Hansard, 2007-11-12

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 (2008) To (2007) Mr Gan Kim Yong 28 Oct 02 Nov 03 Nov 09 Nov Mr S Iswaran 29 Oct 31 Oct 21 Nov 30 Nov Mdm Cynthia Phua 30 Oct 30 Oct 20 Nov 24 Nov Mdm Ho Geok Choo 31 Oct 03 Nov Mr Khaw Boon Wan 31 Oct 02 Nov 17 Nov 19 Nov 08 Dec 23 Dec Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman 31 Oct 02 Nov Mrs Jessie Phua 02 Nov 12 Nov Dr Teo Ho Pin 02 Nov 04 Nov 12 Nov 15 Nov 19 Nov 23 Nov Dr Balaji Sadasivan 03 Nov 11 Nov Mdm Halimah Yacob 04 Nov 11 Nov Dr Lee Boon Yang 04 Nov 10 Nov Mr Mah Bow Tan 04 Nov 07 Nov 30 Nov 02 Dec 03 Dec 05 Dec 09 Dec 17 Dec Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 04 Nov 05 Nov 17 Nov 09 Dec Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee 05 Nov 08 Nov 29 Nov 02 Dec 09 Dec 21 Dec Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 06 Nov 08 Nov 11 Nov 12 Nov Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 06 Nov 07 Nov 20 Nov 24 Nov Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 07 Nov 17 Nov 20 Nov 24 Nov 03 Dec 13 Dec Column: 2479Dr Ong Seh Hong 07 Nov 09 Nov Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 08 Nov 11 Nov Dr Lim Wee Kiak 08 Nov 09 Nov 15 Nov 18 Nov 25 Nov 01 Dec 09 Dec 16 Dec Mr Baey Yam Keng 12 Nov 17 Nov Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 12 Nov 12 Nov 15 Nov 17 Nov Mr Christopher de Souza 12 Nov 18 Nov Mr Goh Chok Tong 12 Nov 15 Nov Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 12 Nov 13 Nov 22 Nov 25 Nov 26 Nov 29 Nov Mr Siew Kum Hong 12 Nov 17 Nov Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 13 Nov 17 Nov Mr Lee Kuan Yew 14 Nov 17 Nov Mr Lim Swee Say 14 Nov 17 Nov Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 16 Nov 17 Nov 21 Dec 24 Dec Mr Heng Chee How 17 Nov 18 Nov 25 Nov 02 Dec Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 17 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov 02 Dec Mr Inderjit Singh 19 Nov 01 Dec Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 19 Nov 25 Nov Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 21 Nov 23 Nov Mr Wong Kan Seng 22 Nov 27 Nov 06 Dec 11 Dec 26 Dec 01 Jan Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 25 Nov 30 Nov 03 Dec 04 Dec Mr Seah Kian Peng 27 Nov 08 Dec Mr Teo Chee Hean 27 Nov 30 Nov Dr Lam Pin Min 20 Dec 23 Dec Mr Wee Siew Kim 27 Dec 29 Dec

Dr Ong Seh Hong

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

6th November,2007 (1) Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Bill (2) Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Bill (3) Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (4) Education Endowment Scheme (Amendment No. 2) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry is monitoring (i) the increase in prices of food items, such as flour and chicken, and how will this affect consumers; and (ii) the impact of rising inflation on the cost of living.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the increase in the cost of living, particularly food and milk prices, is a cause for concern; and (b) to what extent (i) has the hike in GST contributed to the increase and (ii) have the GST rebates mitigated the effects of the increase.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I

have your permission to answer Question Nos. 1 and 2 together?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, inflation in Singapore is on a slightly rising trend. In the third quarter of 2007, the consumer price index (CPI) rose by 2.7% year-on-year, compared to 1.0% in the second quarter and 0.5% in the first quarter. This reflects mainly higher food prices and the one-off effect of the increase in GST in July this year.

The price of food, which is the largest component in the CPI basket, rose by 3.3% year-on-year in the third quarter. However, this third quarter figure does not yet include the most recent increases in the prices of flour and chicken.

Food prices have risen mainly due to dearer imports, arising from disruptions in supply in some of our major food import sources. Adverse weather conditions in Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia have reduced crop yield and supply, raising prices of rice and cereals, vegetables and dairy products. These supply disruptions have occurred against a backdrop of increased global demand for agricultural products, fuelled by rising living standards in emerging economies and higher bio-fuel production.

Diversifying our food supply sources is one way we can reduce our vulnerability to such supply disruptions and maintain more stable food prices. However, diversification cannot protect us against a worldwide increase in food prices, such as is happening now.

The current uptick in inflation is a global phenomenon. In recent months, rapidly growing economies such as China and India as well as the developed economies, such as those in Europe, have experienced higher inflation. This is mostly due to higher food prices and

energy costs. Oil prices have reached historical highs in recent months, reflecting strong global demand, a relatively tight supply and low global inventories of oil.

The rise in CPI inflation in Singapore has also reflected the impact of the GST increase. This was a one-off event that occurred when the GST was raised on 1st July 2007. On a month-on-month basis, overall CPI has reverted back within the range recorded in months before the GST increase. It increased by 0.3% in August 2007 and fell 0.3% in September 2007. But because of the way the CPI is calculated, the GST increase will continue to show up in higher CPI inflation figures for 12 months until June 2008, though to diminishing extents. More importantly, unlike food import prices, the GST increase has had only a limited impact on basic food prices as the major supermarket chains have been absorbing the GST increase for basic food items.

To mitigate the impact of the GST increase on the cost of living, the Government introduced the GST Offset Package earlier this year. The GST Offset Package will more than offset the impact of the higher GST on lower-income families. Middle-income Singaporeans have also enjoyed substantial benefits such as GST credits, utilities and rental rebates.

The pick-up in inflation in Singapore should also be viewed from the perspective of our rapid economic growth over the last three years. GDP has grown by more than 6.0% on average since 2003. Growth has also been broad-based, across all sectors of the economy. Wages have also been growing, especially last year and this year. Against this backdrop, we should not be surprised to see inflation rise above the unusually low levels seen in recent years.

We should also be wary of interpreting a rise in the headline CPI as necessarily

reflecting an increase in the cost of living. First, the CPI measures average changes in prices across all households. Whether there is an increase in the cost of living for a particular household depends on that household's spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI.

Second, an increase in the CPI can sometimes reflect technical factors rather than an actual increase in prices faced by consumers. Take, for instance, the revision in annual value of HDB flats announced by IRAS this morning. The adjustment in annual values will translate into a notional increase in imputed rentals of owner-occupied HDB flats, and hence raise the CPI in the coming months. But as HDB flat owners do not pay rentals on the flats they own, they will not experience higher inflation as a result of this revision in annual values.

One important way the Government helps to keep inflation low in Singapore is through our monetary policy, ie, the policy on the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar. In recent years, MAS has been maintaining the exchange rate on a modest and gradually appreciating path. This strengthening Singapore dollar has helped to reduce imported inflation. If we had pursued a different exchange rate policy, such as one pegging our Singapore dollar to the US dollar, Singaporeans would have experienced higher inflation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's overall inflation is rising but is still low by international standards and in the context of the healthy growth in incomes that we have seen in recent years. The Government will continue to keep a tight watch to ensure that inflation remains low.

Sir, two supplementary questions. Some economists have said that the CPI might still

have understated the real inflationary pressures with the full effect yet to be filtered into consumer pricing. Another economist has also projected that inflation will hit 4% in the first half of next year. Can I have the Minister's comments on this, please?

Second, if inflation continues to rise, will there be other measures that the Government will put in place to help the vulnerable people such as the low-income and the elderly to cope with the cost of living?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained in my answer earlier, our CPI has been low for the first quarter and second quarter this year. The first quarter was 0.5% and the second quarter was 1%. It rose to 2.7% in the third quarter, and we expect the fourth quarter to be around 2.7% or even slightly higher. We expect the first quarter of next year to reach the peak of between 4% and maybe even 5%. This is because of the base effects of the first quarter of 2007 where we had very low transport CPI because of the changes that we made in our transport policies. We had low oil prices because in January/February 2007, oil prices were around US$50. By the end of this year and next year, we expect oil prices to be within US$90 or so and also because the effect of the GST increase continues on, as I mentioned, up to June 2008.

We are aware that the headline CPI numbers will show an upward trend for the fourth quarter and also for the first half of next year. But we expect the trends to revert back to more normal conditions in the second half of next year. But even so, we expect the 2008 CPI numbers to be averaging around 3%. It will be higher than what we have been experiencing in the last few years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier the

Minister mentioned that diversification of our food supply sources is one way to stabilise food prices. I wonder if he could elaborate on whether the Government is looking at other sources of supply that we have not hitherto tapped on and what are these sources, and whether there is a chance that this will help us to stabilise food prices. Secondly, have we fully exhausted our potential for local production of food?

Diversification of our supply sources is a general strategy, especially for food. Take, for example, the most recent increases in the third quarter where we saw a big increase in vegetable prices. This is largely because of the supply conditions in Malaysia and Indonesia. Obviously, if we can widen our sources of vegetable supplies to Thailand and China, this of course would mitigate the local supply disruptions that we face from Malaysia and Indonesia.

On the other hand, if there is a worldwide increase in prices, for example, in corn feed, you will expect chicken prices to go up. Even though we are diversifying our sources of frozen chicken, not just from Australia and the US but also from Brazil - it is a very competitive source for chickens - but because of the worldwide increase in corn feed, we will expect even frozen chicken prices to go up. There is a certain extent that we can go in diversifying when it helps to mitigate local disruptions but, if it is a worldwide increase, I am afraid that we do not have that cushion.

Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. First of all, does the Minister see any impact on our competitiveness as far as businesses are concerned? Is inflation on the general cost increases affecting our ability to attract investors in the long run? Second, what is it that is going to happen that is going to make the second half inflation

come down, according to the Minister's forecast?

We are tracking our competitiveness position very closely and, so far, we are in quite a good position for several reasons. First, as I explained earlier, our inflation rate, even though it is higher than what we have been experiencing, is still lower than in other countries. In that sense, comparatively, we are still better off.

Second, even though wages had gone up last year, particularly the first three quarters of this year, we must see wages in the context of the last five to seven years where wages had not gone up so rapidly. So I do not think we should begrudge our workers for having their fair share of a wage increase in the last two years if we look at the broader 5-7 years' timeframe. But, more importantly, it is the productivity that we have been able to achieve. In the end, we have to look at the unit labour cost and not just wage increase. If we track the unit labour cost, we are still relatively well-off. We are watching these numbers closely but, right now, it has not affected our competitive position.

The reason why we estimate that inflation will tail down in the second half of next year is because of the base effects that I explained earlier. First, we had the GST increase which will continue, in technical terms, to be reflected in the CPI up to June 2008. So in the second half of next year, the effect of the GST increase will be worn off. Second, we had the transport effect. Some of the adjustments to our road tax and the various costs of owning cars resulted in low inflation in 2007 and, in 2008, because of the base effects, we will see a blip in the number. Third, of course, is the oil prices. If we look at the oil prices this year, there was a sharp downturn where oil prices dropped to between US$50 and US$60 in the first part of this year but, in the

second half, it has picked up. So, next year, again based on base effects, we expect to see the CPI being higher. But we expect the base effects to be washed out by the second half of next year.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. May I ask the Minister whether the Singapore dollar should be allowed to appreciate further to mitigate the rising cost of living and how would this affect the export business cost under the local tourism industry? Secondly, should the CPI have a sub-component based on food and public transport - the two major expenditures of the lower income group - to better reflect the impact of inflation on this group?

Sir, as I explained in my answer, the MAS has been adopting an exchange rate policy that allows the Singapore dollar to appreciate gradually and modestly since April last year, and therefore it has helped us, because of the strengthening of the Singapore dollar, to reduce imported inflation. Again, in October this year, the MAS, in looking at the exchange rate policy, decided to allow the gradual and modest appreciation of the Singapore dollar at a slightly faster rate. So we are allowing the Singapore dollar to appreciate a bit more and this, of course, means that we have a better buffer against imported inflation. But as Dr Lily Neo has mentioned, the trade-off is, of course, we have to watch our export competitiveness, not just in terms of the tourism industry but, overall, in our exports. So this is the trade-off and the balance that we have to do.

The composition of the CPI is reflected in fairly great detail. In fact, in the basket that we use to compute the CPI, food constitutes 23%, and there is a very detailed breakdown of uncooked food, cooked food, etc. It is a very detailed

breakdown of what constitutes that 23% of food within the CPI basket.

Similarly, transport is the second biggest item - around 21%-22%. And in that transport component, we break it down further into public transport, private transport and the different impact of the different components. So it is very detailed.

More importantly, I am sure Members will remember that we also measure the CPI affecting different income levels - the bottom 20%, the top 20% and the middle 60%. So we have a better feel of how the CPI affects the different groups of Singaporeans.

3. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) to provide an update on the impact of the recent withdrawal of the deferred payment scheme to manage the rising property prices; and (b) what other instruments will be considered by the Ministry to constantly review the property market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deferred Payment Scheme (DPS) was introduced in 1997. If Members will recall, that was at a time when the economy was in recession and the property market was in the doldrums. It is no longer relevant given the strong property market conditions today.

As the DPS was withdrawn only on 26th October 2007 - slightly over two weeks ago - it is too early to ascertain the overall impact of the withdrawal. However, I believe that, over time, the withdrawal of the DPS will encourage home-buyers to be more financially prudent, and dampen some of the speculative

activities in the market. The withdrawal of the DPS should not unduly affect genuine home-buyers as they should be able to obtain home loans from banks.

In the longer term, the withdrawal of the DPS will encourage the property market to grow in a more healthy and sustained manner.

The Government will continue to closely monitor the property market to ensure that our prices are supported by economic fundamentals. In addition, the Government will ensure that there is sufficient supply to meet the demand for private housing. There is no need and we are not considering any new measure for the property market at the moment.

Sir, three supplementary questions for the Minister. First, I would like to ask the Minister: through what means would the Ministry be considering the supply of properties to be increased? Second, whether MND would influence other agencies through fiscal policies, such as perhaps raising the reserve ratio or interest rates in response to managing the rising property prices in Singapore? Third, what specific plans does the Ministry have in the next three years to ease the rising property prices in Singapore?

Sir, first of all, on the supply, there are two ways that supply comes into the market. One, of course, is from the private developers and, two, through Government land sales. Private developers would have to decide based on the land banking that they have undertaken, how much land to release and when. The Government land sales (GLS) programme is conducted twice a year. Every six months, we review the demand/supply situation and we put out a slate of lands for sale under the GLS, on the reserve list as well as on the confirmed list. For example, in the second half 2007 GLS programme that was announced not too long ago, we put up

20 new sites just for private residential development alone, and these 20 new sites would yield something like 8,000 units, including EC sites. So, if there is a necessity and if demand continues to be strong, we will be prepared to release even more sites in the first half 2008 GLS programme.

Of course, we have to be mindful that we take not just a short term but also a medium and a longer term view of the market. We must therefore be mindful that we do not also create an over supply situation in the longer term.

Let me also remind Singaporeans that the stock of private residential units in the pipeline is not insignificant. As at the end of the third quarter 2007, there was a supply in the pipeline of about 65,000 units and this, in fact, was higher than the supply in the pipeline as at the end of the second quarter of about 56,000 units. Of the 65,000 units that are in the pipeline, either being built or with planning permission to build - in other words, the developers have already applied to build these units - approximately two-thirds of the 65,000 units, or around 40,000 units, are likely to be built and made available over the next three years. If Singaporeans are aware of these figures - and these are the numbers that we put out regularly and constantly - there is really no reason for Singaporeans to panic and to feel that there is a real shortage in the medium term.

Mdm Ho asked what is going to happen in the next three years, whether we are going to ease property prices. First of all, we make known what is the supply situation as far as we can see - what has been committed for building, what is likely to be built. We also put out information like how much land is going to be made available for the private sector to bid for. And, cumulatively, we hope to build up a store of information, of knowledge among the community, so that

people will make informed decisions about purchases of property, rather than to be swayed by newspaper headlines or by property agents or by friends who are talking around the coffee table.

That is the position that the Government takes. We will provide information on the supply and demand situation. We will put out supply as much as we can, taking into account the medium and long term positions. Our bias is really not to over regulate or to interfere in the market if we have to. We want to make sure that the market grows in a healthy and sustained manner. We monitor the growth rate of the market in relation to the growth of the economy, and we make sure that growth is supported by economic fundamentals. I think that is the right way to go about it, and that is what we intend to do.

Of course, in so far as demand is concerned, if there is excessive speculative demand, then there is really no need for us to encourage it. We may look at ways in which to diminish it, and this is the context in which the decision to withdraw the DPS was taken. The DPS, while necessary 10 years ago in order to encourage people to come into the market, is no longer relevant today.

Mdm Ho also asked whether we will talk to the other agencies, like the MAS, to see how we can influence property prices. The various Government agencies do get together and we monitor the market very closely. And if there is a need for us to act, obviously, we would take the necessary measures. But, as I said in my reply, at this point in time, there is no need and there is no intention for us to take any further action.

Sir, the Minister has given us very elaborate details of private housing. I would like to

ask the Minister that in view of the property market now, what is the status of the new supply of HDB flats in the next three years. Because a lot of newly-wed couples are coming to see us and saying that they find difficulty in getting new flats.

Sir, in the same way that we are monitoring the private housing market, we are also monitoring the public housing market. And we will similarly make sure that there is sufficient supply coming on stream in terms of public housing. But having said that, I must also caution that it is not a good idea for us to be building new HDB flats in order to cater for all the demand that is coming on stream.

Let me explain. Part of the demand that is coming on stream from newly-wed couples, for example, should rightly be met not only by new flats but also by going into the resale market. If we were to build only new flats in order to cater to this demand, then we are building up an over supply situation in the long term. Because, one day, there will be a need for these couples to sell off for whatever reason. Then there would be an over supply situation if we are not careful. So there is a need for us to balance - whether it is private housing or public housing - the supply/demand situation, not just in the immediate term but also in the longer term.

If the Member will recall, when we were building new flats to cater for demand, there was a lot of pressure for us to build new flats as there was a long queue by first-timers as well as second-timers. When we did so, eventually, when the market turned, what happened? The queue disappeared and we ended up with a stock of unsold flats, which took HDB many years to clear. So we have to learn a lesson from this. We have to make sure that when we build new flats, we take into account the longer term demand

situation, and we also take into account the fact that one day, there will be a turnover of flats. But, just to assure the Member, yes, we are ramping up the new flat building programme. In fact, we have already announced that we are going to ramp up the programme very sharply this year and next year. But, at the same time, we have also made it very clear that this is not going to meet the demand from every single newly-wed couple wanting to own a flat, particularly when they want to own a flat in a desirable location. This is where we have to continue to educate our flat buyers.

What is the number that will be built?

For this year, under the BTO programme, we have announced that we are going to add another 4,000 units from now onwards to the middle of next year, which is much higher than the building programme that we have been undertaking up to now.

Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister. I think the HDB will definitely have the number of newly-weds who are actually waiting for their flats. By meeting their demand, I do not see how the HDB will over build and end up with a demand/supply problem.

Mr Speaker, if every newly-wed couple bought a flat and stay there for the rest of their life, I do not think that would be an issue. But you and I know that that is not the case. After they have bought it, they would want to sell, they would want to downgrade or upgrade, and when their family grows big, they want to split up, and so on. At the same time, as there are new flats coming on stream under the HDB building programme, there are also resale flats in the market. We have 850,000 HDB flats in Singapore. Every year, some of these 850,000 flats are up for sale in the market. Some of this supply is being

taken up by new flat owners, not just simply because there are no new flats available. Some of the resale flats are much more attractive partly because of their location, timing, size or for whatever reason.

So there are two ways for us to supply the newly-weds and, also, the second-timers. One is through new flats and the other is through the resale flat market. Our position is that we should continue to provide some new flats for the newly-weds but we should at the same time encourage them to also look at the resale market.

4. Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for National Development what are the relevant criteria used in determining the site for funeral parlours and, in particular, whether they should more appropriately be located in industrial or other areas away from housing estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first explain the need for purpose-built funeral parlours. Today, the majority of funeral wakes are held at temporary premises such as HDB void decks or in tentages along streets and in car parks. These wakes cause noise pollution, traffic congestion and other disturbances to residents living in the area. With a fast ageing population, the demand for funeral services is expected to increase.

We can learn from other major Asian cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo in this area. They have purpose-built funeral parlours that are well designed and regulated to minimise nuisance to surrounding residents. Hence, these funeral parlours can be situated in accessible locations,

such as in mixed residential/commercial and industrial areas or at the fringes of new towns.

The Government plans to introduce such purpose-built funeral parlours in Singapore. In considering where to site such a funeral parlour, our key considerations are accessibility and minimising disturbances to residents. On the one hand, the site should not be so remote as to be inaccessible to bereaved families and visitors. An inaccessible location can also make the funeral parlour non-viable. On the other hand, the site should be sensitive to the needs of the various stakeholders and, where possible, minimise disamenities to the area.

We have identified the Sin Ming site for such a purpose-built funeral parlour for a few reasons. It is located within an industrial estate and the access to the funeral parlour will not be taken through residential areas but through the industrial estate. On the other hand, it is still accessible to the public as it is centrally located, and there is convenient public transport access to the area.

My Ministry is mindful of the concerns of residents in the area. We have engaged the hon. Member (Mr Hri Kumar), Thomson CCC, Sin Ming Court and Sin Ming Garden grassroots leaders throughout the process of planning.

Mr Hri Kumar and the grassroots leaders have conveyed to us the concerns of the residents and have given us many useful feedback and suggestions. We are giving their feedback and suggestions serious consideration. For instance, we have brought forward the development plan of the adjacent industrial site so that it will serve as an effective buffer between the funeral parlour site and the nearest residential areas and school. We

will not commence development of the funeral parlour until after the industrial site is developed. Taking into consideration the feedback from the stakeholders, we have also shifted the proposed site further away from the nearest residential areas. We are increasing the provision for car parking lots. The tender conditions for the proposed funeral parlour development will also impose the necessary mitigating measures, to ensure that concerns of disturbances can be adequately addressed. These conditions include requiring fully enclosed and air-conditioned premises, with all activities confined indoors to ensure privacy and minimise noise pollution; allowing only indoor incense burning facilities and processions within the premises and screening off all services and activities from public view through design and use of landscaping within the premises.

Finally, let me assure the Member that all necessary measures will be put in place to reduce disturbances as much as possible, before we proceed with the development. We are still studying the feedback received, and I hope that the stakeholders can continue to work together with the Government towards a constructive solution in the overall interest of Singapore.

Sir, the Sin Ming area is already populated by funeral parlours and places of worship. There are concerns by residents that it is now being earmarked as a "hub" for such activities. May I know from the MOS whether more parlours will be built in the Sin Ming area? In addition, there is a concern that the new parlour will attract businesses into the industrial area which are ancillary to the parlour business, therefore entrenching such trades in Sin Ming and reinforcing the perception that it will become a hub. May I know from the MOS how the Ministry proposes to deal with this?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. First of all, let me assure the Member that there is no plan to develop Sin Ming as a funeral parlour hub. We are piloting a purpose-built funeral parlour and if that proves to be popular, we will consider building more such facilities in other locations where there is demand to serve residents in other parts of the country.

As to the question about whether they will be attracting ancillary services, let me assure the Member that funeral parlour services such as embalming, prayers, rituals and rites, and so on, are strictly not allowed in any industrial building. They are classified under a different land use and, therefore, subject to tighter controls due to potential disamenities that they introduce. So, there is no question that the industrial site will be attracting such ancillary services.

Let me just say that, at the moment, we will look at the situation, particularly, as I have said earlier on, we have decided to delay the development of the funeral parlour until the industrial site is developed. Until then, we will be happy to receive feedback as to how we can address the concerns of the residents further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MOS said that accessibility is one of the considerations. But I just wonder how often do people have to go to a funeral parlour, like they have to go to a shopping centre, cinema or sports complex, that makes accessibility so important. Also, I would like to know how many feedback or complaints MND receives from residents regarding the noise and disturbance from void deck wakes. Because, as an MP, I seldom receive such a complaint and I realise that it has more or less become part of Singaporeans' life and culture.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Accessibility is, indeed, an important consideration because we have also received feedback from funeral parlour operators that they do consider accessibility as an issue. And also from our perspective and understanding, right now, many of the wakes are actually conducted, as the Member said, at the void decks, on the streets as well as public roads. In view of a potential increase in such wakes in our country, we are basically taking a view about what we need to do for the future.

Right now, we have a model that we think is probably a better alternative - a model that basically puts a purpose-built funeral parlour where all the services are put together, it is air-conditioned, it is held indoor. We have all the conditions that we have thought through, including not allowing procession to be carried on the street, allowing incense only to be burnt indoor and with air pollution control measures. So, we believe that the traditional rite and ritual funeral wakes can actually be carried out in an environment that is more controlled and cleaner, and it is probably quieter for everybody in that environment. This is something that we are planning for the future. We have seen better alternatives of funeral parlours in other countries. I think it is only right for us to consider these models for a very small country like Singapore where we are living close by to one another. It may not be an immediate issue as we do not receive many complaints. But, I think, it is an issue that we need to deal with in the longer term. As I said, we have already decided to delay the funeral parlour construction until a time when the industrial site is developed, and we will take into consideration issues that have been raised by residents.

I would just like to say that although the issue about complaints may not be a

very critical one at the moment, but we do receive complaints from residents.

5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average payment per claim under MediShield, after the MediShield reforms were initiated, and how does this compare with the period before the MediShield reforms; and (b) in light of the announcement that further changes will be made to MediShield, when will these changes be implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we reformed the MediShield in July 2005, which is almost two years ago. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked about the average payout per claim before and after the reform. For basic MediShield which covers class B2/C hospitalisation, the average payout has increased from $837 per claim to $1,274, an increase of more than 50%.

More importantly, the reform has enabled us to return MediShield to its original objective of covering large hospital bills. Basic MediShield now covers about 60% of class B2/C bills above $10,000, up from about 40% pre-reform. The average payout for such large bills has risen to $9,800 per claim from $7,300 pre-reform.

My objective is to reduce the burden on patients with large bills further, from 40% to about 20%, if it is possible. This will require an increase in premium but we will see if the required increase can remain affordable. The actuarial computations are ongoing and I hope to finalise the details by early next year so that we can bring about the next round of improvements to MediShield during 2008.

May I ask the Minister whether there will also be a review of the amount of deductible, because the amount of deductible was increased at the last review? There is some feedback that the amount of deductible seems to be high. Will that also be reviewed by the Minister?

Yes, deductible will be part of the review. My own view is that the deductible for the Basic MediShield for class B2/C, which is $1,500 and $1,000 respectively, is probably about the right level. But I have some views on the deductible for the enhanced MediShield, which I purposely set it a bit high at $3,000 because I was not sure then. But looking at the data the last few months, it suggests that maybe there is some scope to reduce that deductible perhaps by about $500. But we will settle the details early next year.

6. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether MediShield is self-funded by the Central Provident Fund; and (b) how much will it cost to enable families to cover special needs children (i) born with congenital or pre-existing illnesses and (ii) attending special schools, to allow them to enjoy the same health insurance coverage as normal children.

Sir, Basic MediShield and the enhanced rider plans offered by private insurers are all self-funded. In other words, the premiums collected from policyholders must more than cover the anticipated payouts claimed by patients. For the plans to be sustainable, premiums are determined on an actuarially-sound basis.

Persons with congenital illnesses can join MediShield to obtain coverage for

medical treatment that is not related to their congenital condition. However, it will be unusual for insurers to cover pre-existing illnesses or to cover treatment related to known congenital conditions. To do so will be to load the burden on the rest of the policyholders who may not support a manifold increase in premiums to take on this additional liability. More importantly, if MediShield were to cover pre-existing illnesses, it will encourage potential policyholders to delay subscription until they are sick. This will defeat the whole principle of insurance which is based on the sharing of burden among policyholders with similar risk profile.

Nevertheless, some private insurers do offer cash benefit products which pay lump sum amounts if a baby is diagnosed with specific congenital anomalies. They include the Prudential PruSmart Lady's Maternity Rider, HSBC Lady FirstCare, and NTUC i-Maternity. Subscription to these products must of course be made prior to the discovery of any known congenital anomaly.

As for children attending special schools or with special needs, the basis of coverage is the same as the basis for other children, that is, they should be healthy at the point of entry and have no pre-existing illnesses. We therefore encourage all parents, including those who have children with special needs, to cover them under MediShield as soon as possible, before they develop any other illnesses that could disqualify them in future.

Families do not ask to bear special needs children. Many of them have defects probably before they are born. They are also sons and daughters of Singapore. So when congenital or pre-existing medical conditions are excluded, families have to pay lump sum expenses themselves. This is especially hardship for the low-income

and even average-income families. I would like to ask if, since MediShield itself is administered by CPF, the Minister would consider studying having MediShield include pre-existing or congenital conditions for these children up to, say, a maximum claim limit of $200,000, which is the current MediShield limit. And if there is a need for extra loading, then perhaps those who can afford can pay themselves. But the Government can do something for those who cannot afford. So I would like to ask the Minister to consider this.

Sir, I am sympathetic to those parents - a small minority of parents - with children born with such congenital difficulties. About three years ago, I had in fact asked our actuaries and consultants to take a look at how much would this additional burden be because if it is quite inexpensive to load onto the rest of the population, I could try to make a case to let us share this burden. I was hoping that the increase in the premiums on Basic MediShield, if we take on this additional liability, was not too much. Unfortunately, it was a lot. The MediShield premium for a young Singaporean below 30 years of age today, I think, is only $30 a year which is very inexpensive. But if we were to load this liability on - I rely on my memory now - the consultants' recommendation would be something like a seven-fold increase, so from $30 per year to something like more than $200 per year, and even then, it is to limit the payout to just the first year of birth, in other words, before the child hits one year old. That is the difficulty we are faced with. And to load such hefty increase of premiums onto the rest of the population I think it is hard to justify. So we have to look for other means, which is the families themselves, and of course the society. Where they require additional medical treatment, then Medifund can come in, and we can be more helpful by making use of Medifund as a tool. Of course, NGOs, VWOs on

specific causes, if they want to chip in, I think that is certainly welcomed. So I am afraid to load it onto the rest of the population with such hefty increase of premiums, I would find it very difficult to explain and justify.

Thank you, Minister, for the clarification. I am just wondering whether, nationally, the Minister would encourage a scheme where we allow parents who are planning for a family to actually buy the insurance in advance and, in that way, perhaps we could actually reduce the risk for consultants.

I did not quite catch the last few words, but let me try to guess. When I explored this scheme about how to insure financial protection against pregnancy that leads to babies born with congenital difficulties, I was looking at MediShield. But I also asked them to study how to load it onto all pregnancies so that as soon as you discover you are pregnant, buy an insurance policy which would then cover all these eventualities. It is the same old thing. The premium is hefty, and to make it compulsory, it becomes very difficult for us to justify. It was because of those series of enquiries and discussions I had with the private insurers, which led to products which I have just named a while ago, which are offered by NTUC i-Maternity, and so on. Even then, the insurers were careful in not saying that the insurance would then cover all medical treatments. It just says that if the baby is unfortunately born with certain conditions, here is the cash amount which you can claim, and how you spend the money is left to the parents. I will continue to look at the other countries on how they take care of problems like this through the insurance route, but because of our very small market, unfortunately, the situation is what I have just described.

Ms Phua, last question.

Disability covers a whole range of severity from mild to severe. Currently to say a blanket "no" to all special needs is probably fairly superficial. There is a group of volunteers who are willing to study together with the Ministry of Health to see if we can segregate or, at least, categorise different disability groups to see if there are some ways that we can help at least the lower and average-income group families cover this medical cost. To ask the VWOs to find some more funds will be quite difficult to bear.

Certainly, we will be most happy to work with any groups to help resolve the problem. But let me reiterate that not all babies born with special needs are not insurable. As I have explained very clearly just now, let us say, an autistic child, why should an autistic child not be insurable by MediShield? I asked CPF yesterday and they confirmed the policy. They will not cover conditions related to a congenital condition. Insurance will not cover treatment related to a congenital condition. But if you pay the insurance, you can cover for treatments for all the other conditions that may crop up - cough and cold, whatever that may crop up - like any other normal child. So my advice remains: please immediately go and insure your child now and do not wait when he actually falls sick, then you may find the insurance company is not willing to take your case.

7. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is control over the excessive proliferation of cyber/gaming cafes, especially in the heartlands and within close proximity to schools; and (b) whether there are measures to control

children and young persons, particularly students under 16 years of age, from patronising them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Police is aware of the potential problems of easy access by youths to cyber gaming. While computer gaming does not in itself lead to delinquency, ease of accessibility may encourage truancy and affect attitudes of students towards their academic work, which may eventually lead to youth delinquency and crime. Hence, the Police carefully assesses each application to set up a computer gaming establishment looking at the suitability of its location, amongst other criteria, before deciding whether or not to grant a licence.

Sir, the Police does not allow computer gaming establishments to be set up in HDB residential zones where most schools are located. This is because such locations offer high accessibility to youths. Computer gaming establishments are only allowed to be set up at shopping, recreational or commercial centres. This includes HDB town centres, which are part commercial and part residential.

Sir, in addition, licensees of computer gaming centres are required to keep out persons below 16 years of age before 6.30 pm on a school day. Further, the licensee has to ensure that students wearing school uniforms are not admitted into the establishment at any time, and is also not allowed to provide a change of clothes to students.

A breach of any of these licensing conditions is an offence under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. Errant licensees face a penalty of up to $10,000. There is also a demerit points system to help regulate the licensees. Repeat offenders may have their licences suspended or revoked.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how frequent does the Police patrol these establishments to make sure that all the rules and regulations are being complied with, and would the Police be just relying on voluntary compliance of these rules rather than seeking some mandatory compliance, because I think it is known that there has been flouting of these rules and patronising of these establishments by students under 16 years of age.

Sir, it is not a matter of voluntary compliance. These are licensing conditions for which there is the backing of the demerit points system, especially the revocation of licence, if there is any breach. Indeed, one such gaming centre has had its licence revoked because of a breach of these licensing conditions. The other point about patrolling, the Police has many things to do. While in so far that they patrol shopping centres to prevent crimes, they may also ascertain whether any of the conditions has been breached. I think the solution really must be a holistic one, in particular with regard to students being there either in uniform or before 6.30 pm, I think the other stakeholders have a role to play, which is the schools and parents. So I say this is the best way to move forward.

Sir, since the Police has got other things to do, would MHA consider empowering the Volunteer Special Constabulary members to do this patrolling instead, because I am sure they possess certain powers of enforcement?

Like I said, in so far as the students of certain schools may be violating these rules, the schools, together with the Neighbourhood Police Post, can set up, for example, a system where the Operations Manager of the school goes out to these centres. I know that that is happening. For example,

under NYGR, there is a protocol on the ground where the Operations Managers of schools are in touch with the police officers in the Neighbourhood Police Centre to look out for students who may be out of school during school hours playing truancy.

This can be part of the set-up. But I do not think we should have dedicated officers just for the task of seeing whether or not students are in gaming centres during school hours.

8. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Education in view of the proliferation of cyber/gaming cafes, especially in the heartlands and within close proximity to schools, what measures or controls has the Ministry implemented to prevent students from patronising them and/or from becoming obsessed or addicted to cyber gaming and related activities and exhibiting delinquent behaviour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MOE recognises the potential influence cyber activities may have on our students. We have adopted a proactive approach to educate our students on the risks of cyber addictions and on responsible use of the Internet. Schools also actively advise students against frequenting computer games centres or cyber cafes.

In addition, MOE provides a Cyber-wellness Framework to support and guide schools in planning their cyber-wellness programmes. Using this framework, schools plan and implement school-based programmes and instructional materials to suit the needs of their students. These programmes could take the form of assembly talks, workshops or they could

be infused into the curriculum. For example, issues of cyber-wellness and Internet safety are used as contexts in the Civics and Moral Education (CME) lessons where appropriate. In these lessons, teachers are encouraged to use current and real life examples as context for discussion of issues of cyber-wellness and Internet. For example, at Ang Mo Kio Secondary School, topics, such as blogging, Internet gaming and cyber bullying, have been included during the CME lessons. Teachers in the school share strategies and approaches among themselves in dealing with these topics in their classrooms. Their focus is on promoting cyber-wellness and guiding their students in applying good values when using the Internet. MOE is in the process of preparing a cyber-wellness resource kit to complement the schools' efforts.

Other than the Cyber-wellness Framework, schools also use the Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Framework to develop the social and emotional competencies of students. This includes educating students against cyber addictions through exercising self-control over their own behaviour and actions.

Our schools' Full-Time School Counsellors have undergone training on managing addictive behaviour, including cyber addiction. Schools also draw on the support from external agencies and organisations. For example, Touch Community Services, supported by partners such as National Youth Council (NYC) and National Committee on Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation (NYGR), has been conducting cyber-wellness programmes for our schools, as well as for parents. Schools welcome and value the involvement and support of parents to play their part in the prevention of cyber addictions and delinquent behaviours.

MOE will continue to monitor and review the situation and see how we can better support our schools in their efforts

to educate their students on cyber-wellness.

Ms Lee, your next Question.

Sir, can I ask a supplementary question?

You are covering three Ministries over the same issue, Ms Lee.

Yes, I understand that, Sir, and I would like to take this opportunity ---

The last question from you, please.

Yes. Sir, I just want to declare my interest that I am asking this question because a nephew of mine who is only 12 years old is already very much addicted to computer games operated by LAN centres. Because of that, he has also incurred a lot of debts, so to speak. That is why I am asking the question of the three Ministries. And I want to know from the MOE's point of view whether, despite having set up all the wellness programmes, the discipline masters in the schools are empowered to deal with any of the students who are caught in all these LAN centres gaming away during school hours and sometimes within the proximity of the schools as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our schools adopt a variety of approaches. Some schools would use their discipline masters, teachers or even parent volunteers sometimes to visit some of the shopping centres and shopping malls around the school to ensure that their students do not misbehave. Sometimes, they received information and went to check on these cyber centres. Once the students are discovered to have cyber addiction, the schools will usually counsel them and try to understand better the problems that these students face. Sometimes, the issues are not just because of

cyber addiction. There could be many related issues, such as family background, influence by peers as well as other issues like stress, and so on. These are all related issues. So the schools have to take a holistic approach. Through our Full-Time School Counsellors, we take a pro-active approach to counsel these students and find ways to help them. So I would like to encourage Ms Lee to ask her nephew to approach the school. We will work with the school, his parents and families to find different ways to help him. As the circumstances are quite unique in each case, it would be difficult to generalise exactly how we approach the issue. But, in general, we can say that the schools do take a very serious view and, whenever we come across such problems, we will try to take a pro-active approach through our counselling framework, our schools and teachers as well as other partners in this area to extend a helping hand to the family as well as the student involved.

9. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in view of the excessive proliferation of cyber/gaming cafes in the heartlands and within close proximity to schools, what measures are being taken to minimise obsession or addiction by children, youths and students to cyber gaming and related activities at these establishments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while cyber gaming can be an engaging hobby, it is important that young Singaporeans do not become addicted to it and, worse, at the expense of their studies and other

pursuits. To address this issue, my Ministry supports various Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) in their initiatives to help youths, and their parents, take a healthier approach to cyber gaming.

As the Minister of State Mr Gan Kim Yong has mentioned, TOUCH Community Services started Project CRUSH (Cyberspace Risks and where U Seek Help) in 2001 to educate students on cyber-risks and equip them to better manage their time and handle any negative effects of their online experience. Casework and counselling services are also provided for youths who face specific addiction problems, such as addiction to cyber gaming. Since its inception, Project CRUSH has reached out to more than 130,000 secondary school students. Other VWOs, such as Fei Yue Community Services, also provide cyber-wellness and counselling services to youths.

More recently, TOUCH Youth was commissioned by the NYGR and NYC to conduct a series of cyber-wellness workshops in conjunction with the World Cyber Games 2007 to encourage youths to adopt a balanced lifestyle. The workshops, which also targeted parents, provided information on the importance of maintaining a healthy balance between the real and virtual worlds.

We are also helping parents and educators. In 2005, under an initiative by the National Committee on Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation (NYGR), the National Youth Council helped to develop a guidebook for parents, youth developers and educators on the potential online risks faced by young people. The book carries practical tips on how to help young people manage these risks. Copies of the guidebook have also been sent to all primary and secondary schools, tertiary institutions and voluntary welfare organisations. They are also given out to parents during cyber-wellness talks organ-

ised by schools and youth organisations. NYGR has also established a fund to encourage VWOs and Youth Organisations to run cyber-wellness programmes.

Whilst NYGR works with various VWOs and community partners to help our youths strike a healthy balance between cyber gaming and their studies and other pursuits, the role of the family, especially the parents, cannot be over-emphasised. I understand that it is not easy for parents, but they must make the effort to spend time with their children to help them develop good judgement and the right values so that they do not spend excessive time on cyber gaming to their detriment.

The industry is also doing its part to tackle this issue. The Singapore LAN gaming centre association - the Private Network Alliance (PNA) - has made it their responsibility to set up a monitoring system to track the usage of individual customers, and to train staff to identify and counsel customers who seem to spend too much time on gaming.

Global trends indicate that cyber gaming is here to stay. Cyber gaming is, however, not a bad activity in itself. It can help keep youths engaged, encourage creativity, and develop quick thinking skills. But the issue is one of balance and education, so that youths maximise the benefits and manage the risks properly. The solution lies in inculcating in people the right values so that they can exercise discretion and good judgement while enjoying these games and reap the benefits. In this respect, industry players, schools, parents, VWOs and the Government all have their roles to play so that young people can enjoy cyber gaming in a healthy manner.

10. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources

in light of the recent market fire at Ang Mo Kio Street 61 whether the Ministry will consider (i) making fire insurance compulsory for all stallholders who rent stalls from the National Environment Agency; and (ii) building the insurance premium into the rental which stallholders pay for renting their stalls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as landlord, HDB and MEWR will reinstate a market or hawker centre, including the stall structures and all fittings provided by the landlord to tenantable condition in the event of a fire. Stallholders, as tenants, therefore, do not have to take up insurance to cover their rental stalls.

On the other hand, stallholders may decide to buy insurance to cover their own personal belongings, business goods or fixtures installed by them at the stalls. As the subject to be insured concerns the personal belongings of the individual stall tenants, it would not be appropriate for the Government to take out such insurance.

In fact, it is best for each stallholder to decide on the extent of insurance coverage he deems sufficient to cover the value of his goods and belongings. Besides fire insurance for his goods and belongings, a stallholder may consider insuring himself against business loss that may arise from a fire incident.

The Government will not make it compulsory for stallholders to buy their own insurance. However, stallholders are encouraged to be prudent and take up the necessary insurance to cover their own goods, fixtures and belongings against fire.

Sir, the centre at Block 628 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 will be rebuilt and is expected to be ready by 2009. I would

like to commend the good work of the Advisors, Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Wee Siew Kim and Mr Inderjit Singh, the NEA, HDB and the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council in rendering all possible assistance to the affected stallholders at the market and hawker centre. This includes setting up the transitional market within a week of the fire, allocating alternative stalls in other markets and hawker centres, and constructing a temporary market/hawker centre which is expected to be ready by February 2008, so that stallholders can continue to conduct their businesses while the market/hawker centre is being rebuilt.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions and I have vested interests in these because, in the last few years, we have had four market fires in Ang Mo Kio. Each time, we have tried our best to encourage the hawkers to insure. They started off insuring and, then, over the years, they stopped doing it. In this case, about 20% insured. So the question I would like to ask is that, first of all, while they are insured for rebuilding of the new market, they are not insured for building of the temporary market, so the hawkers are going to have to pay for that market. Can the Minister consider insuring at least that portion where we have enough money paid out to build up the temporary market? If the Minister is not willing to consider compulsory insurance, can he maybe consider a scheme where we only renew hawker or market licences if the market stallholders have some basic minimum insurance, just as we do for some other licences that we renew? Perhaps, that may force the hawkers to take up at least basic insurance and then the hardship may be reduced in this manner.

Sir, I think the Member would know that the answer to the second question is no, because we do not renew on the basis of whether or not he has bought insurance.

We renew on the basis of whether he wants to renew his licence and whether he is a first or second generation hawker. As to the temporary market, the policy has always been for a temporary market to be provided by the hawkers themselves, not by the Government. Even under HUP, we do not provide for the temporary market. But in this particular instance, I think NEA has been working very closely with the HDB and the Town Councils to see where we can provide and assist the hawkers in providing the temporary market.

Mr Sin, last question.

Sir, would the Minister be so kind as to enlighten us why the Ministry is not prepared to provide the funds for the temporary market?

Sir, under the HUP, our responsibility is to build and upgrade the existing market. Between the period of the centre being closed and the new centre being built, it is up to the hawkers to decide. This arrangement has been going on for the last few years and most of the hawker centres and markets are able to fend for themselves in providing for temporary centres. In fact, they have done so without any loss of business. So we have done the analysis and we think it is adequate as far as the current arrangements are concerned.

11. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the Professionals Conversion Programme; and (b) how many Professionals, Managers,

Executives and Technicians have benefited from the programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Professionals Conversion Programme (PCP) was launched in April 2007. It is jointly implemented by WDA and NTUC and aims to help 1,000 Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) over two years at a cost of $20 million to the Government. This is done in two ways:

We will help displaced PMETs to take up vacancies available in the market; and

Retrain them in new skills so that they can join growth sectors. The PCP currently offers 12 training programmes in 10 growth sectors, including F&B, Aerospace, Infocomm Technology and Healthcare, just to name a few.

As of end August 2007, some 470 PMETs have completed training and started new jobs. Of these, 377 were Co-Curricular Programme Executives employed by the Ministry of Education (MOE). Another 130 PMETs are currently enrolled in various courses. The PCP has also successfully reached out to mature workers and offered them alternative careers. Approximately one out of four trainees in the PCP is aged 40 years and above. With the improving economic conditions, many workers are able to find jobs on their own. We will continue to monitor the results of the PCP to ensure that it meets the needs of PMETs in career transition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the SPS for the comprehensive answer. In the course of our work as MPs, during the block visits as well as the meet-the-people

sessions, we still frequently come across a group of PMETs who were retrenched in the last five years and have yet to find gainful employment. And for those who are employed, many of them are still under-employed. I would like to ask the SPS, of the new jobs created over the last six months, how many of these new jobs actually belong to this PMET category? Why is the take-up rate for PMETs mainly in the education sector? How about the rest of the sectors? And what is MOM doing to increase the uptake of the PCP?

Sir, PCP aims to help 1,000 PMETs to get suitable jobs for them over a period of two years. As I have said, 470-odd PMETs have been placed and trained. About 130 of them are now undergoing training. So, over a period of two years, we aim to help 1,000 PMETs. These are jobs which are of higher skill. But, over the years, we have been helping PMETs who have lost their jobs to get jobs which are suitable to their needs. And this assistance has been given by the DCNs, including Community Development Councils, self-help groups, SNEF and other agencies. But, overall, in general, I would say that the unemployment rate amongst PMETs has declined and re-employment rate has improved.

Let me give you some figures on the re-employment rate of PMETs who have lost their jobs. In June 2004, 58.5% were re-employed within a period of six months after losing their jobs; in June 2005, 64.5%; and in June 2006, 72.6%. Unemployment rate amongst PMETs has also declined over the years and lower compared to the overall resident unemployment rate. In 2003, for example, 4.1% resident PMETs lost their jobs or unemployed, compared to 5.9% of overall resident unemployment. In 2004, 3.8% for PMETs and 5.8% amongst resident workforce. In 2006, 2.9% amongst PMETs and 4.5% amongst resident unemployed, overall. So, overall, unemployment

rate has declined and re-employment has improved. Yes, we may still have people who have difficulties in getting the jobs that they want, but the jobs that people take up may depend on their own ability and their interest. So what we are trying to do, through WDA and MOM, is to provide for those who want to shift their careers. So 1,000 workers over two years, with $20 million to be spent.

I would like to ask the SPS whether the PCP is also working in concurrence with employers. In other words, are we looking at PCP just for the dislodged PMETs, that means, those who have been retrenched or displaced from the mainstream of occupation? Or are we also taking a proactive step to work with employers who may have plans to redeploy these people to some other areas and, therefore, MOM can take a more proactive step to work with employers to retrain these people?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the PCP is meant to help displaced PMETs. If there is any need to help those who are currently employed but wish to find alternative employment or profession in future, we can look into that.

12. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what plans are in place to encourage Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) to go beyond the Go-the-Extra-Mile for Service (GEMS) movement; (b) how can CEOs be cajoled to improve Singapore's service culture; and (c) to date, how would the Ministry assess the success of the GEMS movement.

Mr Speaker, the Go-the-Extra-Mile for Service (GEMS) movement was launched in October 2005 to raise

service standards. Various initiatives were rolled out by the three supporting agencies - STB, SPRING and WDA - to address four key areas: service leadership, service capabilities, service mindset, and raising service standards in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Mdm Ho correctly pointed out that it is important to reach out to CEOs in the next phase of the GEMS movement as they play a crucial role in recognising the importance of service quality and driving initiatives to raise service standards within their organisations.

Therefore, several concurrent efforts are being made by the various agencies to address this. First, WDA has partnered with the Singapore Management University (SMU) to establish the Institute of Service Excellence@SMU (ISES) to conduct research in the area of service excellence, engage CEOs and business leaders via the new service strategies conceptualised from this research, measure customer satisfaction levels over time for different sectors and benchmark to other countries.

Second, WDA will be launching another GEMS campaign - a series of TV commercials - to promote service excellence next year. The messages will be targeted at business leaders to encourage them to set good examples and put in place the right systems to promote service excellence.

Third, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has been actively engaging business leaders through the Leadership Seminar Series. Seven seminars have been held since they began in November 2005 with attendances from over 800 business leaders in total. STB will continue to engage business leaders through this platform.

Fourth, STB is also working towards instituting a quality accreditation scheme to be launched in early 2008. This scheme will recognise and promote businesses that deliver good service and encourage consistency in the service performance of business outlets.

Together, these initiatives will further bring us closer to a service standard which will provide a key competitive advantage for our workforce and economy.

I would like to ask the MOS a few supplementary questions. Given the importance of service standards in Singapore's economic growth, what plans are there for companies to institute customer service tracking systems so as to monitor customer service performance and close the gaps along the way? I would also like to check whether there is a programme to identify service champions amongst CEOs and companies in Singapore so as to provide a model of sorts for others to follow. Thirdly, in time to come, will we work towards establishing a customer service index in Singapore in view of the fact that the service industry is increasingly to be the pillar of growth for Singapore?

Sir, our strategy is to develop service excellence as part of the business culture in our enterprises so that enterprises will develop their own service tracking system to ensure high quality of service standards to be delivered to their customers. This will become part of the business strategy of companies that have embraced this service excellence strategy. Mdm Ho asked whether we recognise champions. Yes, indeed, we do. We have service excellence awards which were launched in 2006. These give accolades to organisations for service excellence. We also have excellence service awards which are given to individuals who have delivered outstanding service in the

course of their work. So we do give recognition to leaders in the service excellence movement. Mdm Ho also asked about introducing some kind of indicator. I am pleased to let Mdm Ho know that we will indeed be looking at customer satisfaction index for Singapore and this will be released sometime early 2008. This will help us track the service satisfaction level from our customers. This survey will be conducted and released in the early part of 2008.

13. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current extent of energy supply from solar energy technology; and (b) whether there are long-term plans to tap on this alternative source of energy, in view of the high oil prices and finite supply of oil and natural gases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the use of solar energy in Singapore is still very limited. Our total installed capacity for generating solar energy is currently only 0.15 megawatts, compared with our peak electricity demand of more than 5,000 megawatts. Even buildings with installations for tapping solar energy cannot meet their own needs from solar energy generated, and they have to tap electricity from the grid.

This situation is not unique to Singapore. The use of solar energy is still in its infancy in most parts of the world. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), renewables such as geothermal, wind, solar and other combustible waste accounted for only 2% of global electricity generated in 2004. Solar photovoltaics (PV) alone accounted for just 0.005%.

The main reason is cost. Current technologies for tapping solar energy are still not efficient. Solar-derived electricity is thus two to three times more expensive

than our electricity tariffs for households. While costs will decline with the advent of better technology, fossil fuels such as oil and gas will still remain a dominant part of the global fuel mix in the medium term. Singapore is no exception. Nevertheless, our energy strategy is to continue to diversify our energy sources and invest in research and development in clean energy, including solar energy. To facilitate new energy technologies such as solar energy, we have adopted open and flexible regulations, such as removing the market participation fee for all facilities that are paid for export to the grid. EMA has also put out information on how to install and connect photovoltaic systems to the grid. The National Research Foundation has set aside $170 million for research into clean energy, with a focus on solar energy. EDB has launched a $17 million Clean Energy Research and Test-bedding platform to test-bed solar photovoltaics, and to determine the optimal solar energy systems for Singapore.

14. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry (i) has plans to address the very low rates of senior citizens above 55 years old who are receiving treatment for hearing and eyesight problems as reported in the National Survey of Senior Citizens 2005; and (ii) would consider the idea of "Eye and Ear Camp" programmes which some countries, such as India, conduct regularly to render free treatments by professional volunteers to needy seniors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in large developing countries, like India, that have a large rural poor population, access to

basic healthcare is a challenge. To supplement the limited healthcare services provided by their governments, some of their healthcare professional volunteers set up "Eye and Ear Camps" to provide free treatments for the rural poor.

The situation here in Singapore is very different. We have an urban population and basic healthcare is easily accessible. Residents are well served by family physicians and polyclinics for any screening of eyesight and hearing problems. Optometrists and opticians in shopping centres and HDB estates provide competent eye checks. When patients require further medical follow-up, they are referred to specialists for management. Needy patients are heavily subsidised and Medifund provides an additional financial safety net. Many voluntary welfare organisations supplement the Government's efforts with additional assistance.

The survey quoted by Prof. Mehta asked very basic questions of its respondents. For example, it asked the residents, "Do you have an eye or a vision problem?". Given the high myopic rate of Singaporeans, we are surprised that only 14% of those above 55 answered "yes" to such a question. Among these respondents, about half answered "no" to a question that asked, "Are you receiving medical treatment from a doctor?". As not all problems need to be attended to by doctors, the answer by these members of the public should be understood in that context.

The key is to ensure that basic healthcare is available to all. In Singapore's situation, we believe that unmet medical needs are not a severe problem. But we can certainly do more to raise awareness amongst Singaporeans, both young and old, regarding the need to seek professional help for any eyesight or hearing problems.

Order. End of Question time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answer to Question No. 15 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 16 and 17 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 2621-2622.

"to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Human Organ Transplant Act (Chapter 131A of the 2005 Revised Edition) and to make a related amendment to the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Chapter 248 of the 1999 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Customs Act (Chapter 70 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act (Chapter 354 of the 1998 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.03 pm

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

Sir, this Bill transfers the functions and powers relating to scientific metrology from SPRING to A*STAR.

Metrology, Members may be interested to know, is the science of making accurate and reliable measurements. It is critical for industrial development, trade transactions and scientific research.

Currently, SPRING undertakes all areas of metrology through the National

Metrology Centre (NMC). These include standardisation, accreditation, certification and conformance as well as scientific metrology. NMC, therefore, maintains national measurement standards and develops measurement technology to administer these standards.

Reason for amendments

Sir, let me elaborate on why we propose to transfer these functions to A*STAR.

Harnessing synergy between metrology and R&D

First, this transfer will allow Singapore to harness the synergy between metrology and research and development (R&D). New technological advances will increase the demands for research on metrology. As industries need more complex and exacting requirements, measurement ranges need to have lower thresholds of uncertainty or error. Emerging fields, such as nanotechnology, MEMS and biomedical sciences, will also need highly sensitive measurement techniques. Cutting-edge metrology will require sustained scientific research. And positioning the NMC within A*STAR will allow for such collaboration and harness this synergy between metrology and scientific R&D.

Alignment with industry's advanced technological needs

Second, the transfer will enable us to better meet industry's advanced technological needs. For instance, in the semiconductor industry, new metrology tools and techniques are needed to accurately perform critical measurements, as new materials, processes and device structures are developed.

In the area of nanotechnology, new metrology tools have to be developed to

enable precise fabrication at nanoscale levels.

Consistency with international practice

Third, the positioning of the NMC within A*STAR will align us with international practice. Leading metrology centres around the world have adopted a strong R&D focus and are often integrated with national research agencies.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States is a prime example of a world-leading research-driven metrology centre. NIST researchers continually raise the level of measurement science and technology, making possible the highly precise engineering and manufacturing capabilities required for today's most advanced technologies.

The proposed transfer will not affect SPRING's role as the national standards, accreditation and conformance body. These remain relevant to SPRING's mission to help our enterprises stay competitive in a dynamic market environment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, measurement science and technology are essential elements in facilitating a knowledge-based economy. This Bill allows A*STAR to establish and support an advanced national metrology infrastructure, which will serve to strengthen Singapore's competitive position in the global market.

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 S Iswaran].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.10 pm

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

In times of armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 lay down basic humanitarian rules to be observed by all parties. One such rule is to recognise certain universal symbols which confer protection on authorised emergency relief agencies. These include military medical services and the international relief organisations.

Under the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross and the Swiss flag, which is the Red Cross with colours reversed, were the original protected symbols. But while the original intention of the Red Cross was to be a universally-recognised neutral emblem, several Islamic countries had objected to its usage. As a result, Red Cross societies were not recognised in these states. In order to enable emergency relief efforts in these states, the Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun emblems were created and added to the Geneva Conventions. But these new emblems were themselves viewed by others as possessing religious connotations.

Given these difficulties, the Geneva Conventions introduced another emblem, the Red Crystal. It was designed to be easily recognised and devoid of religious connotations, such that it can be accepted by all countries, regardless of religious orientation. A new protocol, the Third Additional Protocol (APIII) to the Geneva Conventions, was introduced in 2005 to recognise the Red Crystal as an additional universal symbol.

Singapore subscribes to the Geneva Conventions and we have signed the APIII. To date, 87 countries have signed the APIII and 19 have ratified it. To play our part as an international citizen, my Ministry therefore proposes that Singapore's Geneva Conventions Act be amended and ratified to extend legal protection to all these emblems.

Let me now take this House through the amendments.

First, the use of any of these emblems, including colourable imitations, will not be allowed in Singapore from now onwards unless approval is given by the Ministry of Health. Organisations and businesses, which currently use trademark symbols similar to these distinctive emblems for their products or services, will be given a grace period of up to a year to take the necessary measures to comply with the Act.

Second, the maximum penalty for misuse of any of the emblems will be increased from $1,000 to $10,000.

Third, the amended Act will allow for the appointment of public officers as Inspectors to investigate offences in relation to the misuse of the emblems.

These amendments are necessary to ensure that the distinctive emblems are readily recognised and respected in Singapore as trusted symbols of protection and humanitarian aid.

My Ministry will work with the Singapore Red Cross Society to educate the general public, businesses and other organisations on the importance of respecting these distinctive emblems.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill.

The Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun and the Red Crystal represent international humanitarian movement emblems with millions of volunteers worldwide whose stated mission is to protect the human race without any discrimination based on nationality, race or religious beliefs. The existence of these movements is aimed at promoting mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace among people the world over. Thus, efforts by the Government to protect all these emblems from being misused are indeed welcome.

I wish to highlight, Sir, that there are many and a variety of organisations and products currently using, in whole or part, some of the emblems in discussion. These may include private ambulance companies, non-Governmental organisations, pharmaceutical companies on the best of healthcare responders to mass casualty and disaster events, and even on T-shirts. No doubt the 12-month grace period is given, but I would like to ask that the Ministry come up with a public awareness and education programme, which I hear they are going to work with the Red Cross Association, on a wide scale to enhance and increase the spread of information to ensure compliance. Perhaps we can also consider writing in to the companies and organisations which are affected informing them of this decision. It could also be publicised on relevant websites as indicated.

Sir, many medical units still have their men carry the Red Cross logo on their arms and armbands and also on their uniforms, essentially to depict that it is a medical response team, or even on the medical response vehicles. It appears to be a universal medical or medical

response sign. Thus, for this enforcement to be effected and effective, we need that awareness creation, adequate explanation and formal information to be given out adequately. The essence of it all is that the new legislation will prevent any misuse on the use of such symbols. In fact, it is important to have symbols that are easily recognisable; yet, at the same time, acceptable to all people of different faiths and beliefs. It is also only through common acceptance that we can promote better understanding of one another. While we want to encourage our people to be more creative, we would never allow them to break the law

and apply "artistic licence", so called the wrong way, by using these logos for commercial purposes. We should protect these emblems as a symbol of assistance, disaster response and service to vulnerable people. Sir, yesterday there were two members of the public who approached me and asked whether the tone and the shade of the red on the cross would make any difference, and I told them certainly it would. It would again be useful for the Ministry to clarify that publicly.

The appointment of public officers as inspectors to investigate offences in relation to the misuse of the emblems is indeed practical and necessary as it underlies our true intentions of safeguarding and protecting the emblems from being misused. Finally, Sir, would it be possible for the Ministry and perhaps the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, or IPOS, to assist with the provision of a toll-free number that will allow members of the public to call and inform if they notice any improper use of the emblems.

On that note, Sir, I reiterate my support for the Bill.

I thank the Member, Dr Fatimah, for her support of

the Bill and I certainly agree with her that the Ministry, together with the Singapore Red Cross and IPOS, would raise public awareness and educate the public, especially the companies, corporations and NGOs, not to abuse the law. This morning, while coming to work, three ambulances from three different nursing homes overtook me. I gave way of course. But I paid particular attention to the logos they used. None of the them flouted the Geneva Conventions as they used different but acceptable symbols to do with health, like the traditional serpent. One of them used a red cross, but a stylised cross and in a different colour. So, I think they are permissible symbols. Certainly we will work with IPOS, through their website as well as through their Trademarks Office, to publicise this more.

But I thought I should make a clarification that our SAF medical troops are entitled under the Geneva Conventions to use the Red Cross logo. That is precisely why the Geneva Conventions were formulated for them. So, they are not flouting the law in any way.

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 Khaw Boon Wan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

3.19 pm

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

Introduction

Rational healthcare policies are underpinned by accurate and timely information. For example, should we promote regular breast screening among Singaporean women? If so, for which age groups and at what frequency? Settling such policies requires robust analysis of cost-effectiveness and survival data, without which our decisions will be merely arbitrary or based on data drawn from other countries which may or may not apply to Singaporeans. Good information is especially critical when we have to deal with diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke and kidney failure that are major causes of death and morbidity among Singaporeans.

There are many ways to collect such information. We do so through periodic surveys but such data can only provide a snapshot of the prevailing situation at a particular point in time. We need to supplement this with continuous time-series data which tracks the incidence and the outcomes of the disease in the population. A well established method for gathering such information is through setting up a national disease registry.

With time-series data collected by the registry, we can answer many critical health policy questions, for example:

What is the number of new cases of a disease every year - is it rising or falling? Do we need to adjust the type of health services to meet this changing trend?

Is the disease affecting a particular segment of the population more than the others - how can we better target our prevention and treatment programmes?

How do people suffering from the chronic disease fare? How long do they

survive and how do we compare with other countries?

Have prevention and treatment programmes made a difference?

Disease Registries

In 1968, we set up our first disease registry, which was the Singapore Cancer Registry. So this was almost 40 years ago. This was followed by the Heart Registry in 1988 and the Renal Registry in 1993. Currently, the Stroke Registry is being piloted in some public hospitals. These four registries make up our National Registry of Diseases.

A good national registry must meet two criteria. First, it must be comprehensive, ie, it should cover all cases or almost all cases in the country. If a Registry misses out a significant segment of the population, this may result in under or over reporting of disease burden.

Second, the registry must be well maintained with close tracking of how the disease progresses over time. This requires the submission of individualised information, so that new data can be matched with existing data in the registry, thus avoiding any double-counting.

Our current disease registries suffer a major limitation because it is based on voluntary reporting. While public hospitals have been forthcoming in reporting, many private hospitals have largely not taken part. As a result, our registries are incomplete. A major concern of the healthcare providers is the lack of clarity on the legal basis for the disclosure of individualised information to disease registries, whether they will be breaching medical confidentiality.

Legislation

Formal attempts at registering diseases date back to 1728, the year of

London's first General Census of Cancer. This was followed by attempts in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Hungary, among other countries. Most of these attempts failed due to incompleteness of data, as the reporting was voluntary. The breakthrough came from the United States where a regulation was enacted in 1939, requiring reporting of all cancer cases diagnosed in New York State. Since then, the US has made cancer reporting mandatory in most of its states. Similar laws have been passed over the last 50 years in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Germany, just to name a few. We have studied their legislation and drawn on relevant features when drafting our own Bill.

The National Registry of Diseases Bill makes it mandatory for healthcare institutions to submit relevant epidemiological data to the National Registry of Diseases for public policy and planning purposes. The Bill also commits MOH to responsible stewardship in the storage and disclosure of registry data by ensuring that patient confidentiality is observed by all persons who maintain and use the data. The Registry is already subject to stringent governance standards in securing the information collected and protecting patient confidentiality. The Bill articulates these practices and provides for powers of enforcement.

Objectives

The Bill aims to achieve four objectives:

One: Comprehensive coverage

The Bill makes it mandatory for the manager of a healthcare institution to notify the Registry when a person is diagnosed with or undergoes treatment for a reportable disease listed in the

Schedule to the Bill. The types of cases that have to be reported will be further specified in subsidiary legislation. The Bill also empowers the Registry to collect information about notified cases from the relevant medical records. The kind of information that may be obtained will be set out clearly in subsidiary legislation. Patient consent is not required.

Cancer will be the first reportable disease to be listed in the Schedule as the current cancer registry is well established with clearly defined work processes. MOH will add further diseases to the Schedule only if the collection of such information is essential to support national policies. Communicable diseases will not be covered under this Bill, as there are already provisions under the Infectious Diseases Act to obtain information on such diseases for the purpose of disease prevention and control.

Two: Basic data requirements

Collection of detailed information for every case of a disease will be tedious and expensive. We will therefore only collect data that is essential for public health planning. This will vary for different reportable diseases and the type of information collected will be set out clearly in subsidiary legislation. Any change to the list of information that can be collected will require Ministerial approval and will be published in the Government Gazette.

While it may be tempting to try and collect as much information as possible to anticipate future policy needs, this is neither feasible nor desirable. Excess data reporting imposes a heavy burden on healthcare institutions. Neither is it efficient nor cost-effective for the Ministry. We also need to respect the privileged access that this Bill provides to patients' medical records. We are sensitive to the fact that healthcare policy questions may change over time, but, instead of

collecting a lot of information in anticipation, we will review and make some changes to the data collected by the Registry from time to time.

To make compliance as painless as possible, the Registry will work with healthcare institutions to facilitate convenient reporting. This includes batch reporting by linkages with hospital information systems, online reporting through the Internet, or submission of simple paper forms. As we are dealing with chronic diseases, instantaneous real-time reporting is not required and a reasonable grace period will be provided.

Three: Patient privacy and data security

In addition to administrative safeguards, such as clearly defined operating procedures with strict access controls to the Registry, encryption of data and regular audits, which are already in place, the Bill imposes a very strict obligation on all officers and agents of the Registry to protect confidential data. Similarly, those persons who request for and receive Registry data are bound to observe conditions of confidentiality set by the Registry. Any person, including a registry officer or agent, who discloses individually-identifiable information from the Registry in breach of the Bill faces imprisonment of up to 12 months, or a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

Four: Purposes of disclosure

The Bill clearly lays down the rules as to whom, and for what purpose, and in what form, the information can be released. In addition to its primary use by MOH for healthcare policy planning, we anticipate that the public, doctors, academics and researchers will want to know some key statistics about the chronic diseases. The Registry Office will therefore publish reports of analysed data in simplified form on a regular basis.

Such

reports will be made publicly-available. The Registrar of the National Registry of Diseases is also empowered to release de-identified data for research of significant public health importance that has undergone rigorous scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny.

Identifiable patient information may be disclosed under the Bill for the purposes of national public health programmes. Such disclosure will need the approval of the Director of Medical Services (DMS). In deciding whether to give his approval, the Director of Medical Services will, amongst other things, consider the aims and objectives of the proposed programme, and whether it has any public health benefits to Singapore. He must be satisfied that the programme cannot be carried out using anonymised data. In addition, the Director of Medical Services must also be convinced that adequate measures will be put in place to protect the individually-identifiable information from unauthorised disclosure.

The Bill permits identifiable patient information to be disclosed for the purposes of medical treatment or for public health research. This will only take place if the person to whom the identifiable information relates has given the requisite consent. NRD data will not be released for other purposes, for instance, to employers or insurance companies.

Main features of Bill

Let me now run through the main features of the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill defines reportable diseases as those listed in the Schedule. Cancer will be the first reportable disease.

Part II of the Bill establishes the National Registry of Diseases and sets out its functions. These include the collection of information on reportable diseases,

establishment of registers, compilation and publication of statistics, and the provision of information for supporting health services and national public health policies. Clause 3 sets out the various categories of officers that may be appointed to run the Registry.

Clause 6, in Part III of the Bill, makes the notification of reportable diseases mandatory for managers of all healthcare institutions. The burden is placed on the manager as he has the management and control of the institution. Very limited data will be required to make a notification. Clause 7 empowers registry officers or agents to follow up on the notification to extract patient data from the relevant medical records. The kind of information that can be obtained will be predetermined, and will be listed clearly in subsidiary legislation.

Part IV addresses the issues of confidentiality and disclosure of Registry information. It imposes stringent obligations on registry officers and all other persons who request and receive Registry data. Unauthorised disclosure of identifiable personal information stored in the Registry is punishable with a jail term or a fine, or both.

Clause 9 allows the Registrar to release anonymised information to any person on request, and to charge a fee and set conditions that have to be met. Clause 10 provides for the release of identifiable personal information for the conduct of national public health programmes, while clause 12 provides for the release of identifiable data for the purposes of public health research but only if the requisite patient consent has been obtained. Clause 11 allows patients to authorise their doctors to retrieve their Registry data if this is necessary for their proper treatment.

Clause 13 in Part V of the Bill provides for the appointment of investigation officers. Clauses 14 and 15 clothe these officers with enforcement powers that will allow them to investigate offences committed under this Bill.

Part VI deals with a host of miscellaneous matters. Clause 17(2) is noteworthy as it clarifies that a person who makes a notification to the Registry or who makes available to the Registry any document or information for the purposes of complying with the Bill will not incur liability for breach of confidence or of professional ethics.

Implementation plan

Reportable diseases

To facilitate the smooth implementation of this Bill and to allow healthcare institutions to ease into this new reporting framework, only cancer will be listed as a reportable disease for now. The other three national-level disease registries maintained by the NRD for stroke, heart and renal disease will be reviewed for possible inclusion over the next two years. Listing of additional reportable diseases will depend on epidemiological and public health needs.

Feedback and consultation

Extensive public consultations were held with doctors, healthcare administrators, ethicists and regulatory bodies, and researchers. There was general support for the Bill, and points of concerns have been addressed in the draft Bill.

Conclusion

The National Registry of Diseases Bill, and the Registry that it will create, will play a vital role in our public health efforts. It provides for the compilation of important information on non-communi

cable diseases that will guide policymaking on national healthcare and the formulation of public health programmes. It will provide greater clarity on the type of health information which can be collected at national level and spells out the purpose for, and the form in which it may be put to use.

I ask all Members of this House to support this Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.37 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

I agree with the Minister that to develop rational healthcare policies requires accurate and timely information. This Bill seeks to do just that through the establishment of a National Registry of Diseases, which will help in gathering information in a systematic and continuous manner by requiring all reportable diseases to be registered. In this manner, the Registry will contribute towards the formulation of robust healthcare policies, promote research on major diseases as well as further enhance the delivery of medical treatment to patients. For these reasons, this Bill is timely and will help to develop and improve the quality of Singapore's healthcare services.

However, Sir, I have one major concern as well as several clarifications to seek from the Minister. The Bill provides extensive powers for the Registrar of the National Registry of Diseases (NRD) to collect information and to have access to patients' data. Therefore, protecting patient confidentiality is very crucial to ensure credibility in the system and to win patients' trust. I note that the Minister has dwelt at length on this, citing a number of measures to protect patient confiden-

tiality, including the imposition of jail terms and fines for those caught breaching it, which is necessary as we do not want to see a repeat of the Shovron case where there was a clear breach of patient confidentiality.

I would like to ask the Minister to consider further tightening some of the provisions to ensure greater protection of patient confidentiality. The Bill provides for the use of anonymised information where the identity of the individual is concealed or protected. I have no major worries with regard to the use of anonymised information, as there are no serious confidentiality issues involved. My concern is more with the laxity allowed in the use of "individually-identifiable" information, where the identity of the individual can be readily discovered or ascertained from the information given. The use of "individually-identifiable" information is provided under clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill.

First, let me touch on clause 10. Under clause 10, the Registrar of the NRD may, with the approval of the Director of Medical Services, disclose "individually-identifiable" information to "any public officer or any other person" for the purpose of conducting national public health programmes concerning any reportable disease. I notice that unlike clauses 11 and 12, it is not necessary to get the consent of the patient before such information is released to the public officer or any person, which is a matter of concern. Could the Minister clarify, other than the public officer, who else can have access to the "individually-identifiable" information; in other words, who are covered under the ambit of "other person" stipulated under clause 10? I would like to suggest that to ensure greater transparency, the Ministry draws up a list of who will be included under the list of "other person", so that patients are clear as to the people who have access to their individual medical records.

I would also like to seek a clarification whether, under clause 10, the identities of patients suffering from the reportable diseases can be made known to the public when the national public health programmes are conducted. If so, this could cause embarrassment and discomfort to patients whose identities are made known to the public, especially if their consent is not even required under clause 10. Hence, disclosure of such "individually-identified" information to the public should not be allowed or, at most, allowed only in the most exceptional cases such as when we have a SARS-like situation.

Again, on clause 10, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider making it compulsory for the consent of the patient to be obtained before any "individually-identifiable" information held by the NRD can be disclosed for the purposes of the national public health programmes. Clauses 11 and 12 already make it compulsory for such consent to be secured before "individually-identifiable" information is disclosed to a patient's doctor for his treatment or disclosed for research purposes. I do not see any reason why a similar requirement for consent cannot be imposed under clause 10 before the medical records of individuals with their identities revealed are made available for carrying out national public health programmes. Surely, under clause 11, it is necessary to get the consent of the patient before his record is revealed to his own doctor for medical treatment. I do not see why his consent is not required under clause 10 for national public health programmes.

Sir, m y second point is with regard to the disclosure of "individually-identifiable" information for public health research. I understand that such information will be

released for research purposes, only if the research will help to improve the quality of health services provided for patients suffering from any reportable diseases; or to support any national public health policy initiative or programme. However, I feel that it should be made compulsory for all research applications to be referred to the National Research Advisory Committee to better protect patient confidentiality by ensuring that it is the whole committee, and not just the Registrar of the NRD, who will decide whether researchers will have access to patients' data and identity. Clause 12(5) in the current Bill leaves it to the Registrar to decide whether or not to refer an application by a researcher for the release of "individually-identifiable" information to the National Research Advisory Committee, which, in my view, is very weak, as it seems to give an inordinate amount of power to the Registrar.

My third point is on clause 2 of the Bill, which defines the meaning of "requisite consent", for the purposes of section 11 or 12 of the Act. This is a very important part of the Bill but, unfortunately, it is rather scanty. I would like to urge the Ministry to draw up clear guidelines on how to secure consent from patients as, considering the gravity of the diseases covered under the Bill, patients may not always be in a clear frame of mind to make informed decisions without proper guidance. For example, the guidelines could provide that before patients' consent is obtained, they should be clearly informed that they have a choice on whether or not to disclose their personal information. The hospitals, clinics or laboratories should also make sure that patients understand the implications of their choice. For example, if they choose not to reveal the information to the doctors treating them, the lack of information may affect the effectiveness of their treatment. The hospitals, clinics or laboratories should

also respect the rights of patients and facilitate them in exercising their right. As this is something new, hospitals, clinics and laboratories should also have information leaflets on patient confidentiality and information disclosure and ensure that these have been read and understood by the patients. The UK's National Health Service has a comprehensive code of practice on patient confidentiality, which can be a source of reference for drawing up our own code and guideline.

My final point is to seek clarification on clause 2 of the Bill on the definition of "healthcare institution". I notice that this whole Bill excludes the public sector healthcare institutions. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any other law that covers patient confidentiality in public sector hospitals, polyclinics or laboratories. The Minister had mentioned that public sector institutions are already providing such information voluntarily but nothing was mentioned about what laws govern the use of "individually-identifiable" information for patients in the public sector. So the question is, what laws apply and how is patient confidentiality protected in the public sector, as the issues governing patient confidentiality apply equally to both the public and private hospitals and therefore there should be a common set of rules that applies to both. The Minister's clarification on this point would be most helpful.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm .

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the National Registry of Diseases Bill.

The healthcare services in Singapore have a reputation of being world-class, reliable and efficient. The combination of excellent healthcare infrastructure, availability of skilled medical professionals and the latest medical technology has made Singapore the convincing healthcare services hub in the region.

However, in order for Singaporeans to benefit from the excellent medical services available, rational and well-thought through healthcare policies are necessary, and I fully agree with the Minister's comment that good healthcare policies are underpinned by accurate and timely information.

There are currently a few disease registries for the common medical conditions, such as cancer, heart disease, renal disease and, most recently, stroke. Unfortunately, there is currently no law to make the reporting of these diseases mandatory and, as such, the data collected is largely from the public healthcare institutions, which submit it on a voluntary basis. This has inevitably resulted in incomplete collection of data with limited usefulness for national level policy planning and research. In fact, inaccurate or incomplete information may in turn give false correlations and become useless for research and disease prevention.

The introduction of the National Registry of Diseases Bill is therefore important for the following reasons:

The information collected will provide significant contributions to efforts to find causes of diseases;

It is the most accurate way to determine the number of people with a particular disease and to identify trends in disease rates;

It can determine whether demographic factors, such as race, ethnicity, gender, age and place of residence, influence the likelihood of developing the disease;

It provides systematic ways to link diseases to environmental risk factors, by linking with environmental health databases; and, lastly, and most importantly,

The identification of factors causing the disease is the first step towards the prevention of the disease.

The Singapore Cancer Registry was the first to be set up in 1968. With its well-established processes, it is therefore natural and understandable to make cancer the first reportable disease to be included in the Schedule. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Singapore. It accounts for 28.5% of total deaths in 2006, with ischemic heart disease tailing behind at 18.5%. In order to position Singapore as the centre for cancer research, the Singapore Cancer Syndicate was formed to enhance cancer research and to bring it to the next higher plane. The data collected under this new Act would definitely go a long way to bolster the efforts in enhancing cancer research in Singapore.

However, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister if the definition of cancer in the Schedule encompasses only malignant tumours. Will there be exclusions, for example, for selected skin cancers, namely, basal and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin? In certain countries, these cancers are exempted from reporting, as they are rarely fatal and usually do not require hospitalisation. In addition, I would also

like to ask the Minister if benign tumours with the potential to cause fatality, such as meningioma of the brain and nervous system, be considered in the definition of cancer in the Schedule?

The Bill is certainly designed with the intent to expand the scope of reportable diseases in the future. The inclusion of other common diseases that afflict Singaporeans, such as stroke, diabetes mellitus, heart and renal diseases, into the Schedule will be useful, and I urge the Ministry to seriously consider doing this sooner than later. This would enable relevant medical information to be collected, analysed and researched to support formulation of effective public health policies on possible prevention and control of these common diseases.

In the process of reporting and data collection, the issue of patient confidentiality is an important one. Well-trained staff and strict procedures must be put in place to protect patients' privacy and medical confidentiality. The data in the Registry must not be released to any other parties, such as employers and insurance companies, without the prior consent of the patient. The use of International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes in the reporting should be considered as it provides, to a certain extent, a "masking effect" on the disease conditions to untrained personnel.

In order to enhance compliance and to minimise inconvenience to the healthcare institutions and medical practitioners, I am glad to know that the Ministry is considering different modes of submissions, either electronically or paper reports. The entire process should also be made simple and seamless. This is especially imperative for solo medical practitioners who do not have the luxury of manpower to submit the reports.

Sir, in the area of mandatory registering of diseases, many countries, such

as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, had done more and are way ahead of Singapore. The introduction of the National Registry of Diseases Bill is, therefore, timely and would aid the Ministry in the formulation of sound healthcare policies and public health programmes that would benefit Singaporeans.

On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.12 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three brief points to make on the Bill.

My first point is that the National Registry of Diseases opens a fear that is natural to anything that requires us to declare our own deepest and most private secrets. Who in this House is prepared to make public the operations that he has had over the years, the medications that he takes for chronic conditions, and the infectious illness he or she may harbour?

Yet, with the National Registry, we might all have to do it one day, sooner than later. True, there are safeguards in the Bill. True, this is a move which other countries have adopted. But this does not mean that the people are not worried.

Privacy of medical information

I have read of the two-step method to render our individual identities into anonymous digits. But I have also read that "Identifiable data will be released if deemed necessary in cases like national public health programmes, with approval from the Director of Medical Services." Mdm Halimah Yacob, Chairman, GPC for Health, has earlier expressed a concern on this matter. I, too, have the same concern.

What are some examples of these national public health programmes? How

often do we expect them to occur? What details will the information contain? For example, Mr ABC's blood pressure is 88/130. His cholesterol level is 120 and he has a family history of diabetes, and so on. Will it be as detailed as that?

Sir, this concern is not unfounded. I was told that the American "Health Privacy Project" has data showing that one in five are victims of improper disclosure. These are worrying figures that the Bill or the Ministry has to address and prevent.

Benefit to patient

Now to my second point. The Ministry has said that it will have to rely on the Registry to effectively contain and manage diseases nationally. The Registry is also expected to become a valuable source of clinical, diagnostic and outcome data to practitioners and researchers. This sounds good but all rather vague. I would like the Minister to enlighten us on a few points.

First, to tell us if he can, the expected benefits, such as the following:

Would this mean cheaper healthcare?

Would this mean better planning so that our doctors can be deployed more efficiently?

Or is it so that our financial projections for national healthcare expenditure can be closer to the mark?

How precisely are we patients supposed to be benefiting from this Registry?

The confessional in the clinic

Sir, my last point is on the relationship that we have with our doctors. Given the

fact that doctors now have to declare whatever they know about us to a National Registry, is there a chance that some of us may hold back what we already know and we do not tell our doctors everything because we cannot trust that they would not "leak" it to the Government? This, of course, is an unwarranted worry in any event but, in times of stress, people do not always think and act rationally.

Sir, my idea is to strengthen the trust and relationship between patients and doctors. We ought to tell patients to continue to trust their doctors and be completely honest with them. We should also stress to doctors on how to explain the privacy protections to their patients. We must do this so that this new initiative does not intrude into the atmosphere of trust and honesty in the consultation room between the doctor and the patients.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

4.16 pm

Sir, the Government takes a multi-pronged approach towards public health and disease management. Whilst existing laws like the Infectious Disease Act relate to communicable diseases, the National Registry of Diseases Bill before us today relates only to non-communicable diseases. These account for more than 60% of deaths in Singapore and draw heavily from the national coffers in terms of health expenditure.

The Bill seeks to establish a Registry of Diseases and also sets up an administrative framework which deals with the powers, duties and liabilities of the various actors involved. It seeks to regulate information flows. It requires that the Registrar be notified of reportable diseases. It outlines to whom, in what

form and for which purposes such information may be supplied to other parties. It seeks to facilitate data collection while providing safeguards to protect the interests of patients in data security. It also imposes penalties in the form of fines and imprisonment to defer breaches of various newly created statutory duties.

The purposes of this Registry are set out in clause 4. Broadly, these relate to the collection and collation of information on "reportable diseases" with a view to publishing relevant statistics as well as the supply of this information to serve two purposes. First, to support health services provided by healthcare institutions to patients suffering from such diseases. Second, to support national public health policies and programmes as well as "related studies" or research into such diseases.

The cornerstone of sound public health policies is a comprehensive informational base on the incidence of reported diseases which bear national significance, such as cancer, which is the first disease listed in the Schedule.

From voluntary to mandatory reporting regime

The National Registry of Diseases Bill is designed to contribute to this. It seeks to formalise or place on a legal basis the existing practice where healthcare institutions voluntarily report certain diseases to the Ministry of Health, or MOH, as a matter of goodwill.

Good practice becomes law under clause 6, which imposes a mandatory legal duty on managers of healthcare institutions in both the public and private sector to notify the Registrar of reportable diseases. They are to fill out a prescribed form and to submit it within a stipulated time, presumably to be set out under

subsidiary legislation, as clause 23(2)(e) of the Bill provides. This information will be given to the Registrar without need for the consent of the patient.

This will ensure a more complete and comprehensive database by broadening the net of reporting resources. This will enhance the accuracy, reliability and utility of the database.

To provide some teeth to enforcing this duty, the Bill states that the failure to notify the Registrar without "reasonable excuse" or furnishing false information is a punishable offence. Presumably, recourse to the courts is available as to whether an excuse is reasonable, since the Bill contains no clause ousting applications for judicial review. Indeed, clause 17 protects public officers associated with the Registry from legal proceedings for any act done in good faith during the course of discharging their statutory functions - which leaves open the door for judicial action in relation to acts done in bad faith.

What kind of information is to be collected?

What kind of information must be provided in relation to this notification duty? I understand that hospitals have different policies in relation to information collected from the patients as well as towards the degrees of confidentiality afforded to patients. For example, is the information to be collected just the details of the type of cancer or would it include the details of the treatment, its outcome, and the personal traits of patients such as their age, gender, sexual history, socio-economic status, occupation, religion, marital status and other associated risk factors? I understand these are standard questions cancer patients have to answer in setting out patient histories, which may vary between healthcare institutions.

A judicious balance?

Sir, the information collected should not go beyond what is needed to serve the objectives of the Bill.

Obviously, this raises the issues of privacy and data confidentiality. Related concerns were raised during the public consultation process, which, incidentally, promotes the democratic value of participation and policy-making.

What is the final product? Is the legal framework provided by the Bill clear and does it strike a judicious balance between the community's right to know and to enjoy good public health policies based on this knowledge and the individual's right of privacy? How do the administrative rules set out in the Bill address the interests, expectations and duties of the relevant actors involved?

The Bill provides sanctions for the way information is handled or mishandled, as where there is a failure to discharge a duty of notification or an unauthorised disclosure of information.

How are the interests of patients protected? This is closely tied in to how the Registrar handles information on reportable diseases which he receives.

The Bill distinguishes between two kinds of categories of information: one which is traceable to the patient and one which is not.

One category of information, which is non-traceable, is termed "anonymised" information. I believe this Bill has created a new word in the English language! Clause 2 defines this as information relating to an individual whose identity is concealed, protected or "cannot be readily discovered" from that information. Clause 9 provides that where the Director so requests, the Registrar may disclose such information "on a request by any person"

after paying a fee and subject to any conditions that the Registrar may impose.

It does not stipulate what sort of purposes "any person" may request the information for, but presumably, this must fall within the purposes of the Act, that is, to formulate public health policies or for related studies. Could the Minister please clarify if this is the case?

The second category of traceable information is termed "individually-identifiable information" as it will identify each person diagnosed and treated for cancer in Singapore. Clause 5 provides that the register containing this information is private and not open to public inspection.

To further protect the privacy of the individual, clause 8 states that an officer or agent of the Registry or one acting under the direction of the Director of Medical Services cannot be compelled to give evidence before a court with respect to any individually-identifiable information obtained under the Bill. The only exception is where the case concerns the prosecution of an offence under the Bill.

The general principle under clause 8(2) is that the Registrar or its agent or indeed "any other person" acting under the direction of the Director or Registrar "for any purpose related to the Registry" is duty-bound not to disclose what is in the Register or any individually-identifiable information he came across in performing his office. They are under an obligation of confidentiality, a breach of which attracts legal sanctions under clause 8(3).

There are instances where the Registrar, with the Director's approval, may disclose individually-identifiable information to a public officer or "any other person"; however, clause 10 confines this to the purposes of conducting national public health programmes concerning a

reportable disease. This is consistent with the general objectives of the Bill.

Clause 10(3) indicates that individually-identifiable information is not to be readily granted. The Director must be satisfied that the national public health programme could not be carried out with anonymised information before approving any such disclosure. The clause expressly lists factors which the Director must consider in deciding whether to approve the disclosure and what conditions to attach to a grant of approval.

Sir, I would like to raise an issue which I hope the Minister can clarify. Under clause 10(2), before the Director approves the disclosure of traceable information, he must consider the identity of the public officer or persons involved in the relevant national health programme. I am wondering whether these persons fall within the scope of clause 8(2) which imposes a duty of confidentiality on any person acting under the direction of the Director or Registrar for "any purpose related to the Registry". If they are not, and since they may be handling sensitive information under clause 10 in running public programmes, will the Minister clarify whether a duty of confidentiality will be imposed on such persons under clause 10(2), perhaps through subsidiary legislation? This relates to putting into place measures under the national public health programme to protect individually-identifiable information from unauthorised disclosure.

This is important because clause 10 does not require that a patient with a reportable disease must first give consent before the Registrar, with the Director's approval, can release individually-identifiable information to a person conducting a relevant public health programme. This is distinct from clauses 11 and 12(1) where the requisite consent of the patient is needed before traceable information is released to a medical

practitioner treating that patient or to a researcher conducting relevant public health research. The requirement of consent gives the patient some safeguard towards protecting his personal identity or the identity of the healthcare institution where he was treated; he has some say in the matter at least.

A researcher will be subject to certain penalties if he misuses the information for a purpose not specified by the Registrar or disregards the conditions governing the release of traceable information.

As we can see, the Bill sets out quite an elaborate scheme of statutory duties of reporting, rules designed to guard patient confidentiality and penalties for acts done in dereliction of statutory duty. Part of the rule of law is the principle of having clarity and apportioning obligations and liabilities and guiding conduct.

This is why clause 21 causes me some concern. This is a general exemption clause under which the Minister may, either permanently or for a certain period, "exempt any person or class of persons from any or all of the provisions of this Act". For example, by publishing an order in the Gazette, the Minister could waive any requirement of confidentiality the Bill otherwise imposes.

Sir, this is an extremely broad power, effectively providing carte blanche for the Minister in his discretion to allow someone to be given blanket immunity from the statutory regime, almost like a "get out of jail free" card.

A basic principle of administrative law and good governance is that Parliament confers discretion with the intent it should be used to promote the policy and object of the Act. The determination of what the statutory purpose is has always been a question of law which courts may review.

As formulated, the discretion on the Minister by clause 21(1) lacks clear

criteria to guide its exercise, compared to the four conditions set out in clause 10 which guide the Director in deciding whether to disclose information in relation to relevant public health programmes.

The danger, in relation to clause 21, is that the general exemption might be given for a reason not related to the purpose of the Bill. For example, taking a worse case scenario, a person could be given a blanket exemption as a matter of a personal favour. I am sure that this cannot be the intent of the drafters of this legislation.

Unfettered discretion would undermine the rule of law as discretion should never be absolute but constrained by specific criteria. This is to prevent arbitrariness and to ensure the legal and regular exercise of public powers. Power may be absolute, but law never is.

Discretion has to be exercised within the framework and legitimate objectives of the statute. It is important in shaping the scope of Ministerial discretion, to set out the purposes or the basis upon which this discretion is to be exercised, to avoid conferring "blank cheque" powers.

Can the Minister further clarify the kind of scenarios where such a broad power may be necessary as set out in clause 21, which would justify bypassing the judicious balance struck by the Bill between patient confidentiality concerns and the community's interest in sound public health policies? Would an unreasonable use of Ministerial discretion be subject to judicial review? Further, rather than providing for a general exemption, would it not be better to have specific exceptions tied to a particular provision or section in the Act?

It would be helpful to understand the various rationales behind a decision to exempt a person from the operation of different parts of the proposed statute.

For example, the justification for waiving confidentiality requirements in some instances may be quite distinct from reasons not to apply the enforcement provisions of the Act.

Conclusion

Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is designed to facilitate and to optimise long-term public policy-making in relation to public health issues.

An incremental and targeted approach has been pursued which allows the scheme to hit the ground running. At present, only cancer is listed in the Schedule of reported diseases. This is for reasons of gravity and practicality. Gravity, because cancer is responsible for the highest rates of death in Singapore, and practicality, because data collection processes in this respect are the most established. It is also important to socialise or enable the relevant actors to become familiar with this new statutory regime and their responsibilities thereunder.

Sir, while our Constitution may not contain a right to health, the Government is solicitous towards the healthcare concerns of Singaporeans. Rather than through the mechanism of rights, the Government prefers to formulate and execute programmes to promote this important aspect of human welfare. Consistent with the Government's ethos of pragmatism, a former Foreign Minister once said in 1993 that the Government justified itself to Singaporeans "not by abstract theories" but "by the more vigorous test of practical success". The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as it were.

It is heartening to know that the Government is taking a proactive approach towards anticipating the dimen-

sions of future public health problems, to ensure the healthcare needs of Singaporeans are met, to plan for sufficient medical personnel, securing financing for this and identifying priority areas and trends.

Sir, I support that idea of having a National Diseases Registry. It will provide information which will contribute towards the making of sound public health policies. This should promote public welfare and benefit the community at large

4.30 pm

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The practice of medicine and healthcare is changing and evolving. There is now a paradigm shift towards evidence-based practices. Basing our policies, healthcare and clinical guidelines on published Western figures and Caucasian population statistics is not acceptable anymore. We have to utilise our own local cohort results, figures, trends, etc, to formulate practice guidelines. Moreover, with our multi-racial and multi-ethnic representations, local figures become highly relevant. This Bill will facilitate the collection of medical and health data for research, disease prevention, planning and control. It will give us our very own unique data applicable for formulation of policies and intervention in our population. And as data collected will be ongoing, it will be a good example of the time motion trial.

For the Disease Registry itself, the Bill will cover cancer, heart disease, renal disease and also stroke. I would like to propose other diseases to be included in the Registry in a staggered fashion over the years, as this will be gradually necessary. Some of the suggestions would be a registry for asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease and also perhaps

a genetic diseases registry which will become highly relevant for information sharing, because these are highly specialised diseases in our small society.

The setting up of these registries requires several key factors. First, the cooperation from all stakeholders in order to achieve the complete and comprehensive data we want.

Second, a dedicated secretariat to run the system, handle administrative issues, requests, data extraction, etc. Here, Sir, I would like to suggest perhaps that consideration be given for recruitment of retired nurses and healthcare workers, because their background and knowledge will be a bonus for this type of work and they are quite used to issues of confidentiality and will certainly serve us in an advantageous manner.

Third, the need for a clear legal framework to protect data from abuse. The framework, when ready, should perhaps be made public on the website, so that everyone is aware of the requirements.

Fourth, the consent acquisition process needs to be formal and clearly specified. This must also include the need to understand the reasons for request of data and its utilisation.

Finally, it will also be optimal if we can follow a relatively similar or standardised structure format for all the registries, eg, the cancer registry, which started many years ago, was one where healthcare staff had to complete the form manually and then faxed or posted out. In this day and age, electronic submission would be most optimal and efficient, and it must certainly be the way to go forward.

It is essential to ensure 100% compliance and participation, and that is why we have this legislation, and this will no doubt affect the quality of data that

we get as well. The Ministry needs to set a timeline for entry and data submission. Perhaps this can be set at about 2-3 weeks after diagnosis or after discharge.

Sir, safeguarding and protecting confidential information must go beyond just having a set of rules, because once improper disclosure of data and information happens, it is already too late, even as there is a hefty punishment for the offender.

For security, Sir, the public will be reassured by the administrative safeguards and level of protection that will be put in place to prevent abuse and minimise errors. These will have to be emphasised to the user and also the applicant to ensure compliance. It would also be good to have the following in place:

First, for applicants who wish to request data for a study, there must be support from the ethics committee or the institutional review board approval letter from their relevant institutions. A copy of the study protocol and questionnaire should also be forwarded to the secretariat.

Second, all publications related to the application and use of these data must be sent to the secretariat. At the more preliminary stage, if there are controversial results which are seen, it is important that these must be highlighted to the secretariat as soon as possible. The authors may want to acknowledge the efforts of the Registry staff and secretariat as relevant.

I would also like to suggest that applications be divided into at least two different categories. Firstly, the request for generic information and data where trends are important, eg, for policy formulation and guideline writing. Secondly, the request for more personal and individualised information data or report. This must be handled even more

cautiously and be reviewed at different levels of staff in order to prevent abuse and protect confidentiality. More public education to explain that the rules being drawn up are watertight to prevent mishandling of information is also going to be beneficial. The public must be assured that the legislation is not meant to be intrusive of their personal medical information and is down with proper safeguards to their privacy.

Sir, with reference to Part III, clause 6, on the use of the term "manager", different health institutions may define "manager" in different terms. I think we need to be a little bit more specific here as sometimes the duties and job description of the manager or certain officers, whether it is a divisional or general manager, or whether it is the chief operating officer who does the job, we need to be clear as to who has the ownership and responsibility of this very important process. And, certainly, I think it will be good if we can specify this a bit more.

Finally, Sir, for the fees, there should also be some reasonable guidelines, and this should be kept as affordable as possible. In terms of research today, grants are highly competitive and are often quite quickly and rapidly utilised and consumed once they have been received for the many competing needs and requirements on the research projects which are ongoing. Thus, keeping the fees affordable will be very helpful.

Let me now just say a few words in Malay, Sir.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] We should always adapt ourselves to the situations and needs in the field of medical research, which has made many developments. However, with regard to healthcare, care-

ful planning is a very important factor to ensure its effectiveness. For effective planning, we should have sufficient data, which should be accurate, stable, balanced and bring about the desired benefits. In this matter, I laud this National Registry of Diseases Bill which I feel comes at the right time. It is aimed to facilitate research on disease prevention and control, and to make it mandatory for the health institutions to report new cases, and the information collected is used when making our national health policies.

Mr Speaker, I strongly support this Bill. I would like to raise a few facts. I would like to suggest that there should be a committee to study the forms and website to be filled in for all four registries of diseases, which will be formulated soon. These forms, where patients’ facts, health and diagnosis are filled in, should not be so difficult and lengthy. It should be focused on the important information in brief.

Second, only the data of Singaporeans should be collected and considered. Although, at present, hospitals and the health institutions in Singapore are widely handling patients from overseas, it is the facts on our indigenous people that will be important in this issue.

Third, I would like to touch on the issue of consent from the patients. Explanations made should be firm and easily understood to them. They should be informed that their personal data will be handled with confidentiality and fairness. Therefore, any issue of ethical and moral conflict will not happen.

Fourth, the four Registries are already being used by some of our institutions. For example, the Cancer Registry is organised successfully now. I have read that these Registries will be formalised in two years' time. I would like to suggest, Mr Speaker, that we should implement it

as soon as possible when we are ready, because this is an important and good step.

*Cols. 2625-2626.

4.42 pm

Sir, may I, first, comment on the issue of doctor/patient confidentiality? At common law, the courts in many countries still respect the confidentiality of information obtained by a physician in his professional capacity. He cannot divulge that information without the prior consent of the patient. However, in many other jurisdictions, he may be in conflict with the law. The international code of medical ethics that has been adopted in principle by all countries, whose medical associations are affiliated to the World Medical Association, embodies the Declaration of Geneva (1949), which states, "I will respect the secrets which are confided in me."

In circumstances where there is public interest in which the court requires disclosure of information, the physician may risk imprisonment for contempt of court if he declines to give the information. This is the position in Great Britain, also in Singapore before the passing of this Bill, and in about 15 states in the United States. In about 35 states, however, varying degrees of privilege, precluding disclosure of confidential information obtained in the course of treating a patient are allowed, but the privilege can be waived in certain circumstances, eg, if the patient offers himself or his physician as a witness, although this is not the invariable rule. The tendency of the courts is to allow privilege to the physician.

Now, allow me to touch on clauses 8 and 10. Clause 8(1) of the Bill protects the anonymity of information submitted to the Registry. Sub-clause 8(2) of the Bill prohibits the disclosure of any individually-identifiable information, and sub-clause

8(3) provides the punishment for breaching sub-clause 8(2). The fine is a hefty $10,000 and a jail term of 12 months, or to both. This heavy punishment gives confidence to patients who have divulged their individually-identifiable information to the Registry to ensure that it will not be leaked to third parties. I am agreeable that there be a provision whereby the Registry can disclose information held by the Registry in an anonymised form on payment of an appropriate fee. However, I cannot agree with clause 10(1) whereby the identity of a patient is disclosed in regard to a reportable disease for the purposes of conducting national public health programmes. I cannot see the relevance of the name of the patient to the disease he suffers from.

Personally, I see no necessity to disclose the name of the patient to the Registrar as long as all the particulars of the reportable disease are disclosed to him.

Now, may I get some clarification from the Minister on the following:

Under clauses 10, 11 and 12, will the patient be allowed first to be told that his name shall be revealed together with the sickness?

If so, will he be allowed to appeal against the Registrar's decision if he objects?

Is the Minister willing to establish an appeal mechanism comprising a review committee?

The appeal mechanism is to assure the public that there is no abuse of the system. This assurance is important because a person's sickness is very private to him and normally, he does not want it to be divulged even to a limited number of persons who are strangers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken in

support of this Bill. I particularly want to thank Prof. Thio for a very clear explanation of the various clauses and various obligations and objectives that we set up under this Bill. Mr Sam Tan wanted a clearer explanation of the benefits that patients can expect out of our setting up a National Registry of Diseases. In a way, Dr Lam, in his speech, has clarified, from a doctor's point of view, what are those public health objectives. Let me illustrate in my own way using the example of, say, lung cancer. As I said just now, the Singapore Cancer Registry is now almost 40 years old. And if you look at our earlier set of data, they show clearly that Singapore ranked very high in age adjusted mortality due to lung cancer among men, and we were among the highest among the developing countries at that time.

Research on data drawn not only from our own Cancer Registry but from many other global cancer registries proved strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. So like others, we then embarked on an aggressive anti-smoking campaign. As a result, our smoking prevalence in males dropped from 37% in 1984 to 22% in 2004, now among the lowest in the world. In turn, these efforts have reduced lung cancer rates in males from 65 per hundred thousand population in 1978 to now less than 45 per hundred thousand population. The benefits in terms of lives saved and the miseries reduced are immense.

The Cancer Registry also helps us to prioritise our research focus, again with a view to benefit patients. Let me give another example - stomach cancer, which is now topical. It is currently the fifth most common cancer among Singaporean males. Among females, it is ranked number seven. Although there has been an overall improvement in cancer survival

in Singapore over the years, the five-year age standardised survival rate for stomach cancer remains very low, at only 25%. In other words, only one-quarter survives more than five years.

There is obviously room for improvement and we will put some research priority on stomach cancer to improve early detection and its treatment. While the benefits of a disease registry are more easily explained, the key concern, which all Members have rightly focused their comments upon, pertains to privacy and patient confidentiality. How do we protect privacy and patient confidentiality while ensuring that their data can be put to good use? How do we retain the trust of the patients and the public that we and the doctors will not abuse their trust? My Ministry shares these concerns. Indeed, it is precisely because of these concerns that this Bill is formulated. And when drafting the Bill, we strive to balance the potential benefits to society with the rights of the individual to privacy and confidentiality of information.

First, we drew upon the excellent works and the recommendations of the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) chaired by Prof. Lim Pin. Earlier this year, Members will remember that the BAC published its report titled, "Personal Information in Biomedical Research", after an extensive public consultation among doctors, members of the public, experts in ethics, international scientists, and so on. Among other things, the BAC concluded that it is "ethically proper for medical information to be disclosed by physicians to national disease registries without patients' consent, provided that adequate privacy and other ethical safeguards are in place and patients are appropriately informed". I would suggest Mr Chiam read up the BAC report. Because, while I note what Mr Chiam has said about traditional medical views on sharing of individualised information, developments in recent years have updated many of those views.

Second, we studied similar legislation in the US, Canada and Australia for reference when crafting the provisions on patient confidentiality. They have much more experience in protecting patient confidentiality and their disease registry legislation has similar provisions on release of identifiable information under certain conditions.

Let me assure this House that the data that the Registry collects will be treated with the strictest confidence. First, any unauthorised disclosure of identifiable data would be a criminal offence. Second, we will only collect information that is absolutely essential for healthcare policy making. Third, we will spell out clearly in subsidiary legislation the type of information to be collected. Fourth, any disclosure of information will be in anonymised form. This will be the default position. However, if it is established that disclosure of individually-identifiable information cannot be avoided, then there should be prior consent by patient.

We have, however, made a provision in the Bill for power to disclose identifiable information without prior consent in the event that there is such a need to support certain public health programmes. Understandably, these provisions drew the attention of Members, including Mdm Halimah and Mr Sam Tan. This is not a local innovation. And by the way, even the word "anonymised" is not a local innovation. Australia, United States and Canada have similar provisions in their registry legislation and for good reasons. The function of a Registry is limited to collection, analysis and reporting of routine statistics. Registry data may however, from time to time, show worrying trends that are beyond the scope of the registry to investigate. The purpose of setting up the Registry is really for us to be aware when a worrying trend develops. And once you identify a problem, you need to get to the bottom of it - why is there a worrying trend?

Consider this scenario. Supposing we introduce a new national mass screening programme for a particular cancer, "cancer X". After several years, the expectation must be that if the screening is effective and it is well done, then we should expect the incidence rate to go down and with it, survival rate to improve. But supposing that having done so, we found from the Registry data that that is not the case, and we continue to see a rising trend and a significant number of very severe "cancer X" cases; in other words, patients presenting themselves at stage four, very advanced stage of severity. What is wrong? Then, you must ask the questions: What is the reason? Is it because the screening is poorly done? Is it generally poorly done or only certain screening centres are particularly bad? Why is that so? What is wrong? Or is it because, while we intended it to be a mass screening, significant segments of a population are not coming forward to be screened? Is it a particular racial group or a particular age group?

I think these are critical questions that, as Minister for Health, my job is to try to understand them, so that we can take corrective action. But for us to probe into such a scenario, the Registry may need to release identifiable data to the investigators that we set up, to enable them to match the Registry data with, for example, the cancer screening data, so that the experts can identify the problem and then to address it in order to formulate a more effective cancer programme. So far, we have not encountered such a scenario here. But I have read of such development, which cropped up either in Australia or New Zealand, of a particular cancer screening programme. When they finally investigated and got to the bottom of it, they were able to discover that a particular laboratory was doing the testing poorly so that many of the cancer cases were missed.

Without the power of such a provision, getting such a conclusion will be almost impossible. So, taking a leaf from the experience of the US, Canada and Australia, we think it is appropriate now to include such a provision in our legislation. Let me assure the House that such disclosure would only be allowed if the Ministry is fully satisfied that a programme cannot be effectively carried out with anonymised data. There will be rigorous scrutiny of every such request before release of data. Stringent requirements will also be put in place for maintaining confidentiality and limiting the use of data for the specified purpose. Certainly, the release of the individualised data is not meant to be public, that so and so has "cancer X". It is only to release to the investigators that the Ministry of Health appointed, for example. The Director of Medical Services can also request for appropriate ethical review to assist him in evaluating complex requests for such data.

Prof. Thio asked if officers, under clause 10(2), are bound by the confidentiality requirements of clause 8. Let me clarify here that the Registry officers are bound by clause 8 to protect the confidentiality of identifiable data stored in the Registry. On the other hand, those who received identifiable information under clause 10 to pursue an approved national public health programme will in turn be bound by the conditions imposed under clause 10, to protect the data from unauthorised use and disclosure.

Mdm Halimah suggested that we refer all requests for individually-identifiable information for public health research to the National Research Advisory Committee, otherwise she felt that an inordinate amount of power would have been rendered to one person in the Registrar. That is a fair point. But let me clarify that, indeed, all research proposals

would have been reviewed and supported by the respective Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) which comprise quite a number of people before they are submitted to the Registrar.

And my Ministry has strict operational guidelines for all IRBs and these include guidelines on how informed consent should be obtained. Hence, for each research proposal, several people would have been involved in its approval process. Clause 12(5) is to empower the Registrar to seek a second opinion through the National Research Advisory Committee in the event that he has concerns which were not adequately addressed by the IRBs. I think this is an adequate safeguard.

Let me now address the other queries by the Members. Mdm Halimah and Dr Fatimah sought clarifications on clause 2 definitions of the Bill. First, the Bill applies to all healthcare establishments irrespective of whether they are in the public or private sector. Second, the manager or person having the management or control of the healthcare institution would be the one held accountable for notifying the Registry. We have not listed the specific titles as these could vary from one institution to another.

Prof. Thio found clause 21 on general exemption to grant too broad a power. I think she described it as giving me the power to issue "get out of jail free" card. That is not the intent. Let me clarify that this exemption power will primarily be used to exempt managers of healthcare institutions from having to notify the Registry of persons diagnosed with or undergoing treatment for a reportable disease, if it will create unnecessary duplication in reporting. This can happen. This is to reduce the overall burden on reporting.

Let me assure this House that clause 21 will not be used to exempt anybody from the obligation to respect the confidentiality of identifiable information

stored in the Registry. This is not the intention behind this provision.

Prof. Thio also commented on judicial review and to what extent is judicial review available under the Bill. My understanding in this aspect of the law is that judicial review is available to any person who can show the court that he should be granted relief. I think Mr Chiam made a similar query as well.

As to the definition of "cancer" by Dr Lam, I stand advised by the professionals. And I think the Director of Medical Services will set up an expert committee to advise him, among other things, to look through the current data submission to the Cancer Registry, to see whether we could add or substract, whether we can improve the form and, along the way, I think they would also sort out the question of which cancer to include and which to exclude.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for supporting this Bill, and I share their concerns on patients' confidentiality, and I share it deeply. When drafting the subsidiary legislation, we will be particularly mindful of ensuring adequate checks and balances. And this is part of the reason why we are taking a cautious incremental approach, beginning with the Cancer Registry, which has an almost 40-year history.

I note the call by Dr Lam and Dr Fatimah to expedite the inclusion of other diseases under the Bill. We will learn from the experience of the Cancer Registry before we embark on any such extension. Meanwhile, a Committee has been formed to advise the Ministry on future expansion.

I also note the call by Members, including Dr Lam, to ensure hassle-free processes and that fees should be kept reasonable. These are valid concerns and

my staff would streamline the notification processes and the use of electronic means of data submission as far as possible. This would help reduce the operating costs.

I thank the House for their support.

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 Khaw Boon Wan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2007 comprises two categories of changes. The first provides for the income tax changes announced in this year's Budget Statement in February 2007. The second category covers other amendments to the Income Tax Act arising from regular reviews to improve our income tax system.

5.07 pm

The Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill was released for public consultation from June to July this year. The draft Bill has been revised to incorporate suggestions from businesses and members of the public.

Tax policy changes announced in 2007 Budget Statement

Let me first highlight the key policy changes that were announced in the 2007 Budget Statement.

Reducing corporate tax rate

With effect from Year of Assessment 2008, the corporate income tax rate will be reduced from 20% to 18%. This change, together with other related changes, is reflected in the Bill under clauses 18, 20(b), 25(a), 25(e), 25(i), 29, 30, 31(a), 31(b), 31(c), 33 and 35(b).

Increasing partial tax exemption threshold for companies

The chargeable income of companies that qualifies for partial income tax exemption will be increased from the current $100,000 to $300,000 with effect from Year of Assessment 2008. With the change, 75% of the first $10,000 of chargeable income and 50% of the next $290,000 of chargeable income will be exempt from income tax. Clauses 25(f) and 25(g) of the Bill provide for this change.

Lifting the sunset clause for the Income Tax Exemption Scheme for newly incorporated companies

Currently, newly incorporated companies may qualify for full tax exemption on the first $100,000 of chargeable income for each of the first three Years of Assessment falling between Year of Assessment 2005 and Year of Assessment 2009. As part of Government's continuing efforts to encourage entrepreneurship, the Year of Assessment 2009 expiry date will be removed. Clause 25(h) of the Bill provides for this change.

Promoting Singapore as a philanthropy hub

Several changes to the taxation and regulatory framework for charity were announced in Budget 2007. They formed part of our efforts to promote charitable giving and develop Singapore as an attractive international hub for philanthropic and not-for-profit organisations. One major change is the removal of the "80:20" spending rule for income tax exemption for charities. With effect from Year of Assessment 2008, we will remove the requirement for charities to spend at least 80% of their annual receipts on charitable objects in Singapore within two years in order to enjoy income tax exemption. All registered and exempt charities will enjoy automatic tax exemption. This will enable charities to optimise their investments and use of funds over time to sustain their charitable programmes in Singapore as well as overseas. These changes are covered by clauses 6(g) and 8 of the Bill.

A new tax incentive scheme has also been introduced to give income tax exemption to approved not-for-profit organisations that can either bring economic value to Singapore with linkages to key industry clusters or contribute to developing Singapore as a philanthropy hub. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for this tax exemption.

Promoting fund management in Singapore

As part of Singapore's continuing efforts to promote the fund management industry, the "80:20" rule under our tax exemption incentive scheme for non-resident funds will be removed. Details of the revised tax exemption scheme for fund management have been released by the Monetary Authority of Singapore on 31st August this year. The revised scheme gives certainty of tax exemption to foreign investors and allows resident

investors to also invest in managed funds, subject to specified investment limits. The changes will help to boost the fund management industry and provide fund managers based in Singapore with greater flexibility in sourcing for mandates. These changes are covered by clauses 7, 10 and 42(o).

Other tax policy changes

Sir, I shall now deal with other tax policy changes which require amendments to the Income Tax Act. Our existing tax policies and incentive schemes are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain relevant. Let me highlight four major changes to our tax policies and incentives that came about as a result of this review process.

Deferral of claim for accelerated capital allowance

Currently, accelerated capital allowances are granted over three years in respect of capital expenditure incurred on plant and machinery used for the purposes of trade, business or profession. Once the claim is made, the law requires that the accelerated capital allowances be made over three years on a consecutive basis. This requirement is now lifted. This change will give taxpayers flexibility to defer the claim for accelerated capital allowances. This change takes effect from Year of Assessment 2009. Clause 16(a) of the Bill provides for this change.

Enhancement and refinement of tax transparency treatment for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

The scope of the tax transparency treatment currently granted for REITs is further enhanced to encourage the listing of REITs in Singapore. Tax transparency treatment means that the REIT will not be subject to income tax on its qualifying income at the trust level. Instead, the distribution out of such income will be assessable in the hands of REIT unit

holders, unless otherwise exempted. With the enhancements, the Comptroller of Income Tax will be able to extend tax transparency treatment to a wider range of income streams derived by REITs from the activities they engage in. This will help to improve the tax competitiveness of our REITs regime. These changes take effect from Year of Assessment 2008. Clauses 6(e), 20(f), 25(b), 25(c), 25(d) and 25(j) of the Bill provide for these changes.

Amendment to facilitate income tax data sharing

To facilitate the application by individuals for Government schemes such as social assistance, this amendment provides explicitly that the Comptroller of Income Tax may share taxpayer information with relevant Government agencies, subject to the express consent by taxpayers to release the information. This amendment to facilitate income tax sharing will also allow the Comptroller to share non-identifiable taxpayer information with relevant Government agencies to improve research and the quality of statistics for policy formulation and evaluation. Agencies receiving the information will be subject to rules that ensure that the confidentiality of the information is not compromised. These changes are covered by clause 2 of the Bill.

Amendment to eligibility criteria for Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief

The Parenthood Tax Rebate is currently given for a qualifying child who at the time of birth has siblings in the same household. For reconstituted households after a divorce, both divorcees may want to claim the same child or children from their previous marriage as a member of their separate households, so that any subsequent births in their new families can qualify for the rebate. This change will specify the manner of determining the

household membership of children born before the divorce of the parents, so as to avoid the situation of the same child being double counted in separate households for Parenthood Tax Rebate claims.

Currently, when there is a divorce, both the biological and stepmothers could potentially claim

Working Mother's Child Relief for a qualifying child. The change is to allow Working Mother's Child Relief for only one claimant in respect of the child. The deduction shall only be made to a married woman, divorcee or widow who has maintained the child, and shall be limited to only one claimant. Where there are competing claims, the Comptroller shall determine, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to whom the deduction shall be allowed. Both changes will take effect from Year of Assessment 2008. These changes are covered by clauses 24 and 41 of the Bill.

Finally, Madam, 13 other changes have been incorporated in this Bill. As they are either technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration, I will not put members through the details of these remaining changes.

Conclusion

With the above changes, the Income Tax Act will be enhanced and updated to better achieve our economic and social objectives.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.16 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Madam, while I understand that the Bill is a technical follow-up of the far-reaching changes which were announced

during the Budget this year, I want to however raise a few points, especially since the environment has significantly changed since the beginning of this year.

Madam, first, with respect to clause 6 of the Bill which amends section 13 of the Income Tax Act, that many exemptions are part of the overall bid to make Singapore more attractive as a destination for capital and business activity, and these changes are welcomed. The addition of the new subsection (1)(zm) by clause 6 of the Bill, read together with the amendments proposed in clause 8 of the Bill, which actually repeals section 13M of the Act, exempts the income of charities and abolishes the requirement of charities to spend 80% of their income and the receipts accrued in the past year on charitable projects within Singapore. This is positive in that charities will then avoid the dilemma on spending on objects for the sake of fulfilling this requirement of spending 80% and will also allow them to accumulate capital for major expenditure projects in the future. However, given the possibility now that more charities will accumulate more of their income than previously, we should also ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the affairs of the charities. To this end, we have seen some good measures put in place recently that improve the framework of regulation for charities. For example, we had the appointment in August last year of a full-time Commissioner of Charities and the setting up of the Charity Council, and the National Council of Social Services itself is taking a more active approach in overseeing and investigating the affairs of charities. We have seen that a few charities were recently audited thoroughly, pursuant to the direction of the NCSS, and the reaction to this has been positive, including from the charities involved.

So, overall, this latest move to allow charities greater flexibility in their spending decision is a positive move which will add efficiencies to all charities, in my