drains more frequently as drains are one of the breeding habitats of mosquitoes. Often stagnant water accumulates in drains which are clogged with dead leaves and litter, creating places for mosquitoes to breed. We need to establish a new, permanent regime of maintenance and cleanliness of our common areas and drains.

Structural design and maintenance

The Government is also looking into longer-term measures that will help keep the incidence of dengue low. We will study infrastructure issues to avoid having structures that collect and retain water which allows mosquito breeding. We will review the design of perimeter and car park drains and other common areas in the housing estates.

Every Singaporean must play his part

Singaporeans play an equally important part in sustaining the fight against dengue. The Government cannot do it alone. We need to make a national effort, with the public showing community spirit and responsibility to

ensure the health of our fellow Singaporeans.

The Campaign Against Dengue

To stop Aedes mosquitoes from breeding, we have to deny them any stagnant water. But NEA officers cannot inspect every home in Singapore. The Aedes mosquito can breed anywhere with clean stagnant water, such as flower-pot plates, pails and containers such as empty plastic cups or plastic bags that collect rainwater. In fact, a spot of water the size of a 20-cent coin is all it takes for the mosquito to breed.

So for the sake of your own health, and the health of your fellow Singaporeans, I ask all members of the public to be alert and regularly check your homes for potential breeding areas both indoors and outdoors. I am heartened to note that the number of households found breeding mosquitoes fell this year, for all types of homes. This shows that the people are already taking measures against mosquitoes. We should continue with such measures, and do even more.

To teach Singaporeans simple steps to follow to protect their households from mosquito breeding, we launched the Campaign Against Dengue yesterday. As part of the campaign, grassroots and Dengue Prevention Volunteers from all 84 constituencies were mobilised to conduct door-to-door visits to HDB blocks, private apartments and houses nationwide. During the visits, residents were given 'Ten-Minute Mozzie Wipeout' pamphlets in the four official languages. The pamphlet provides tips on dengue prevention in the form of a simple ten minute five-step routine to prevent mosquito breeding. This campaign will continue for the next few weeks for those households that have not yet been visited.

Sir, I ask everyone to perform this 'Ten-Minute Mozzie Wipeout' to protect

their families from dengue. What each and every one of us can do in just 10 minutes a day will go a long way towards preventing mosquito breeding in Singapore. For example, flat owners should cover their bamboo pole holders when not in use. If they have plants in their homes, they should change the water in vases and flower bowls every other day. They can also put granular insecticide into vases and flower bowls to kill mosquito larvae.

Working adults should also be alert to potential mosquito breeding sites at their work place. This includes construction work sites and workers' dormitories. We will produce a pamphlet on how workers can check for and remove common potential breeding sites in the workplace in the four official languages plus other languages for foreign workers.

Business owners can play a part too in preventing mosquito breeding. For instance, hawkers, florists, and other businesses with many water receptacles should regularly inspect these containers to stop mosquito breeding.

Through this intensive campaign, we will raise our level of cleanliness and maintenance and keep it high. In order to prevent dengue in the long term, the good habits of the Ten-Minute Mozzie Wipeout must be part of our routine.

Advice for those going on trips

Those who intend to be away from home for more than a week should also take measures to prevent water from stagnating in their homes, such as by covering up gully traps and toilet bowls. Pails and watering cans should be placed upside down so that they do not collect water. Water in flower vases and bowls should be removed. If you are going away for a long period, you should ask a family member or a friend to check on your home regularly. If you own a property which is vacant, please do the same.

Some members of the public have expressed their concern about vacant properties that may be harbouring mosquitoes. The Government has the power under the law to enter vacant premises to check for mosquito breeding sites in order to protect public health. However, it will only do this under strict conditions and when the situation warrants it, such as when the owner cannot be located and there is a dengue cluster in the area. We will enter vacant premises even if we cannot contact the owner if there are strong indications that there is mosquito breeding in the premises, and if the owner did not leave behind a contact number for the authorities to make contact. So owners of vacant properties wishing to avoid such a situation should leave behind a contact number which the authorities can contact, if necessary. In any case, I urge owners of vacant properties to ensure that their premises are free from mosquito-breeding.

Avoiding littering

The public can also do its part to prevent mosquito breeding in public areas by not littering. Litter left in drains clogs up our drains and creates pools of stagnant water. Every day PUB clears up to 16 tonnes of litter, comprising plastic bags and bottles, from the booms across our rivers. Litter in common areas such as empty cans, drink cans, and plastic bags can also collect

rainwater and become mosquito breeding places. In fact, one of the top breeding sites found during the last weekend's "carpet combing" was discarded containers.

Hotline and website on dengue

Sir, we also need everyone to be our eyes and ears for possible mosquito breeding grounds. A dedicated 24/7 dengue hotline and a website (www.dengue.gov.sg) have been set up in conjunction with the Campaign Against

Dengue for people to alert us to possible mosquito breeding grounds. Many civic-minded Singaporeans and residents from all walks of life have called the hotline to alert us to potential breeding sites and matters relating to the dengue problem. To help non-English speakers also to remember the hotline, we are providing two numbers, 1800-X-DENGUE and 1800-333-7777. People can also use the hotline and website to obtain advice and share ideas on dengue prevention.

Preventing people with dengue from infecting others

The public also plays a role in preventing people with dengue from infecting others. If a female Aedes mosquito bites a dengue patient, the dengue virus will be transmitted from the patient to the mosquito. If this infected mosquito then bites other healthy people, it will pass the disease on to them. This is how dengue spreads. Therefore, all dengue patients, or suspected dengue patients, should take precautions to avoid being bitten by mosquitoes. And how can they do so? They can apply mosquito repellent on themselves, wear long-sleeved clothing, sleep under mosquito nets and keep their rooms mosquito free. We have reminded all doctors to advise their patients to do this.

So dengue patients have a part to play in stopping the spread of the disease. If you are ill, and have symptoms such as a fever, joint pains and nausea, please see your doctor early. If your doctor suspects that you have dengue, he will recommend what you must do, to take care of yourself and to avoid transmitting the disease to others. Please heed his advice. This will help prevent your loved ones and others from becoming infected. Sir, again, I hope that this will become part of our routine.

Conclusion

Sir, we can bring down the number of dengue cases in Singapore substantially, by denying the mosquito the conditions it needs to breed.

Sir, our collective response to this challenge is to step up our level of cleanliness and environmental vigilance to make it more difficult for the mosquito to breed. On the Government's part, the NEA and other agencies will continue to closely coordinate the ongoing efforts as well as the new initiatives. But the Government and the community must forge a stronger partnership to maintain a clean and healthy environment in Singapore.

Sir, I understand the anxiety Singaporeans must feel about the dengue situation. Fortunately, we do know how the disease is transmitted - through the Aedes mosquito. We thus need to take necessary precautions to prevent mosquito breeding. It only takes 10 minutes a day of five simple steps to protect your households from dengue and make all of us safer. And if we come down with the illness, we must take steps to ensure that our loved ones do not catch it from us. Tackling dengue requires concerted efforts from us all, but it does not require drastic changes in our daily routines, so we should continue with our daily lives.

In engaging the public and media, the Government will continue to provide full facts and figures. We will give Singaporeans the information and the knowledge they need to combat dengue. At the same time, the public can feed us information by being our eyes and ears on the ground. And we believe this partnership is the best approach for a successful campaign.

Sir, we must sustain our efforts against dengue to prevent another

resurgence of the disease next year. All of us must play our part to keep Singapore dengue-free.

The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to take clarifications.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. In fact, I had been raising this issue with his officers and the Minister himself in the past. I am very pleased that now there is a real war that we are mounting against this Aedes mosquito. It is not just an attack but a real war.

My second point is on the idea of breaking the breeding cycle, which I think is very effective. I would like to encourage the Minister and the Government to do more of this nation-wide campaign. We can all do this together to mount periodic measures to eradicate this mosquito nuisance from time to time, so that the cycle can be broken. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he likes to encourage patients who are infected with the dengue fever to have their self-quarantine process so they do not transmit the dengue virus and infect other people. I think encouraging patients to do a self-quarantine process is a way to break the breeding cycle of the mosquito.

My third point is on rules and regulations, Sir. I would like to ask the

Minister whether his Ministry can actually be more stringent in asking other Ministries which are in charge of other areas to also make the effort to look at measures that can help to reduce this problem. Let me give a few examples. On the parks, we now know that trees can have receptacles which encourage breeding of mosquitoes. For example, I think some particular types of palm tree, like the travellers palm, can provide a large catchment of water for breeding of mosquitoes. So the NParks can also look at issues like that when they plant trees. They should try to plant trees that do not encourage breeding of mosquitoes. These are measures which can help to reduce the problem. The second example is in the area of building control. I think the design of gutters in buildings and certain cornices and corners can also provide mosquito breeding areas. So, maybe we should now ask the Ministry of National Development to look at building control and building design to reduce less trappings for mosquito breeding.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether there is a practice that if you report to the NEA about mosquito breeding and when their officers come to your house and find that there are mosquitoes in your house, you get fined in the process. When neighbours are found to be breeding mosquitoes, they are fined as well. So, that may discourage people from reporting about mosquito breeding cases, thereby causing a deterrence in the process.

Finally, Sir, I would like to ask about private estates. In HDB estates, we have Town Councils being the central agency to wash up the area and do public cleaning and public maintenance, as well as fumigation. But in the private estates, we have, again, different areas of Ministerial responsibilities with regard to roads, drains, and park areas. Which department is in charge of this Aedes mosquitoes problem when it comes to

private estates? I would like the Minister to consider having a central agency which can help to look into how this matter can be coordinated in the private estates.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one last point. I did not hear the Minister mention about any targets. What are his targets in terms of his programme? Does he intend to reduce the number of dengue fever cases by half within a month? Or maybe he could have some kind of a low target within the whole year. So, at least, we will have a common target to look towards to and see how our measures can be effective.

I am quite surprised that the Minister said that actually the number of breeding cases has reduced, but the number of dengue cases has increased. Maybe the Minister can clarify whether it is due to the special environment in Singapore that we have new mutants of mosquitoes that are more powerful and more intelligent, or that Singaporeans are now weaker in their constitution and therefore succumb to this Aedes mosquito problem.

I saw many hands. Can you keep your clarification as short as possible? Dr Yaacob.

Sir, some of the questions my other colleagues will reply, but let me just take the parts which I can answer. He is right. We are concerned why is it that the number of breeding sites is coming down, and yet the cases have gone up. And that is why we have formed an expert panel to study this. Is it because our herd immunity has gone down? Is it because of the rising temperature? Is it because of other factors and the inter-play of these factors which could be highly complex? But I think we must come back to what we know, and what we know is that we have to find a way to remove Aedes mosquito because the root cause of the problem is Aedes mosquito. So the reason why we are doing a lot of these programmes this past weekend and the coming weekends is also to help the expert panel to remove as much as possible any uncertainty in the entire picture. For example, if we have been able to remove and reduce the number of breeding sites and yet the cases have gone up, that may throw up some light for the expert panel to consider. So,

clearly, our effort is to make sure that we try as much as possible to understand the phenomenon, help the expert panel to study further, to understand why this is going on. But, meanwhile, Sir, we have to continue with the vigilance that I have mentioned earlier - take all the necessary precautions, take the five easy steps and the 'Ten-minute Mozzie Wipeout' challenge.

Yes, I agree with the Member that we need to have a nation-wide campaign to try and break the cycle. The launch yesterday is part of that campaign and we hope that up to today, the various grassroots organisations and voluntary organisations at the ground will continue with their efforts. In fact, we do have the Dengue Prevention Volunteer Group, the DPVG, at the ground. As I mentioned in my speech, there are about 4,000 of them. I hope, as advisors, Members could actually encourage them do the house to house checks frequently. I have been told that our NEA officers in the various centres work very closely with the advisors during block parties to have campaigns and education materials on the dengue scourge.

On the issue of whether the patient should do self-quarantine, perhaps I will ask Dr Balaji to clarify further. But our position is that for the dengue patient who is carrying the virus, the one way to break the transmission is not to allow a mosquito to bite him or her so that that mosquito will carry the virus to another person. So, essentially, what we are suggesting is that when you protect yourself from mosquitoes, it does not mean you have to quarantine yourself from the society.

Sir, on the stringent measures carried out with the other Ministries, that is why we set up the MSCD, the Ministerial Steering Committee on Dengue. We are working with the other Ministries to study this, as I mentioned in my reply. For

example, we are studying some of the structural changes that we have to make. These are long-term solutions that we will have to study carefully. I understand that Mr Mah has something to say on this matter later, Sir.

Sir, on fines, in fact when we started out, for first-time offenders, we do not impose any fines. We put back the fine in February this year because we saw a resurgence of the cases, but yet we have been very flexible. My officers told me that very often we work together with the home owners and we help them. In fact, yesterday, Sir, during my house to house visit, the home owners were more than happy to invite our officers in for checks and to make sure that their homes are free of mosquitoes.

Sir, on the private estates, it applies exactly to my reply on the inter-Ministry coordination. We work together. For example, when the various agencies come across something which NEA will have to do, they will contact us. In fact, there is an inter-agency dengue task force chaired by the CEO of NEA, together with all the relevant agencies, to ensure that we coordinate this effort. So, for example, the drains which either belong to PUB or NEA are being cleaned more frequently because of this current challenge. So our target is very simple. We want to keep it low, but I think all the programmes that we have in place will take some time to take effect. We will review as we go along and monitor the situation very closely. A good example would be the things that we found over the weekend. What was the highest number of breeding habitats? Discarded receptacles and littering. Sir, I would urge Singaporeans to please be careful - if you throw away a plastic cup, a plastic bag, any plastic receptacle - these will collect water after a rainfall and they will become breeding sites. So our action, Sir, can help to tackle this problem. Maybe I can invite Mr Mah or Dr Balaji to reply.

Thank you Dr Yaacob for re-directing this question to me. I am a member of the MSCD. So I am also fully responsible for making sure that our campaign against dengue is successful. But having said that, I think we need to distinguish between what we can and cannot do and not over-react. When it comes to looking at longer term issues, such as the design of the buildings, this is something we really must take a closer look at. When we design buildings, while we want to achieve certain aesthetic objectives, we must also make sure that it is practical and that it is easy to maintain, and especially in the current situation, that it does not encourage the breeding of mosquitoes, such as encouraging stagnant pools of water to form, etc. So this is something the HDB and BCA will do. It will review the design of rooftops, secondary roofs in HDB blocks, water tanks, gutters on linkways, etc.

Does it mean that we get rid of all these things? The answer is: not necessarily so. So let us take a closer look first before we change. Some of these are for very good reasons. The secondary roofs in buildings, for example, help to cool the building down, and help to make sure that the leaks in buildings are reduced.

Does it also mean that we get rid of all our trees because trees are supposed to collect water which then breeds mosquitoes? I think the answer is no. Because if we do that, then we will need a Save Our Trees Campaign after this. The travellers palms are one of the species of trees which do tend to collect more water in the axils of the leaves. It does not mean that we get rid of all the travellers palms in Singapore. But it does mean that the NParks and other maintenance crew would have to check the palms, check the leaves, more thoroughly. There are certain things that they can do, for example, by treating the axils so that mosquitoes do not breed.

They can even, in certain cases, drill holes in the leaves without hurting the plant such that the water drains down. But at the end of the day, I think there has to be a balance between what we can do in the design and also what we can do ourselves as citizens. As Minister Yaacob pointed out, more than half of the problems that we had detected in our campaign, in our comb-through exercise last weekend, was due to ourselves - cans being left on the ground, plastic bags, flower pots, trays, etc.

Does it mean that we completely disallow people from keeping plants in HDB estates? I think this is an opportunity for us to encourage our residents to practise good house-keeping if they do keep plants and also that they do not overdo it. But, reasonably speaking, we would have to allow residents to keep some plants on the corridors. But we should not over react. This is the approach that I hope we can take. We will encourage our residents to do more within the flat through the 10-minute checklist, but also be more responsible outside the flat, ie, the common corridor and in the common areas. In this way, I believe we would still be able to enjoy a clean and green environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are two points that Mr Leong brought up that I would just like to clarify. First, he has pointed out that the number of breeding sites has gone down, but the number of dengue cases has gone up and he suggested that it may be because the virus is much stronger and is a new mutant, or he suggested it could be that we are weaker, our immune status is lower, herd immunity is down. Actually, both are possibilities. So we really do not know why we are having this increase in dengue cases, and that is why we are having an expert committee to look at all these factors to see which one of these

factors, or a combination of factors, has given rise to this increase in dengue cases. We are also doing some research studies, in terms of the sero status of patients and the general public to see if the changes in the immune status may be partly responsible for the increase in cases.

As for the issue of whether people should self-quarantine themselves, there is no necessity for it. Because this is not an infection that spreads directly from one person to another. So any amount of human contact is safe because dengue does not move from one person to another person directly. Although you cannot infect another person, you can infect the mosquito, and that can only happen during a five-day window period at the start of your infection when there is virus in your blood. So we have asked our general practitioners to give advice on how to stop you from infecting the mosquitoes.

As to whether you should stay at home or go out, actually if any other mosquito, other than the Aedes, bites you, that mosquito will not get infected with dengue. So it is quite safe to go to nature parks, etc, where I know sometimes you have large mosquitoes flying around and they are the noisy variety. But those mosquitoes will not get infected with dengue. It is only the Aedes mosquito and, unfortunately, the Aedes mosquito stays in urban places, like your home or immediately outside your home or in buildings. That is why there is so much of emphasis about preventing the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes. If we can stop humans from infecting mosquitoes, we can reduce the incidence of dengue. This is because mosquitoes do not spread dengue from one mosquito to another. So the infected dengue mosquitoes will die, ie, their lifespan is about three weeks. But for each new generation of mosquitoes to spread dengue, they have to grow from larvae to become adults;

they need to bite an infected human and fly around for about a week while the virus incubates in the mosquito and gets concentrated in its saliva and then, after that, bites another human being in order to spread the disease. And this particular mosquito, in order to get infected, must bite a human during that five days when he has virus in the bloodstream. So if we can have dengue patients or dengue suspects protect themselves from being bitten by the mosquito at home, because that is where most of the Aedes mosquitoes are going to be in urban areas, then we can stop mosquitoes from getting infected with dengue and stop the dengue-infected mosquitoes from infecting new persons. So we have sent that advisory out to all our general practitioners and hospitals for dengue suspects to use repellents. So my advice to all Singaporeans would be to follow that advice. The GP will advise the use of repellents and use it as instructed.

I am not so sure I can agree fully with the Senior Minister of State when he advised that patients should use repellents to prevent themselves from being bitten. I have advised my patients but they are very careless and they get bitten. Now, my worry is that the hospital is not taking in patients when their platelet count is about 100,000 or they have lowered down to 80,000, that means these patients who are dengue infected already are being sent home by the hospital back to the community where there are many mosquitoes lurking around and you cannot control the mosquitoes. So you are bringing in a reservoir of infection, which should be in hospital and sheltered, back into the community and the poor Minister would be struggling like hell trying to kill the mosquito which is so elusive.

Therefore, I think this practice of not taking in patients with that level of platelet should be reviewed by the high ministerial committee. It is a very

dangerous practice. I would advocate sheltering, isolating and ringfencing all these patients who are already infected with dengue, in other words, we have got to build shelters. We have $30 million given to this committee. We should build special isolation shelters so that we can house all these suspected dengue and dengue-infected patients in these buildings, keep them there and do not let the mosquitoes get to them. Now, we are letting the patients go back to the community to be infected by mosquitoes.

Dr Tan, what is your clarification?

I am trying to say that the Minister's argument may not be so accepted. My question is to please spend some of the money in building special centres to isolate all our dengue and dengue-suspect patients.

First of all, I like to make it very clear that when the patient's platelets are low, it means he is quite advanced in his dengue, and at that time, he does not have a Viremia and he is not infective to the mosquitoes. So using platelets to decide who is going to infect the mosquito will not be the right thing to do. What we have done is that we have formed the expert committee, and the expert committee has come up with recommendations, which are being sent out to all the GPs. Because when there is a new outbreak of dengue, particularly when the number of breeding sites comes down, it is quite natural that everyone has an explanation why there is an increase in dengue cases, and everyone has his own idea of how it should be dealt with. But we need some science in dealing with this problem. So we have got an expert committee and they have made the recommendation that, in the early phase of the dengue illness, the patients should cover themselves with insect repellent so that they would not be bitten by the mosquitoes.

Likewise on the issue of when should a dengue patient be admitted to a hospital. The majority of patients can actually be treated as outpatients. So we need clinical criteria. The expert committee has met and drawn up the criteria. These criteria are based on advice from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and World Health Organisation, and these scientifically-based criteria would be used by our hospitals. And I think these issues should be left to the expert committee and anyone who has suggestions can forward it to the expert committee.

May I ask the Minister how effective is the present practice of fogging? Should it be reviewed and changed? What are the insecticides used presently and are they effective in controlling Aedes mosquitoes? May I also ask whether repellent should be given to infected individuals to use in order not to spread dengue fever and whether his Ministry informs and recommends on the safe and effective repellent available?

Sir, fogging, according to the WHO, is still the most effective means of killing Aedes mosquitoes. We have standard operating procedures where we have trained our PCOs to carry out fogging judiciously and fogging is only effective, we have been told, in the morning and dusk where the adult mosquitoes go out for a bite and during those times when the weather is a bit cooler, the chemicals will remain longer in the atmosphere so that there is a greater chance of killing the adult mosquitoes. But this is also one of the issues in which we will refer back to the expert panel for them to review as to whether our current practice needs to be enhanced or changed. But meanwhile, where we find a population of adult mosquitoes, we will carry out fogging as we have done over the weekend. We

found 16 sites and we did 16 fogging actions.

On repellent, Sir, this is available in the market. Basically, there is no reason for us to give it free. It is quite reasonably priced. I bought a couple of it over the weekend. I think this is quite affordable. NTUC has embarked on a campaign to help Singaporeans by giving reasonable discounts. All the repellents where chemicals are used would have to be registered with NEA. We do not check the effectiveness of the repellents. We leave it to Singaporeans to decide.

Are there enough websites on certain types of chemicals? I am not an expert in this matter. I have been told by my EHI officials that most of the repellents in the market are quite good and effective. So I think the information is already available on our website, in terms of the chemical composition that is needed in each repellent. For example, we have been told that citronella is quite good. So now you see soaps being sold with citronella oil that will leave you a layer of citronella that could repel mosquitoes. So I bought a bottle yesterday and used it this morning. I think we have to take the necessary precautions. There are enough of these products in the market. Singaporeans are wise enough and NTUC has helped us to put some of these products up so that Singaporeans can easily access them.

Sir, there is an impression down the ground that the incidence of dengue cases has increased because there is some linkage to the way cleaning is done at the ground. And the way cleaning is done is also associated with the people doing the cleaning. So the question is whether, because there is now a lot of outsourcing of cleaning work and, therefore, that has in some ways affected the way cleaning is done which is not so thorough and not so well. Previously, when these were done by the

direct employees, and they had been doing the job for many years, they had a certain instinct as to where the mosquitoes could possibly be hiding. They have some experience and the ability to do that. But now that it has been outsourced, the contractors come in, they employ people and they may not be the ones---

Madam Halimah, can you raise your clarification? What is your question?

Sir, my question is this: is there some truth in that? That because we have been outsourcing cleaning work, that is the reason that has contributed to this perception of the standard of cleanliness and the number of dengue cases increasing.

Sir, I do not think we can say that because it was done once by the daily-rated employees, they did a better job as compared to the private contractors. Both NEA and PUB check very closely to ensure that the places in which we are responsible are well kept and well maintained. But having said that, we have stepped up our cleanliness regime. In terms of the flushing of our drains, we do it more frequently. So I think we will continue to review and learn. And, in fact, the exercise over this weekend has revealed some very interesting things for us to do together with the Town Councils in terms of how to keep our common areas clean. So I do not want to debate whether there is truth in the matter or not. More importantly, let us learn from the experience, work together, and move forward in this process. But I will be most happy to listen to Members' suggestion on what more at the ground our agencies can do. As mentioned by Mr Mah, this is a long-term thing in terms of some of the changes that we have to make but I think the immediate task is to reduce the population of mosquitoes, and

this is where if we can step up our maintenance and cleanliness regime several notches, I think we will be able to put this challenge under control, Sir.

Sir, in reply to the previous Member's question, a lot of these measures in place would take time to take effect. Do we have any expectation or how much reduction in terms of dengue infection rates? We are talking about 130 to 150 cases a day being reported now. What is the expectation with these measures being put in? How much reduction are we looking at? Because it is a lagging effect and, as most Members know, Singapore is already being put on quarantine watch in terms of dengue outbreak areas in South East Asia by, for example, Hong Kong's Department of Health. So the last thing we want to remember is what happened during SARS and to be labelled as a dengue hot spot, and that will affect tourism and our economy as well.

Sir, I think that is the reason why PM announced the Ministerial Committee over the last weekend because we are seeing a worrying trend and we have to tackle this quickly. I think it is very difficult for all of us to really put on a number because, as mentioned earlier, the relationship between breeding sites and the number of dengue cases is indeed very complex. So I think the more important thing is to try and go out and send the message and get Singaporeans to adopt that routine while the expert panel do the study. If you ask me and the members of my Committee and the Government, obviously we want to reduce it as much as possible in the shortest possible time. But there are things in which we can do, and that is our appeal to the community. Let us do the things that we can do, so that we remove as much as possible the uncertainty in the entire picture, and the expert panel would at least have more information to study

and to come up with recommendations that would really help us to reduce this as much as possible.

So I agree with the Member that this is something that we have to tackle immediately. But at the same time, Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech, life must go on. We have to continue to work. In fact, yesterday, I had a visitor from America. She came in with my brother, very happy to visit Singapore, went to the Lantern Festival at the Chinese Garden. She asked me whether there was anything to be wary about. I said, "Nothing. Go and enjoy."

So I think the impression must be given that Singapore is taking care of this. And, at the end of the day, our daily routine need not be changed so dramatically as long as we adopt some of the steps that we have highlighted over the weekend, and then let the expert panel do the study. And I am confident that over time we can put this problem under control, Sir.

In the case of Hong Kong, which has one and a half times the population of Singapore and a much denser area, they seemed to have coped much better in the fight against dengue. Are we going to look at whether there are lessons we can learn from the Hong Kong experience in fighting dengue?

Another question I have is: would NEA remain the main coordinating agency for dengue related issues over the longer term so that people would not be passed from pillar to post?

The third question is: for pest control companies that the Town Councils would be employing under the scheme currently launched, has NEA actually worked out with the Town Councils some kind of minimum performance standards, KPIs

and so on, to ensure that these pest control companies are effective? Because in the short term, practically all the Town Councils will be employing pest control managers. Would they have enough trained people to actually undertake this task?

And, finally, incidentally, I would like to ask the Minister if he has actually come across anyone who has said that, instead of planting trees or plants which are actually receptacles for breeding mosquitoes, plants that will actually repel mosquitoes and keep mosquitoes off? Because during the weekend when I visited the residents, one of the residents showed me a plant and he said it was very effective in keeping off mosquitoes.

Sir, the nursery near my house also told me about a similar plant. We bought it, for about a month, it did not work, we threw it away. I think the more important thing is that we do what we can based on the measures that we have outlined. And I think if we do all that, we can keep things under control.

Sir, in the case of Hong Kong, we will study it. In fact, the expert panel will study all the experiences. But we have to also know their differences. In Hong Kong, for example, they have colder weather and that will help to basically clear some of the mosquitoes. So we cannot compare it but we will look at their regime and see whether we can learn from them. And I think it is important for us to keep an open mind.

NEA will continue to be the centre. In fact, the two dedicated hotlines have been operating since 14th September. And we have told all the callers we will call back within 24 hours, which we did, either with a follow-up action or the status of the request that they have put in. We basically do at the backend our coordination with the various agencies.

So I would like to assure Singaporeans that NEA will continue to be the centre for them to call and report some of the cases in which we have to deal with.

On the pest controllers, I agree with Dr Khor that we have to establish minimum standards and that is what we are doing at this point in time. We are drawing up specifications. NEA is now assisting Town Councils to make sure that those specifications meet the minimum standards, first, based on the experience of the three Town Councils and also based on the experience that we have learned so far. And in terms of the training, we are ramping up very quickly, working with WDA to allow the pest controllers to hire more workers, and they will do on-the-job training. But training will be on a continuous basis to ensure that the workers remain up to scratch in terms of their capabilities in dealing with this problem.

I will allow one last question. Cynthia Phua.

I am not surprised - although Mr Leong is surprised - that the number of breeding grounds has been reduced because there are two non-accessible areas that the residents and volunteers could not access. One, the three-storey gutters in private estates. Nobody could access them. Second, the carpark drains or the covered drains in private estates as well as in HDB estates. These are areas that are impossible to access. And in terms of the breeding grounds, you can only flush for a certain period of time, you cannot flush them always.

Mdm Cynthia Phua, so what is your question?

Can the Minister tell us specifically how do we eradicate these breeding grounds in covered drains as well as in three-storey gutters?

Sir, as I have mentioned in my speech, as far as the drains are concerned, we are working together with MND to look at a long-term solution. But, meanwhile, we will continue to increase the frequency of our flushing of the drains to make sure that there are no pools. We will also look at the design, as Mr Mah has announced. But this is where you need the experts to come in, the pest control companies, to work together with NEA. This cannot be done by the public. It has to be done by the experts. Similarly, for gutters, we have referred to the committee to study further. But for Singaporeans who have homes with gutters, they can call in people to help them to check. In fact, over the weekend, Sir, we actually got SCDF officers who have those tall ladders to help us.

That is not their job.

Yes, I understand, but we need this only as a one-off exercise. But if home owners really need assistance, they can call up NEA, who can advise them what are the things that they can do with respect to the gutters. I think we have to step up our maintenance and vigilance, and we are more than happy to assist home owners.

"to amend the Public Transport Council Act (Chapter 259B of the 2000 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to prohibit or otherwise regulate the possession, use, import, transhipment, transfer and transportation of biological agents, inactivated biological agents and toxins, to provide for safe practices in the handling of such biological agents and toxins, and to make a related amendment to the Infectious Diseases Act (Chapter 137 of the 2003 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Balaji Sadasivan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.58 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Senior Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill seeks to establish a deposit insurance scheme in Singapore. Once enacted, it will provide an explicit, limited guarantee to insured depositors that they will be compensated, up to a specified amount, in the event of a failure of a full bank or a finance company in Singapore.

Sir, the deposit insurance scheme has been three years in the making, since MAS announced its intentions in June 2002. MAS has consulted the industry and the public on the key features of the deposit insurance scheme and has received broad support for the scheme. We have considered and incorporated the comments we have received, where appropriate, in the course of finalising the features of the deposit insurance scheme. MAS will also be holding consultations on the specific regulations required to implement the deposit insurance scheme envisaged in the Bill. The deposit insurance scheme is expected to come into effect on 1st April 2006.

Why we need deposit insurance in a dynamic and sound financial system

Sir, let me first set out the thinking behind the introduction of a deposit insurance scheme in Singapore.

MAS began a process of liberalising and opening up the domestic banking sector in 1999 to foster a more dynamic and innovative financial centre, and to strengthen the local banks by injecting more competition in the system. At the same time, MAS has shifted away from one-size-fits-all regulation of financial institutions, towards a risk-focused supervisory approach that is tailored to the institution in question - basically,

tailored to its scale, its business model and the activities that it conducts, the impact that problems in the institution will have on the financial system as a whole, and MAS' assessment of the strength of the firm and its management. MAS' aim in opening the market to more competition, and in shifting towards risk-focused supervision, has been to foster a banking system that is not only strong, but innovative and able to take well-managed risks.

The domestic banking market is now highly competitive. There is a greater presence of strong foreign banks, including six banks which have been awarded Qualified Full Bank (QFB) privileges. Increased competition has resulted in lower prices for customers and a wider range of services and products. The seven local banks in 1998 have consolidated into the three local banking groups that we have today. Their scale and complexity of operations have also increased. They have expanded their fee-earning business activities and their presence abroad so as to grow and diversify their revenue base. They have also upgraded their risk management capabilities, and are managing their capital more efficiently.

Five years into a more liberalised banking sector, the local banks are more dynamic and are expanding abroad, but remain strong. They have responded well to competition, and have held their own.

While our banking system remains sound, the growing complexity and scope of banking businesses will present challenges to supervision, in all financial centres. Increasingly, the operations of banks with a global or regional presence are influenced by factors beyond the control of supervisors in a single market. While MAS' licensing, regulatory and supervisory standards will aim to ensure the safety and soundness of the banking

system in Singapore, international experience has shown that the possibility of a bank failure and loss to depositors cannot be eliminated even in reputable and well supervised jurisdictions. Further, we should not seek to eliminate all risks of failure, even if it was possible to do so. It would call for onerous rules that would stifle enterprise and ultimately weaken our banks. In seeking to promote and preserve stability in the financial system, we therefore cannot and should not introduce rules to guarantee the soundness of individual financial institutions.

Market discipline plays an important part in keeping the financial system safe and sound. MAS has embarked on initiatives to empower consumers through financial education and by enhancing the efficiency of dispute resolution mechanisms for retail consumers.

MAS recognises that small depositors will often not be in a position to assess the safety and soundness of banks. But the solution to this should not be for Government to guarantee their deposits - even implicitly, if not explicitly. All experience internationally shows that the effectiveness of market discipline is blunted if depositors simply look to Government for a guarantee of their deposits. It leads to moral hazard and excessive risk-taking - amongst depositors, who will place their money where the returns are highest regardless of the risks, as well as amongst the banks themselves.

In Singapore, the Government or MAS has not issued any guarantee for bank deposits. However, the absence of an explicit limited deposit insurance scheme could lead depositors to assume that the Government would guarantee their deposits should a bank fail.

Sir, a deposit insurance scheme is for these reasons a useful plank in a dynamic

and competitive financial system. It will complement the roles of boards of directors and management of banks, and of MAS supervision of the banks, which seek to ensure that banks manage their risks prudently as they grow and become more complex in their operations.

Deposit insurance will serve two purposes. First, it will provide an adequate layer of protection for small depositors. Second, a deposit insurance scheme will clarify explicitly the extent of protection given to depositors and dispel any misperception that there is an implicit Government guarantee on deposits.

Explicit deposit insurance schemes are present in about 80 countries worldwide. It is timely to introduce a deposit insurance scheme in Singapore now when the banking system is sound. It is better to build up a deposit insurance fund slowly when the banking system is healthy, than to tax the banking sector heavily when a failure has occurred.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now go through the key provisions of the Bill.

Key measures under the Deposit Insurance Bill

Coverage of deposit insurance

The level and extent of coverage is a key feature of any deposit insurance scheme. In arriving at its decision on this matter, MAS was guided by both the need to provide adequate protection for small depositors, as well as the need to limit costs and preserve market discipline. The higher and the broader the coverage, the higher the cost will be to the banks. This would normally result in banks passing on higher costs to depositors, and will impair the competitiveness of banks in Singapore. Overly-generous coverage under the deposit insurance scheme could

also lead to moral hazard, where large depositors and the banks themselves take on excessive risk.

The Bill therefore seeks to provide adequate protection to small depositors, who are least able to make informed decisions, while containing the costs of deposit insurance and preserving the incentives for large depositors to exercise market discipline. The deposit insurance scheme is meant for small depositors, not for large or sophisticated depositors.

We have therefore decided on a $20,000 coverage limit, per depositor per institution, net of liabilities to the failed institution. Clause 31 of the Bill sets this out. This means that a depositor would receive compensation under the deposit insurance scheme for the first $20,000 of his aggregate insured deposits in his bank or finance company, if it should fail. MAS' study shows that this level of coverage would protect in full the deposits of about 87% of individual depositors.

The scheme will only cover deposits held by individuals. Deposits of businesses (including sole proprietorships and partnerships) will not be insured. In view of public interest, the scheme will also cover registered and exempt charities.

The next question is the type of deposits to be protected. The deposit insurance scheme will insure Singapore dollar deposits in standard savings, current and fixed deposit accounts in all full banks and finance companies. This will cover a range of such deposits, including, for instance, Islamic deposits that are principal-guaranteed, but will exclude products which are investment-oriented. Investment products, foreign currency deposits, structured deposits and deposits placed as collateral will not be insured. The deposits to be insured are specified in the First Schedule.

The coverage limit will be on a per depositor per institution basis. This means that balances in all standard savings, current and fixed deposit accounts belonging to the same depositor, whether in his own name, held jointly with another person, or in a trust account where he is the beneficiary, will be aggregated to compute the compensation payout. However, we have given special consideration to CPF savings placed in such types of bank deposits, given the important social role of CPF funds as core retirement savings. Moneys held under the CPF Investment Scheme will be separately insured up to $20,000. These are moneys held in bank deposits under the CPF Investment Scheme.

Coverage on a per depositor basis, under which all of a person's deposit accounts in a bank are added together, is the most equitable way. It is preferable to coverage for each deposit account, which could lead to large depositors splitting their deposits in several deposit accounts in a bank to take advantage of a higher level of coverage.

By introducing deposit insurance coverage in this targeted manner, the size of the Deposit Insurance Fund, and consequently the premiums levied on banks, can be kept affordable.

Deposit Insurance Fund

Clause 9 establishes a deposit insurance fund that will be built up from premium contributions of the banks and finance companies who are Scheme members. The fund will pay compensation to insured depositors in the event of a failure of a Scheme member.

Some countries levy contributions on Scheme members only after a bank failure, in other words, ex-post, to make the payouts required to depositors. We considered this very carefully. We have

decided to levy premium contributions in advance, in other words ex-ante, or before any bank failure, so as to build up a deposit insurance fund.

There are several advantages to ex-ante funding. Firstly, it ensures a readily available pool of funds to enable prompt disbursement should compensation need to be made. Secondly, it is fairer to collect premiums before a bank failure than after a bank failure, as the failed Scheme member would also have contributed to the fund. Ex-ante funding also mitigates the pro-cyclical effect that large ex-post contributions may have on the banking sector - in other words, it does not impose hefty costs on banks at times of economic difficulty, which could lead to further economic contraction. Finally, collecting premiums to build up a ready fund in advance reinforces public confidence in the deposit insurance scheme, and dispels any expectation of a Government guarantee on deposits.

The targeted fund size, to be built up over 10-11 years from these premium contributions, is equivalent to 0.3% of total insured deposits in the banking system, currently estimated at about $120 million. MAS' analysis has found that this would be an adequate fund size given the key features of the deposit insurance scheme, such as the scope of coverage, the priority claim given to insured deposits, the fact that we do not face a high risk of bank failure in Singapore, and the good likelihood of recovering sufficient assets from the failed bank to meet its insured deposit liabilities. The Deposit Insurance Agency would also be able to borrow to fund any temporary shortfalls, and to impose additional premiums on banks should it be necessary to recapitalise the fund.

Foreign full banks which operate as branches in Singapore will be required to maintain a minimum level of Singapore-

domiciled assets of at least 100% of their insured deposits.

In the event of a bank failure, the Deposit Insurance Agency will make compensation payout to insured depositors from the deposit insurance fund. It will then stand in the shoes of the insured depositors to claim against the assets of the failed bank for the amount of compensation that has been paid out. The Bill will also give insured deposits priority over other deposit liabilities of the bank. These measures - asset maintenance of foreign bank branches and insured deposit priority - will strengthen recovery by the Deposit Insurance Agency from the failed institution of the amount it has paid out as compensation. They serve to lower the necessary size of the deposit insurance fund and hence the cost of deposit insurance.

The Fund will be invested in safe and liquid assets such as Singapore Government Securities, deposits with MAS and other assets approved by the Minister.

Premiums

Next, the question of premiums to be paid by different institutions. Full banks and finance companies will be required to contribute premiums in order to build up the deposit insurance fund. But charging a flat rate to all institutions regardless of risk will be inequitable, and dulls the incentive for institutions to improve their risk management. Premium contributions will therefore be based on the risk profiles of members of the Scheme, so that less risky and better-managed Scheme members will be charged lower premiums. Initially, premiums charged will be set at an average of 0.03% of insured deposits, which are among the lowest premium rates in the world.

Compensation

The Bill sets out the procedures for triggering a payout from the Deposit Insurance Fund. It provides MAS with the powers to determine that a payout be made to insured depositors from the Deposit Insurance Fund if a court order has been made to wind up the Scheme member or if MAS is of the opinion that a Scheme member is insolvent, unable or likely to become unable to meet its obligations, or is about to suspend payment.

If depositor payout is triggered, the Deposit Insurance Agency will make an official announcement. Depositors need not file claims with the Deposit Insurance Agency as payouts will be computed based on the bank's records. The Deposit Insurance Agency will make arrangements to pay out compensation to eligible depositors.

As I stated earlier, eligible depositors will be insured up to a maximum of $20,000 in a bank. If the deposit insurance payout received is less than the depositor's total amount of deposits in the bank, the depositor may file a separate claim with the liquidator of the failed bank for the difference between the amount of his deposits in the bank and the deposit insurance payout.

Deposit Insurance Agency

A Deposit Insurance Agency, separate from MAS, will be established to administer the deposit insurance scheme and manage the Deposit Insurance Fund. The Deposit Insurance Agency will also conduct public education on the deposit insurance scheme.

The Deposit Insurance Agency will be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act. The board of directors of the Deposit Insurance Agency will be appointed by

and accountable to the Minister in charge of MAS for its acts and decisions.

The budget of the Deposit Insurance Agency will be approved by the Minister. The Bill also includes provisions for the Deposit Insurance Agency and Fund to be audited, and for a copy of the audited financial statements, auditor's report and annual report to be provided to the Minister. The Deposit Insurance Agency's financial statements and annual report will also be made available to the public.

Sir, a deposit insurance scheme in Singapore will strengthen depositor protection as our financial sector continues to grow in dynamism and complexity. The existence of an explicit, limited deposit insurance scheme will also dispel public misconception of a blanket Government guarantee of deposits. It will preserve incentives for market discipline, which is essential for a safe and sound financial system. The key features of the deposit insurance scheme, that I have highlighted, have been carefully designed so as to achieve these objectives, while limiting costs and maintaining the competitiveness of our banks.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

This legislative move to compensate depositors should the bank they place their funds in fail is quite overdue, considering that a number of Asian countries already have such a scheme in place for quite some time. At the same time, the Bill should dispel any misperception by depositors that their money is guaranteed by the Government in the event that the bank they have their deposits in goes bankrupt.

Sir, as we go more up-market in our banking sector, become more sophisticated and attract more banks to operate here in our endeavour to position ourselves as a truly international financial hub, it is inevitable that such moves expose depositors to a higher degree of risks. While the MAS is responsible to ensure that the banks operating here are subject to stringent rules and checks, it cannot guarantee that no banks or finance houses, local or foreign, will not fail. The collapse of Britain's Barings Bank in February 1995 is perhaps the quintessential tale that should still be fresh in the minds of many people, particularly those within the financial circle. The failure was completely unexpected and occurred over a course of days, all arising from the action of a single trader here by the name of Nick Leeson. While the circumstances may be different considering the fact that Barings Bank was a merchant bank, there is no guarantee that it cannot happen to any full-fledged bank.

Hence, while depositors should hail the introduction of the Deposit Insurance Bill as their deposits will be guaranteed a return of up to $20,000 in the improbable event that their bank faces liquidation, the first big question that is in everyone's mind is how much of this protection cost will be passed on to depositors. Ideally, banks should look at the cost of such premiums as a business cost to them rather than passing part of, or worse still, the full cost on to depositors.

Since the determination of premiums will, among others, also be based on the risk profiles of the banks, I would like to suggest that the MAS consider the publication of a profile rating of the banks here so as to enable depositors to make an informed decision of where their deposits will be safest. Members of the public should also have a clear understanding that the limit of $20,000 applies to each depositor per institution

that they have their funds deposited in. This is important to enable depositors to decide whether they place all their eggs in one basket or spread them over several banks, if doing so makes them feel more secure.

Sir, in going over the Bill, I have a few comments and concerns which I would like Minister Tharman to address.

First is with respect to clause 3. I would like the Minister to clarify how the protective sum of $20,000 is arrived at. According to a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on deposit insurance programmes in Asia dated March this year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is analogous to the proposed Deposit Insurance Agency as provided for in this Bill, each depositor account is insured for approximately US$100,000. In Taiwan, the insurance amount under the Central Deposit Insurance Corporation is US$32,000. In Japan, the corresponding amount is US$95,000. In Korea, it is US$50,000. It appears that all the nations noted here have a ratio computed as Insured Coverage over GDP per capita of 1.3 to 3.4 - a broad but reasonable range. Singapore's ratio is 0.44, taking the assumption that our per capita GDP is US$27,000 and the prevailing exchange rate being $1.65 to the US dollar. In general, wealthier countries have a higher ratio due to the existence of larger deposit balances. On the basis of this simple computation, I believe Singapore too could afford a higher ratio to provide for greater protection to its depositors.

The second point related to this clause is that a fixed quantum, as proposed in the Bill, will potentially be quickly overtaken by events and may become irrelevant when the Scheme fully matures in 10 or 11 years. It may attract controversy if it is not adjusted to the

prevailing appropriate protection value. I would like to advocate that the coverage

limit be adjusted for inflation, at least on an annual basis, so as to retain the value of the deposit insurance amount at the prevailing point of time.

Sir, it could generally be argued that proper insurance coverage provides confidence that spills over into other sectors. The same can be said of the potential effect of a deposit insurance scheme, such as the one being proposed, on the wealth management industry that we are trying to nurture here. While this point is mute during relative periods of calm, its influence during troubled times cannot be under-estimated.

My next point pertains to clause 6. While this clause provides under exceptional circumstances for a full bank or finance house to be exempted from membership of the Scheme, the clause is silent on the need for such exempted institutions to clearly notify depositors as such. To build confidence on the proposed Deposit Insurance Scheme and the agency to be formed to administer the scheme, I would suggest that the MAS require that both members and non-members clearly state in some form, of their status of membership of the Scheme.

On clause 24, while this provision is useful as it provides recourse for the Authority to seek additional premium contributions in the event of a shortfall of funds, it falls short of addressing a worst-case scenario, such as in a remote event where a number of banks and financial houses may collapse simultaneously, calling for a demand of a large amount of payout beyond the targeted fund of $120 million. I may sound a bit pessimistic here but I think there is a need to be comprehensive. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would step in in such a scenario to make up for the difference in payout requirements.

Moving on to clause 30, occurrence of events precipitating payment of compensation should preferably have an enactment date as well as a cut-off date. The Bill should make it clear that the Agency is required to disburse payments within a specified timeframe, say, three months from a Court order date or when a Scheme member is made insolvent and stipulate that it would cease payments within a specified time period too. This would ensure a systematic procedure to process disbursements and claims, as well as frame a limit on depositors requiring time to gather evidence on their claims.

My final point, Sir, is with respect to clause 52 concerning the protection from liability of the Agency and its officers. I feel a fundamental issue of transparency is being circumvented in this particular clause. The Ageny operates on the tenet of public money or, specifically, money deposited by Scheme members. I feel that the public, as well as Scheme members, should have some form of recourse to address concerns that may be deemed necessary in the event of a violation in procedure. Failure to provide for an unbiased accounting or arbitrating conduit for the Scheme members, and particularly depositors, will not bode well for the Agency, which may be subject to the magnifying lens of public opinion. It may, therefore, be prudent not to include such an overarching and over-protective clause to protect the agency and its direct associates.

On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I would like to thank Dr Ahmad Magad for his support for the Bill and his constructive remarks. Let me, first, address his opening observation. As he noted, many other Asian markets have deposit insurance schemes and he felt that it was overdue in Singapore. Let me reiterate that our financial system is safe and sound - in fact, safer and more sound

than any other in Asia and one of the safest in the world.

So, why are we introducing a deposit insurance scheme? It is not too late, but it is better that we do it now when the system is healthy. And as we continue to grow in complexity as the banking system expands abroad, more competition is brought into the system. By doing this now, depositors understand that even in a well-supervised banking system, there is a risk of bank failure, and understand that deposits are not guaranteed. The deposit insurance scheme also makes explicit that protection for deposits is not absolute but is limited. It specifies exactly how much each depositor can expect. So it is better that we do this now when the system is healthy than wait for a bank failure to occur, even if there is a low probability of that occurring.

Let me address some of the specific points and suggestions which Dr Magad has made. First, on the question of whether and how much cost would be passed on to depositors. This was a key consideration when we designed the scheme - how do you provide adequate protection to depositors but in a cost-effective manner? It is why we designed the scheme to be quite targeted, not to have too broad a coverage. It is why we limited the scheme to only small depositors and also to only Singapore dollar deposits of a standard nature, ie, core savings of depositors. It is also why we have put in features such as ensuring that insured deposits have priority over other deposit liabilities of the bank and why we are requiring foreign bank branches to maintain sufficient assets in Singapore to meet their actual deposits. These measures will help keep the deposit insurance fund low, keep the target size of the fund low and, therefore, keep the cost of the fund on the banks low.

The targeted fund size is 0.3% of total insured deposits to be built up over 10 or

11 years. So this means that the average annual premium will be about 0.03% of the bank's insured deposits. This is one of the lowest premium rates in the world. If the banks passed on the cost fully to depositors, it would mean a 0.03% charge on a depositor with a $20,000 account. Whether the banks do, in fact, pass on cost and how much of the cost they pass to depositors will be a commercial decision determined in our competitive marketplace.

Next, Dr Magad suggested that we consider publication of the risk profile of banks here so as to enable depositors to make informed decisions. Banks' credit ratings are currently published and publicly available. I think it is useful for the Deposit Insurance Agency to consider making that more conveniently available to members of the public, for instance, by putting published credit ratings on its website or encouraging the media to carry such ratings. MAS' supervisory ratings, on the other hand, are not and cannot be disclosed because they are based on confidential information obtained in the course of supervision. Making public such information would hinder supervision and make the financial institutions less willing to cooperate fully with the MAS. This is also the practice adopted by reputable supervisors abroad.

Next, Dr Magad's question - an important one - on whether the $20,000 coverage limit was adequate. He noted that it was low compared to some other countries. This is a key issue. Our survey of bank deposits in Singapore has shown that the $20,000 coverage limit will provide full coverage to the vast majority or 87% of individual depositors. This percentage (87%) is well in line with international norms. In fact, the IMF suggests between 80% and 90% of individual depositors be covered. The $20,000 quantum is also fairly similar to

that which has been enacted in Hong Kong - they recently passed legislation on their deposit insurance scheme. The marginal benefit of increasing the coverage limit beyond $20,000 is not large. For instance, if we double the coverage to $40,000, it would insure only an additional 7% of depositors. I should also mention that at $20,000, we will be able to cover, in value terms, 40% of the value of individual deposits and this is, in fact, significantly higher than most other countries. Dr Magad's comparison of deposit insurance coverage relative to per capita GDP, the $20,000 figure compared to per capita GDP, is an interesting one. But he has to take into account the fact that we have a CPF system in Singapore. For a significant majority of depositors, a fair proportion of their financial assets are really with the CPF, which is guaranteed by Government.

Next, the question of whether we should be fixing the coverage limit, in terms of a fixed dollar quantum ($20,000) or whether it should be adjusted annually, as Dr Magad has suggested, for inflation. It is a valid point conceptually. The deposit insurance coverage has to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that it continues to be adequate in real terms. But reviewing the coverage limit on an annual basis will add to administrative complexity and will increase the cost for banks. Most countries have a fixed dollar quantum coverage which is reviewed after a number of years. We have assessed that $20,000 is likely to serve us for some time to come, certainly for the next 10 years, and we will review it at a later point in time.

Dr Magad also asked about full banks or finance companies being exempted from membership and whether in such circumstance, the MAS should require that they disclose the fact that they have been exempted. First, let me say that the exemption clause that is provided for in the Bill is unlikely to be operative. It is to

allow a foreign full bank that is covered by a deposit insurance scheme in its home jurisdiction which extends comparable protection to Singapore depositors, to be exempted from the Singapore scheme. Currently, there are no financial institutions that will qualify for exemption from membership under our scheme. All full banks and finance companies will be required to be members. However, should there be a case where a foreign institution qualifies for exemption from the Singapore scheme, Dr Magad's suggestion is a useful one. The Deposit Insurance Agency could require the exempted bank or institution to disclose that it is not a member of the Singapore scheme. This can be contained in the rules that will be issued by the Deposit Insurance Agency.

Dr Magad had also raised the question of whether the Government should step in if the deposit insurance fund proves to be insufficient in the extreme situation where the funds are inadequate. First, the deposit insurance fund is adequate for most situations. The risk of bank failure is not zero, but it is very low. And in the rare event that the fund size is inadequate, the Deposit Insurance Agency can borrow to fund potential shortfalls. For example, the Agency can take loans from financial institutions or issue capital market instruments. The MAS may also require Scheme members to contribute additional premium contributions to recapitalise the deposit insurance fund. Dr Magad noted that simultaneous bank failures are a remote event. They are remote. Actuarial computation has shown that the fund size of about $120 million or 0.3% of matured deposits will be sufficient 99.9% of the time. It will not be appropriate or desirable to provide in advance for the very remote event of simultaneous bank failures. Providing for this in advance will send the wrong signals and could lead to moral hazard.

Dr Ahmad suggested that the Bill should provide for payouts to be taken

within a specified period of time, say, three months. The Deposit Insurance Agency will make every effort to make depositor payout as speedily as possible. We envisage that it should be able to make payout sooner than within three months after a bank failure. But I agree it will eventually be good practice for the Deposit Insurance Agency to commit to making payouts within a specified period of time. We are new to this scheme. Let us set up the scheme and explore this issue at a further point. Other new deposit insurance schemes, such as the one in Hong Kong, also do not specify in legislation the time period within which payout has to be made. But let us consider this later.

Finally, Dr Ahmad raised the issue of legal immunity for the Deposit Insurance Agency and its officers. He felt it was over-protective and not very transparent. It is important for the Agency and its officers to be given immunity from personal liability since they are performing a public function. But the legal protection clause for the Deposit Insurance Agency and its officers does not offer blanket immunity. It only covers acts done in good faith. It does not, for instance, cover fraudulent acts or intentional and wilful misconduct. I should reiterate also that the Board of the Deposit Insurance Agency will be accountable to the Minister in charge of MAS for its acts and decisions. The financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Agency would be audited. It will be required to prepare and submit its annual report and estimates of income and expenditure of

the Deposit Insurance Fund and of the Agency itself to the Minister, and the annual report will be made available to the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Education Endowment Scheme (EES) Act establishes the Edusave Pupils Fund (EPF) with the aim of enhancing citizen pupils' education. It provides citizen pupils with an Edusave account and yearly contributions if they are between 6 and 16 years of age and studying in primary schools, secondary schools, special education schools and ITE. Pupils can use funds from the Edusave account to pay approved fees and enrichment programme charges. The current Edusave Pupils Fund contribution rate is $170 for pupils in primary schools and special education schools and $200 for pupils who are studying in secondary schools and ITE.

In his 2005 Budget Statement, the Prime Minister announced a special top-up of $100 to be made to the Edusave accounts of eligible pupils. Section 7(1) of the Education Endowment Scheme Act currently allows for the Edusave Pupils Fund to be funded from income of the Edusave Endowment Fund. However, it does not provide for the Edusave Pupils Fund to be funded via a direct injection of funds from the Government. Thus, in order to allow for special top-ups to be made to the Edusave account of each

eligible pupil, section 7(1) of the Education Endowment Scheme Act has to be amended to allow the Government to inject funds directly into the Edusave Pupils Fund.

5.05 pm

In conclusion, Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill will allow for special top-ups to be made to the Edusave accounts of eligible pupils by the Government.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second

time."

Objectives of the Bill

This Bill seeks to establish the Community Care Endowment Fund. This fund was first announced by the Prime Minister in January 2005 in Parliament. The Fund will start off with a capital sum of $500 million and be built up over time to $1 billion.

The setting up of a Community Care Endowment Fund (or ComCare Fund) will provide a sustainable source of income, in both good times and bad times, to run social assistance programmes that will help needy Singaporeans and their families to tide over difficult times. ComCare aims to help Singaporeans in a way that will enable them to stand on their own two feet eventually. Our objective is to help the needy to become self-reliant, to help the children from needy families break out of the poverty trap, to maximise the potential of the disabled so that they can be contributing members of our society, and to provide community care and support for those who need long-term assistance.

There will be new money for new programmes. We will also streamline our existing assistance programmes. We will review the processes so that needy Singaporeans can receive help faster, and in a more effective manner. The Community Development Councils, together with the grassroots and community organisations, being closer to the ground, will be empowered to exercise more

flexibility to deliver these assistance programmes for needy Singaporeans.

The ComCare Fund complements the other elements of Singapore's social safety net, such as Medifund, Edusave and the Lifelong Learning Fund. With economic restructuring and globalisation, a small but growing minority of Singaporeans will face economic hardships from time to time. ComCare will provide a safety net for this small group. It will focus on addressing the social and financial needs of these Singaporeans and their families, in particular the medically unfit, the severely disabled and the frail elderly. It will aim to look at the underlying problems faced by the needy and address them in a holistic manner. ComCare will be based on mutual responsibility. It will help those who are

willing to do their part to help themselves. ComCare will complement the Workfare programme by focusing on the social support needed to enable low wage workers, especially women, to return to work.

ComCare Budget

ComCare will provide up to $55 million a year for assistance schemes. Apart from supporting the existing nationwide social assistance schemes which are administered by the CDCs, $10 million from this $55 million budget will go towards 'seed money' for pilot programmes initiated by the CDCs, the grassroots organisations or the voluntary welfare organisations. Another $4 million will be set aside for the Citizens' Consultative Committees to exercise flexibility in helping genuinely needy residents who may not strictly meet the criteria for social assistance programmes, or to set up local programmes to help the specific needs of their residents.

Provisions in the Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Bill. The ComCare Fund will consist of money from the Consolidated Fund and the Community Assistance Fund, which currently supports a number of social assistance schemes. Clause 19 provides for the termination of the Community Assistance Fund and for the moneys to be transferred to the ComCare Fund as capital moneys. Clause 5 provides for the appropriation of moneys from the Consolidated Fund to form the capital moneys of the ComCare Fund.

Clause 5 further provides that all gifts and bequests to the Fund are required to form part of its capital moneys. The capital moneys must be applied only for purposes of investment and if any part of the capital sum is spent, it must be made

good out of the income of the Fund before the income can be paid out.

Clause 6 sets out the objects of the ComCare Fund, which are to provide assistance to persons in financial or other difficulties to enable them to meet their basic needs; to address the developmental issues faced by children from families with financial or other difficulties; to provide financial or other assistance to persons who require help to integrate into society; and, lastly, to develop programmes to enhance the capacity of the community to undertake all these tasks, for example, giving funding to a voluntary welfare organisation to run a programme to help needy children, the frail elderly or the disabled.

Under clause 6, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports can authorise the income of the ComCare Fund to be paid out as grants to individuals and families through organisations, or to an organisation directly, in order to carry out the objects of the ComCare Fund.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the Prime Minister said at the launch of ComCare in June, the ComCare Fund is an expression of our concern for the weakest members of our community. It reflects this Government's commitment to devote more resources and do more for those who are at risk of being left behind, but who want to get ahead and become fully participating members of our society. Through ComCare, we will provide these vulnerable members of our society with the means to support themselves and their families. We will help to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind while Singapore progresses.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, the Bill before us is the culmination of our recent discussion on the setting up of a substantial fund to provide financial and other assistance to the poor and needy in Singapore. It puts in place a more solid framework for social welfare, both in terms of the amount that we can extend to those who need it and the flexibility with which we can deliver it. The fund size will eventually grow to $1 billion and the grassroots organisations, such as the CDCs and CCCs, will be given the task of targeting delivery specifically to those who need it most. This development indeed is a significant milestone for us in the way we want to move forward to help those who need help.

While I am glad and cheered by the

setting up of the Community Care Endowment Fund or ComCare Fund which is now finally underway, the timely introduction of this Bill gives rise to an occasion for us to consider further issues that are associated with it. Unfortunately, the introduction of the legislation is not going to banish forever some issues relating to the poor and needy in our society.

I will touch on three broad themes today. These are:

The short-term nature of financial assistance;

A realistic assessment of needs; and

A proper measure of the effectiveness of the ComCare Fund in achieving what it sets out to do.

First, the short-term nature of financial assistance. Sir, as the saying goes, "It never rains but pours." When bills come to those who are in financial hardship, they all seem to come at the same time.

In the course of our MPS, almost all of us would inevitably come across cases of residents for whom the prospect of financial stability on their own may just not be possible. Let me pull out just one of the many that I have on my record. I have a resident who is over 60 years of age. He has a wife and two sons. Both sons are mentally unsound and are thus unable to find work. The father is past retirement age and, even if he wanted to, would be unable to find work on account of his poor health. Without an income and relatives they can rely on, it is evidently clear that they are not able to support themselves by working, and that they would require long-term intervention. Unfortunately, under our schemes, we do not typically put families on long-term support unless they qualify for public assistance.

Sir, there are not many who qualify for long-term public assistance based on our rather stringent criteria, and there are many who fall through the gap. For instance, in the whole of the North East CDC, there are, as of now, only about 168 families who qualify for long-term public assistance. This is out of a total of 205,000 families in North East CDC. If it is true, Sir, it is unfortunate. It cannot be that there are so few numbers of destitute families that require the state to look after them in the long term. It would appear that, for the majority, the main solution to their financial problem may not be interim assistance. For now, interim assistance seems the most available form of assistance. What happens then is that the resident is left with having to come every three months to the MPS to ask for financial support. Why put the family on short-term assistance when it is evidently clear that the family requires long-term intervention, even if they do not on the surface meet the strict requirements? Why are we so hesitant in putting more families on longer-term support?

Incidentally, apart from some food items and vouchers, the monetary support

that we give to a family comes in the form of allowances of between $100 and $150 per month. Realistically, for an unemployed family of four adults, this is really not enough, even including other forms of intervention.

Secondly, a realistic assessment of needs. Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister has pointed out that the ComCare Fund will seek to address the holistic needs of those who are in need of assistance in Singapore. But that begs the question: what exactly are our needs and how do we define these needs? How much financial assistance should the State be giving before it is considered adequate? The conventional wisdom appears to be that our assistance should be placed at a level that is just below the comfort level. Sir, I have no quarrel with that principle. However, the question really is: just what should be the comfort level for Singaporeans? Should a middle-class family with young children attending enrichment classes now be required to stop these classes immediately simply because both parents are out of a job and are seeking public support? Should the children of poor families be given some form of assistance so that they can get a chance to travel and also share the meaningful experience as their other friends who are blessed with better opportunities? For that matter, should these children be denied rights to toys and other useful accessories simply because their parents are too poor, or should the children of these families be given proper food supplements to ensure that their physical development is not affected simply on account of their parents' inability to pay for these items?

While many may see the needs as being relative, I would submit that there are some requirements today that would and should be seen as essential items, as opposed to being treated as luxuries, which they may well be the case 10 years

earlier. The examples I cited relate more importantly to the needs of children. Very often, and unfortunately, when parents fall into hard times, it is the children who suffer. The experience that these children go through will no doubt toughen them mentally. Yet, at the same time, for many, their circumstances will also put them at a distinct disadvantage in this highly competitive society. While I laud the achievements of those who are able to break out of the cycle of poverty and recount their stories at the height of their career success - which unfortunately tends to be more the exception than the rule - let us also spare a thought for those who could have got much further in life but for the limited opportunities that they had.

I know that part of the remit of the ComCare Fund is committed to ensuring that the educational needs of the poor and needy children are taken care of. The question really is whether grassroots organisations are sufficiently focused on targeting the needs of these children to ensure that the concerns that I have just mentioned are properly addressed in a holistic manner. The simpler solution is to target their needs that are most obvious and easiest to solve, ie, pocket money, school transport, school fees, and so on. I believe that there is no one who can truly say that the holistic needs are taken care of, as opposed to sporadic needs, if we just did that. We want to ensure that our assistance is effective and, in many cases, would help a child break out of the cycle of poverty. So, I am heartened to note that the principle underlying the ComCare Fund is to ensure a holistic approach to helping the poor and needy. But let us just spare a thought about applying this when we implement the Fund.

Thirdly, a proper measure of the ComCare Fund. Sir, much money will be

dispensed under the ComCare Fund in the coming days to the poor and needy. While we applaud and laud the giving of substantial financial assistance to those who require help, we should also ask ourselves whether or not we should expect more appropriate governance and measurable objectives and outcomes from such commitments. There are two issues that we need to consider really, if we want to go down this route.

The manner in which the money is disbursed, how it is accounted for by those who give it away; and

How we can go about assessing every programme, in terms of the performance index, to ensure that the money is properly spent.

On the first issue, the recent saga involving the National Kidney Foundation clearly demonstrates a need for strong governance, if we want to prevent another failure of similar proportion. At the moment, CCCs are given only $33,000 to give out as interim assistance. The CDCs, on the other hand, are given more funds at their disposal. The guidelines given merely set out the broad compass by which the funds may be used. It does not give sufficient guidance other than just some examples of how money should be spent. To give an example: should the ComCare Fund be allowed to blow $30,000 on a grand event to promote the various public assistance schemes? Should there not be an avenue of appeal to the committee for hardship cases who are unsuccessful, so as to provide the assurance that full consideration has been given? And, related to this point, should the decision whether or not to give financial assistance be left in the hands of managers alone? Are they guided by appropriate advice from social workers? Should we also set an appropriate benchmark of responsiveness for CDC with regard to applications for financial assistance from the residents?

In the course of my work at the constituency, I have often heard complaints about lack of responsiveness from the welfare agencies. Granted that some forms may not be complete but, surely, incomplete information alone cannot account for the long response time that the agencies take to respond. It is not uncommon to hear sometimes how these agencies may take up to three months to respond. And, if it is true, I will be very concerned indeed.

Moving on, I did mention earlier that we need to move towards adopting a performance measurement index to help us focus on the way in which we spend the money. I would like to remind us here in this House, Sir, that we need to move away from the mindset that ComCare Fund is welfare hand-out to the poor and needy Singaporeans and permanent residents. To do that would be to demean them and would rob them of their sense of dignity. We should see payments out of the ComCare Fund as investments in social capital that will ultimately yield results for the long-term good of our country. Seen from this perspective, the financial support that the community gives out, whether it be the CCC or the CDC, is not incidental and isolated but rather linked to the larger question of how best to assist the person concerned so that he or his family can be lifted out of the poverty trap and be of use to society. For instance, the KiFAS should not be positioned as only helping to pay the school fees of the poor children but rather as a programme to enhance the learning capacity of the child so that he or she can get an even chance of competing in society. Equally, when it comes to providing welfare grants, the approach should be to use the money to set up an appropriate framework that would allow the welfare recipients to work, even if the income is somewhat subsidised through the ComCare Fund, than to give the money outright. Although this principle

may not be applied in every instance, it at least provides the appropriate perspective by which one would view how assistance should be rendered and one which would allow us to effectively measure the outcome of what we put in by way of assistance, something which I will elaborate on later.

Sir, it is perhaps our desire to want to be flexible with the ComCare Fund that we have worded the parameter of assistance broadly to include financial and other difficulties. As to what "other difficulties" meant, one would suppose would depend very much on the exigencies on the ground from time to time, as it would be rather difficult to tell in advance. However, in keeping the legislation broad and flexible, we also run into the risk that there is not enough guidance from Parliament on how the money should be spent and, with it, the attendant risk of abuse. This should be and can be avoided, if there are provisions in the main body of legislation that allow for guidance in some form of circulars or subsidiary legislation for MCYS as to what constitute "other difficulties".

At the moment, there is much concern over the way in which charity money is spent by those in whose hands lies the responsibility of spending. In the case of welfare assistance, if one were to look at it, it would be easy to give a proper explanation of it, so long as we are able to show that the money was given to the poor or is used to help those who are in difficulty. If we did that at the grassroots level and even at the Government level, one could not be faulted. However, if we did that, are we being honest with ourselves in the way we want to help those in need? This attitude seems synonymous with a person just continually giving small sums of money to those who see him and send him away without actually applying his mind as to

how welfare recipients can properly be helped to be financially independent in the longer term. We have heard the common and popular saying that we do not just want to give him fish which is good only for the day but rather teach him to fish so that he will have fish for a lifetime.

I have no doubt that the objective of the ComCare Fund is to enable families and those in need to look after themselves. However, if we are not careful, we could fall into the trap of just giving the fish and not teaching the recipient to fish. The $500 million - and subsequently $1 billion - is a fairly substantial sum to be giving away over a period of time. What would be remiss on our part would be to give away the money without being in a position to determine for ourselves just how effective the giving has been to those in need, whether overall the quality and conditions of our general poor and needy have improved over a period of time. In other words, we need to develop a proper measure of effectiveness and framework of accountability for the ComCare Fund programme overall, and I hope that the Government will come up with one in due course.

Sir, finally, it would be wrong of me, as Chairman of the GPC for MCYS, not to register my deep appreciation and thanks to the Government, in particular the Prime Minister, for sincerely trying to help the poor and needy in Singapore. When I think of the Fund, I can think of the family in my constituency whose father is a dialysis patient, mother is diagnosed with cancer, both of whom are not working and with a child in primary school. The money from the Fund would go a long way for them. I can also think of the family I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. At least, as their MP, I can give them the assurance that their father, who is in his late 60s, does not have to worry

about having to go out to work so that he can support his two sons who are mentally unwell.

Sir, there are many more families that I am sure each of my colleagues in this House can recall. For each family, the ComCare Fund will provide some relief and help to help carry a part of that burden. In doing so, we are telling fellow Singaporeans that this Government cares for them and is prepared to walk the talk with them, unlike so many other countries that we know of.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Sir, before I begin, let me declare my interest as the Mayor of South West District and also a member of the ComCare Supervisory Committee.

Sir, the establishment of the ComCare Fund could not have come too soon. Back in 2000, a study by the Department of Statistics showed that income disparity began to increase in 1999, a significant departure from earlier periods when household income distribution remained relatively unchanged. This increase in income disparity stemmed from an increase in the number of households in the lower income brackets. That was the start of an ominous trend.

Two recent surveys by the Department of Statistics and the HDB have confirmed this observation. Both surveys showed that income for the bottom 20% of households fell in the last few years even as overall average incomes went up.

Yet another aspect of the seriousness of this situation came from MOM's recently-released job employment statistics. The latest figures show that whilst the job creation rate for the first half of this year hit a four and a half year high of 49,600 new jobs added compared

to 24,600 for the same period last year, the jobless rate of workers aged 40 years and above and with below secondary education actually increased from 5.9% to 6.8% in the 12-month period ending June.

The widening income gap, if not managed, has serious social repercussions and will lead to increasing tension between the have lots and the have nots. The setting up of the ComCare Endowment Fund to provide assistance to the lowest income groups so that no needy child, elderly poor or disabled would be left without community care and support indicates the Government's recognition of the seriousness of this issue.

From the perspective of a Government that has hitherto religiously shunned any semblance of welfarism, it also signals an acceptance that many more Singaporeans than before need assistance, whether on a short-term or longer-term basis.

I would like to comment on four key features of the ComCare Fund and the considerations that ought to be taken into account in its implementation.

Firstly, the independence of the ComCare Budget and topping up of the ComCare Endowment Fund.

The key intent of the ComCare Fund, to dispense help to the less

fortunate and assist them to become self-reliant again without breeding a crutch or entitlement mentality and to delink the funds needed for social assistance from the Government's budget, is a practical and sensible arrangement.

This is also in contrast to the social assistance schemes of many other countries, who have depleted their treasuries or led to high income taxes due to well-meaning but poorly structured welfare schemes which are open to abuse.

As the Minister earlier noted, the setting up of the ComCare Endowment Fund, as an independent fund, means that this amount is sheltered from any adverse fluctuations of the economy. Other programmes may be cut during periods of economic downturn, but it is precisely during such difficult times that poorer households need the most help. This is yet another acknowledgement by the Government of the need to have more sustained and focused efforts to help our less fortunate.

Going forward, and as provided for in the Bill, the Government should consider topping up this Endowment Fund whenever the economy permits, even after the initial target of $1 billion is reached. Since the fund's namesake is "ComCare", or short form for Community Care, the community could also be roped in to raise funds to enlarge the sum available for rendering social assistance. This way, the community would truly feel a part of this movement to allow itself to help the less able in its midst. In this respect, the Government should work with NCSS to rationalise such fund-raising efforts from individuals and corporates so as not to generate donor fatigue.

Periodic augmentation of the fund is necessary to take into account inflation, depletion of incomes or reduction in returns from a weak investment environment, long term increases in the cost of living and the likelihood that the needs of the less fortunate segment of our population could increase in the future, in view of our rapidly ageing population and the persistence of structural unemployment.

Secondly, constant monitoring and review of qualifying criteria for social assistance schemes. The Government should also regularly review the qualifying criteria for many of the national social

assistance schemes, chief of which would be the cut-off monthly income or per capita, which is currently at $1,500 per month or $450 per capita for most schemes. Already, there are not an insignificant number of feedback and appeals for various social assistance schemes to be extended to those with household incomes of more than $1,500 or per capita of more than $450 per month, as there are households with incomes above this level who are genuinely struggling to make ends meet.

A unique feature of the ComCare Fund is allowing for a "flexible" fund component to be administered by the ground, ie, at the grassroots level. This "flexible" ComCare Fund is to allow the grassroots, who know and understand the needs of the residents more intimately, to render more timely "stop-gap" assistance before referring the cases to the CDCs for more detailed evaluation and assistance. It also allows the grassroots to help those who may not qualify under the existing national schemes administered by the CDCs on behalf of the relevant Government agencies, but who are in genuine need of help.

At the present moment, those who fall outside the key qualifying criteria may be assisted, but on a case-by-case and piecemeal basis. But the Government should undertake regular evaluation and studies to determine if the income ceiling or per capita for the schemes, for instance, should be raised due to rising costs, and so on.

In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how the key qualifying criteria, such as the income ceiling for the various national schemes, are determined, and if a systematic review mechanism is already in place to monitor the relevance, effectiveness and appropriateness of

these schemes and their main qualifying criteria.

If not, would the Minister be setting up a proper review mechanism as well as conduct studies to monitor and evaluate these schemes? One suggestion would be to peg the criteria to, say, the Consumer Price Index of the lowest 20 percentile of households.

Thirdly, welfare and workfare. The Government has recently identified "workfare" and not "welfare" as a strategy to help low income workers so as to preserve the strong work ethic that has prevailed and avoid breeding a welfare dependency syndrome. It wants to send the message that work is the best way to assist people. Hence, the Government will render assistance, but only if these low wage workers make the effort to find and keep jobs and upgrade their skills to earn more.

The Minister for Manpower, Dr Ng Eng Hen, who chairs the Ministerial Committee on Low Wage Workers, noted that only those who really cannot work and do not have family support will get welfare. He also said that ComCare will continue to serve as a safety net for those who are truly needy but physically and mentally incapable of work.

Sir, it is hard to argue against the philosophy underlying the workfare strategy and I must say that I fully endorse this more targeted and sustainable approach to helping the low income families.

Nonetheless, I feel that there are instances where the welfare component of workfare, for it is undeniable that there is a welfare component, may play a more important role and could need greater expansion in scope than what is currently available. For instance, there are groups of people who face genuine constraints in skills upgrading, thus seriously limiting

their ability to earn more. These could be, amongst others, some of the disabled and educationally sub-normal who, even if they can find work, cannot earn enough for a decent living. Secondly, those with psychiatric problems and have been past patients of the IMH and who have extreme difficulty finding work, as well as, thirdly, single parents and families where it is not possible for both parents to work for various genuine reasons, like inability to find affordable and appropriate childcare, and so on. There are compelling reasons for such groups to receive longer term welfare as it could take some time, if at all possible, before they can become self-reliant.

Currently, social assistance schemes provided under ComCare are available generally on a short-term basis and reviewed every three months, as my colleague, Mr Sin Boon Ann, has noted earlier. However, the circumstances of the foregoing groups of people are unlikely to change after three months or, for that matter, three years. Consequently, longer term financial assistance would be more relevant for them.

Whilst the recent announcement of a CPF top-up for low income families to help them own their HDB flat is useful, the more urgent need for many poor families is actually to provide for the basic needs of their family, such as food on the table, paying their utility bills, etc.

Such assistance schemes could be reviewed on a longer term basis, say, on a yearly basis, for this group of people. I therefore feel that whilst we want to avoid a crutch mentality, there is a need to also look at some expansion of the welfare scheme to embrace those who are in genuine need and are unlikely to become self-reliant in the short to medium term.

Hence, the assistance schemes offered under workfare should be carefully

considered and packaged to synergise and/or dovetail with the help provided under the ComCare to avoid confusion and waste. We would also need to allow for some flexibility in the implementation of these workfare schemes.