Hansard, 2010-09-15

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 (2010) To (2010) Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 18 Aug 20 Aug Dr Teo Ho Pin 23 Aug 27 Aug 06 Sep 13 Sep 14 Sep 23 Sep Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 25 Aug 25 Aug 06 Sep 10 Sep RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 26 Aug 28 Aug Mr Gan Kim Yong 30 Aug 03 Sep 15 Sep 17 Sep Mr Lee Yi Shyan 30 Aug 04 Sep Mr Liang Eng Hwa 30 Aug 03 Sep Dr Lim Wee Kiak 30 Aug 04 Sep 21 Sep 24 Sep 02 Oct 08 Oct Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 30 Aug 04 Sep 13 Sep 19 Sep 28 Sep 28 Sep Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 30 Aug 03 Sep 08 Sep 13 Sep Mr Teo Chee Hean 30 Aug 02 Sep Mr Teo Ser Luck 30 Aug 02 Sep Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 31 Aug 07 Sep 15 Sep 22 Sep 05 Oct 08 Oct Column: 1023 Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 01 Sep 05 Sep 13 Sep 15 Sep Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 02 Sep 03 Sep 19 Sep 19 Sep Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 05 Sep 10 Sep Mrs Josephine Teo 06 Sep 13 Sep 12 Oct 12 Oct 14 Oct 17 Oct Dr Lee Boon Yang 06 Sep 09 Sep 12 Sep 16 Sep 19 Sep 23 Sep 27 Sep 29 Sep 02 Oct 06 Oct Mr Lee Hsien Loong 06 Sep 13 Sep 22 Sep 26 Sep Mr Michael Palmer 06 Sep 13 Sep Mr Mah Bow Tan 07 Sep 10 Sep 27 Sep 29 Sep Dr Ng Eng Hen 07 Sep 16 Sep Mr Matthias Yao Chih 09 Sep 11 Sep 20 Sep 24 Sep Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 09 Sep 11 Sep Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 09 Sep 09 Sep Mr Baey Yam Keng 10 Sep 11 Sep Mr K Shanmugam 10 Sep 13 Sep Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 11 Sep 17 Sep 21 Sep 08 Oct Mr Calvin Cheng 12 Sep 16 Sep Mdm Halimah Yacob 12 Sep 14 Sep Miss Penny Low 12 Sep 19 Sep 14 Oct 19 Oct Mr Charles Chong 13 Sep 20 Sep Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 13 Sep 23 Sep Mr Alvin Yeo 15 Sep 15 Sep Ms Ellen Lee 15 Sep 16 Sep Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 15 Sep 15 Sep Mrs Mildred Tan 15 Sep 15 Sep Mr Lee Kuan Yew 16 Sep 26 Sep Mr Terry Lee 16 Sep 16 Sep Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 18 Sep 20 Sep Mr Inderjit Singh 18 Sep 20 Sep Column: 1024 Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 20 Sep 24 Sep Dr Lam Pin Min 20 Sep 25 Sep 17 Nov 21 Nov 20 Dec 27 Dec Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 20 Sep 23 Sep Ms Sylvia Lim 20 Sep 25 Sep Mr Wee Siew Kim 20 Sep 20 Sep Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 21 Sep 04 Oct Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 24 Sep 04 Oct Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 02 Oct 08 Oct 18 Oct 28 Oct Mr Ang Mong Seng 07 Oct 09 Oct 16 Oct 20 Oct Prof. S Jayakumar 11 Oct 20 Oct Dr Ong Seh Hong 14 Oct 19 Oct

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

31st August,2010 (1) Goods And Services Tax (Amendment) Bill (2) Hostage-Taking Bill (3) Rapid Transit Systems (Amendment) Bill (4) Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Zaqy Mohamad –

1. To ask the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the final amount spent for the inaugural Youth Olympics Games (YOG); (b) why is the actual amount spent much more than initially budgeted; (c) what are the factors that contributed to this increase; (d) how does this compare with other Games conducted on a similar scale; (e) how does the Ministry rate its performance on the organisation of the YOG; and (f) what returns can Singapore expect from the amount spent on the programmes, talent, infrastructure and volunteers for YOG.

2. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will provide his assessment of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) and its legacy to Singapore, in particular how much was spent on the YOG and what are the short-term and long-term benefits of this public investment to Singapore and Singaporeans.

3. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what are the Ministry's plans to further develop Singapore's sports industry following the successful organisation of the inaugural Youth Olympic Games; (b) what are the new infrastructure and programmes that the Ministry has planned to build a sporting culture involving as many Singaporeans as possible; and (c) what measures are in place to better optimise the sporting facilities in schools and other organisations for public use.

4. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what efforts will be made to develop our young athletes further to the highest levels and to nurture a sporting culture in our schools and in the wider community.

5. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what are the plans to further develop the talents who have shown potential at the Youth Olympic Games and to ensure that these talents continue to develop and perform as they progress to national teams; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to manage the sporting careers of young male athletes during their period of National Service and to ensure that they are still able to compete at the highest level internationally and not lose time or motivation.

6. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) why is the final budget for the Youth Olympic Games more than triple the original estimate; (b) where were the additional funds drawn from; (c) whether any of his Ministry programmes were cut back for this purpose; and (d) what was the amount paid for the tickets purchased by the Ministry of Education and whether this was also part of the YOG budget.

Question No. 1, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 1 – 6 together?

Yes.

I thank Members for the many questions on the Youth Olympic Games (YOG). This is the largest international multi-sport event we have

ever hosted. The YOG has placed Singapore on a new growth trajectory for the pursuit of sports excellence, strengthening our sporting culture and growing our sports industry. It has, in a sense, been a rite of passage that celebrated our position as a global city – providing services and competing with the best in the world. Before I elaborate on the YOG legacy, let me first pay tribute to the many people who made the Singapore 2010 YOG a resounding success.

First and foremost, credit should go to the workforce, the 30,000 volunteers and staff of the Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee (SYOGOC), and many others from Government and non-Government agencies. Special commendation needs to go to the volunteers stationed at the frontline, running the competitions, greeting the visitors or showing them around, as well as many others working tirelessly in the background. Our volunteers have proven unequivocally that Singaporeans are gracious and hospitable. Our volunteers have shown that Singapore is capable of welcoming the world, with style, grace, cheerfulness and efficiency.

Next, the performance of our Team Singapore athletes at the YOG is something that all Singaporeans can be proud of. It is testament to our Singapore system that our young athletes are capable of competing head-to-head with the best in the world. Their determination and fighting spirit, both in claiming victory as well as in accepting defeat, captured the imagination of Singaporeans. It is this confidence and self belief that was on display that is crucial for our future, not just in sports but indeed for all our endeavours as a nation.

The YOG has also helped to rekindle spectator interest in sports. I would like to thank all the supporters who turned up at

the torch relay, at the opening and closing ceremonies and at the sports venues not only to cheer our Team Singapore athletes, but also to appreciate the world class sporting talent that was on display. I apologise for the initial ticketing problems that we faced, but I am very happy that even more Singaporeans ultimately had the chance to watch these Games when we exercised greater flexibility during the Games.

Last but not least, I would like to pay tribute to our local companies involved in supporting the YOG, either as sponsors or service providers. They did Singapore proud by providing a very high quality level of service and top-notched infrastructure for the Games. Indeed, this was a total Singapore effort, and we did well collectively as Team Singapore.

Let me now discuss the budget. The total Government outlay for the YOG would come up to S$387 million. Approval for this expenditure was obtained from Cabinet, and additional funds provided by the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, it was not necessary to cut back on any of the other MCYS programmes in order for us to host these Games.

Our initial budget estimates during the bid phase were clearly inaccurate. We got it wrong. Let me explain how this came about. This was the first ever Youth Olympic Games in the world. Quite frankly, both the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and us were starting from scratch. We, therefore, underestimated the requirements and consequential costs for several major functional areas which were necessary to host these Games. In fact, the finalised specifications and standards for the YOG events were only determined after we won the bid to host the Games. And if I may add, these were in fact, determined very late in the preparations for the Games. Each event was pegged at World

Youth Championship level and all 26 International Federations representing each Olympic sport had to approve the detailed specifications.

To put things in context, we should look at the two most recent Olympic Games, as well as the next. The YOG that we hosted was about one-third the scale of the Beijing Summer Olympic Games in 2008 which featured 11,000 athletes. We had 3,600 athletes. Our projected expenditure for YOG was about 10% of Beijing's reported operating expenditure (S$3.9 billion, which excluded capital expenditure). So, one-third the size, but our spending was only 10% of Beijing's expenditure.

In fact, if we compared against the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games 2010, we had more athletes participating in YOG than in the Winter Olympics. But our expenditure would likely amount to only about 20% of what Vancouver spent (S$2.26 billion). If we look forward to two years from now, the reported provisional budget for the 2012 London Summer Olympics now stands at S$19.2 billion (9.3 billion pounds), including infrastructure. The point is, we spent a very small fraction of the expenditure which would be incurred in larger Olympic Games. This is despite the fact that we had one-third the number of athletes and that all the detailed specifications for infrastructure were pitched at world junior championship standard.

In the interest of transparency, let me go down one level in resolution and reveal more details for the budget. The budget consists of several key components. In the area of technology, the projected cost was about S$97 million. The Games were pitched at World Junior Championship standards. We, therefore, had to provide a highly accurate scoring system as well as a sophisticated computer system to disseminate and diffuse results instantly and "live" across 18 different competition

venues throughout Singapore and to the entire world. This technology allowed us to officially capture and register 14 junior world records set during the Games. The system was also used to manage all the workforce data and the accreditation of all the nearly 370,000 visitors to 44 Games venues. We spent a lot on technology but the point I am making is that this was a state-of-the-art highly sophisticated system.

The next item was the upgrading of our sports venues and equipment needed to host the Games. This amounted to about S$76 million. These were essential to fulfil the requirements specified by the IOC and the International Federations, as well as to allow the Games to be broadcast "live" to the world, and, perhaps even more importantly, for these same venues to subsequently be used by Singaporeans after the Games.

Providing "live" broadcasts through multiple media as well as broadcasting the Opening and Closing Ceremonies that displayed Singapore's finest – both in terms of sports and creativity – accounted for another S$45.5 million. This enabled us to profile Singapore to a potential global audience of over 2.1 billion people. These are not my estimates. The IOC informed me of these estimates. They signed contracts with over 180 international broadcasters who then had rights to feed the sporting events as well as the Opening and Closing Ceremonies to their respective areas.

For the same reason, we also set aside S$7 million for the Journey of the Youth Olympic Flame through the five continents before it arrived in Singapore. Initially, the IOC was not keen on having an International Torch Relay because of the controversy that surrounded the Torch Relay during the Beijing Olympics. However because this was the first ever Youth Olympic Games, and I think also because they had confidence in us being able to organise this and to get through

without any major mishaps or any unnecessary political kerfuffle, they decided to make an exception. And so this Torch, which was lit in Ancient Olympia, travelled to five other cities before arriving in Singapore.

The YOG was a major logistics operation. Members would really need to go to the back of the house or to go to the warehouse at Changi to understand the mega logistics requirements. Logistics – which also included supply chain management, venue logistics, cleaning, waste management and transport – cost us about S$44 million.

The next critical area was security. Unfortunately, people still remember Munich for the wrong reasons, when athletes were killed. In our case, we had to do our best to ensure the safety of athletes, dignitaries and visitors. Security was a priority and people expected that of Singapore. Auxilary police and screening equipment were available that ensured that detailed security checks could be done, and yet, done without causing a lockjam, and done in a less intrusive way. Security cost us about S$18 million.

S$14.3 million went to the operational requirements such as language translation and interpretation, laundry, catering and other services at the Youth Olympic Village. Members need to understand that there were 3,600 athletes and another 1,700 officials from all over the world, speaking a wide variety of languages with great individual and customised demands. This was another major operation in its own right.

The Culture and Education Programme (CEP), which was a new and unique feature of our Games, accounted for another S$5.4 million. But through the CEP, the IOC hoped – and they are now convinced that they achieved the

objective – to ensure that positive values and the appreciation of diverse cultures were transmitted to both the young athletes who were there as well as our own Singaporean youths who were part of that programme.

On the revenue side, our merchandise and ticket sales are expected to bring in about S$7 million. Why so low? Because we charged very low prices. I felt it was more important to ensure that we had made the Games accessible and affordable to Singaporeans rather than to maximise revenues. We received another S$60 million worth of sponsorships in kind from various companies and another S$7.6 million in cash sponsorship from companies like Samsung, ATOS, Panasonic and DBS.

Overall, the YOG was certainly not cheap. When it became clear during the course of the preparations that our initial estimates were wrong, I was confronted with two pertinent questions. First – if we had known that it would cost S$387 million, would we still have bid for the Games? The second question – if we spent S$387 million, will we get value from that expenditure?

In my mind, the answer to both these questions was "Yes". I was able to convince my Cabinet colleagues that the answer to both these questions was "Yes". This was why approval was given for us to spend this money to host these Games.

There was another alternative. I could have just blindly cut the budget and delivered sub-standard Games. I do not think that would have been the right decision. I do not think it would have been fair to our athletes, to the visiting athletes, to the IOC and, most importantly, I do not think it would have been fair to Singaporeans because at the end of the day, you would want to host something which would be a source of

collective pride for all Singaporeans.

Now that the Games are over, our main focus has to be to make sure that the full benefits of organising and hosting these Games for Singapore are reaped. I want to thank the many Members in this House as well as many Singaporeans who had emailed me over the course of this journey over the last two-and-half years their suggestions and ideas on both organising the Games as well as how to maximise the legacy from the Games.

Let me spend a few minutes to talk about international branding because this is one of those key intangibles that accrues to an event like this.

Singapore will always be remembered as the country that hosted the world's first ever Youth Olympic Games. This is a rare honour. It is rare because there can only be one first host. If I ask Members to name the first host of the modern Summer Olympics, everyone will always remember Greece, Athens in 1896. If I ask Members to name the first host of the Winter Olympics, some here may remember France – Chamonix, 86 years ago. We are now in that same position; the first ever host. On all subsequent Olympic flags which are transferred to the host city, at the bottom right corner of that flag is embroidered "Singapore 2010". This will be a permanent legacy. It ensures that we will remain on the international community's radar screens. The next time anyone is making an investment decision, or are trying to decide where to site an international or regional headquarters, or deciding to expand their businesses overseas, they would have heard of or they may have visited us, and they would know that we stand for certain quality and reliability.

The YOG has therefore helped to effectively and positively profile Singapore to an international audience. Before, everyone knew that we are a safe and efficient city, but now everyone knows

that we are a beautiful, vibrant, dynamic, exciting, creative global city where people from all over the world will want to visit, live, work, play or invest in.

So, we have to do it well, and to do it in a way that the world will sit up and take notice of us. The global viewership of the Games and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies has certainly helped to brand and feature Singapore over the 14 days. According to the IOC, the Games were watched by over two billion viewers. The IOC also reported that because of our heavy use of new media, the Youth Olympic Games Channel, the videos that were downloaded from YouTube – people's individual screens – exceeded five million times. That is double the downloads that the Vancouver Winter Olympics enjoyed. And at one point, the Youth Olympic Games Channel was the most watched YouTube channel worldwide. I can guarantee you that these are not achievements which come easily.

Let me now turn to the contributions to the local economy. The YOG provided considerable benefits for our local businesses. Of the overall budget of S$387 million, S$260 million worth of local contracts went to our local companies, which is about 70% of our projected expenditure. And another S$46 million went to overseas companies with local subsidiaries in Singapore. We hope that both our local companies as well as local subsidiaries of overseas companies will now leverage on their experience providing the services to further their own business interests and also to compete for other international projects that will arise all over the world.

The Singapore Tourism Board had earlier estimated that the YOG will bring in some S$57 million in additional tourism receipts. Visa International recently reported that spending on foreign Visa-branded payment cards in Singapore went up by some S$154 million during the Games period. This was a 38% increase

over the same period the previous year. I think if you talk to any retailers or hoteliers in town, they will all tell you it was a good time.

Let me now turn to other benefits, specifically with respect to sports culture. It has laid a very strong foundation for building our sports culture, particularly in the areas of spectatorship, community involvement and, just as important, volunteer engagement. The officials from the Singapore Sports Council (SSC), National Sports Associations (NSAs) and the volunteers were really the key people behind the Games. Our officials played a critical role in the preparations of our athletes as well. With this experience and the knowledge, and the networks that they have formed, Singaporeans – officials, volunteers and staff – are now better equipped than ever before to host international world class sports events as well as to prepare our athletes to compete at the highest level. SSC and the People's Association will continue to engage the pool of YOG volunteers so that they can offer their experience and expertise for future sporting and community events.

If Members do not mind, I cannot help but again highlight the fantastic performance of our volunteers. I had never seen people so passionately, so tirelessly, so enthusiastically going through their work, despite the fact that they were not being paid, and even the food was not necessarily the best in the world. They did so, not for my sake, certainly not for the Government's sake, but because they were proud of Singapore, and in their own quiet and effective ways, they wanted to do their bit to put Singapore on the map to show the world what a wonderful home Singapore is. That was, to me, a real life example of the Singapore spirit. And, quite frankly, at the end of this exercise, I ended up more confident about the future because I saw the Singapore spirit.

The YOG also helped us to catalyse five new satellite centres for sports development. This will provide more opportunities for our children to try out sports in a fun and safe environment. We will set up satellite centres for all 26 Olympic sports.

Another legacy from the Games is that Singaporeans from all walks of life will benefit from the upgraded or new facilities, whether it is the Toa Payoh Sports Hall which has a new roof and railings, the Sports School which has a 10-metre air pistol range, or the new Tampines Bike Park, just to name a few.

Hosting the Games provided a good opportunity for us to reach out to our young Singaporeans. Through the YOG Culture and Education Programme, we reached out to 500,000 local students, to educate them about important global and sport issues, to contribute to the environment and society, and for opportunities to interact with other young people, some of whom came from countries we have never heard of before. So, we succeeded in transmitting the Olympic values of excellence, friendship and respect. In fact, the Youth Olympic Village at NTU, quite frankly, and I might be taking the risk of being immodest here, was one of the best Olympic Villages comparable or even exceeding many in the full Summer Olympics. The participation by our school students was the key reason. The way they set up the world culture booths, the way they interacted, the way they presented themselves made a real impact, and I had lost track of the number of compliments I received from foreign athletes, officials and the IOC, about the fantastic performance of our school students. Again, it is another vote of confidence in our future.

The Ministry of Education purchased 87,000 tickets at a discounted price of $10 per ticket. They did so, so that the

students would enjoy and be inspired by the spirit of the competition – a world class competition being held right in our neighourhood. It had also allowed students to support countries that they were twinned with under the Friends@YOG programme, and to also allow them to be gracious hosts and to support the countries that they had built a prior relationship with. This amount – 87,000 tickets x $10, so that makes S$870,000 – was not part of the YOG budget. It came from the Ministry of Education's budget. But they felt that this represented MOE's expenditure towards an activity which they believed would benefit students. It was part of the students' learning journey about sports events and experiencing the different cultures among the biggest gathering of nations in Singapore's history, represented by the 204 National Olympic Committees in Singapore at the same time.

Ms Irene Ng and Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked very relevant questions about our plans to develop our athletes for the future. The Singapore Youth Sports Development Committee, which is co-chaired by the Senior Parliamentary Secretaries, Mr Teo Ser Luck and Mr Masagos Zulkifli, has put in place a system to allow the NSAs, the schools and other stakeholders to build up a strong pipeline of future sports talent. The YOG had shown and, in fact, emphasised the absolute importance of having a pipeline of young talent. This Committee will continue to provide opportunities to young Singaporeans to discover their talents, nurture their talents and prepare them for competition on the world stage.

My Ministry and the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) also recognise the need to take a holistic view of athlete development. For talented national athletes, we will continue to track their development very closely and we will develop individualised plans to support

them throughout the competitive phase of their careers, but, equally important, the post-competitive phase, because we need to assure parents that sports is not a dead end. Sports is a stepping stone to greater career heights for an individual. That is the only way we will get parents and young people to make the necessary sacrifices and investments in order to be the world's best in whatever particular sport they choose to pursue. At the apex of our sports pyramid, we will continue to look especially at athletes with the potential to win medals at the Olympic Games in 2012 and 2016. Members again need to appreciate how far we have come, that we can even now contemplate more than one medal. It took us nearly four decades to win one medal two years ago. Now, we dare to have bigger dreams. We have made tremendous progress.

In parallel, I intend to form a committee to review our entire athlete development framework and to suggest ways to enhance the education and career options for national athletes. This study will take some time because I want it to be done in a deliberate and comprehensive way. But I hope we will have some further details to announce in six months' time.

Sir, I would like to commend the Minister and his team for delivering a successful YOG that did Singapore and Singaporeans proud. There were initial hiccups, as to be expected of such an international event of this scale and size. I think that the Minister and his team, like the athletes and volunteers, also showed the Singapore spirit in the way they worked to overcome the challenges and rose to show Singapore's resilience and determination.

Sir, having heard the Minister's explanation which was so detailed and which gave a clear view of why we spent so much on the YOG, can I ask the

Minister whether these details could have been released before the YOG so that the public can fully rally around the YOG without the distraction of quarrelling over the figures and without wondering whether the investment is worthwhile?

I totally agree with the Member. In fact, I did release it before the Games. But, like I said, the problem was that this was a moving target and I did not want to release inaccurate figures or take the risk of having another under-estimate. So the figures came out rather late in the process. Nevertheless, it was released before the Games, because I did not want to have a situation where we presented you with the bill after everything was done, and then, there would be a second shock.

But I agree with the Member that we should always try to reveal details before an event, to be as open and transparent and accurate as possible. Having made the mistake of under-estimating the expenditure once, I did not want to repeat that mistake.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to declare my interest as the President of Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). The first question is: what is the budget that will be set aside for grooming our talented young athletes? Second question is, what is the role of National Sport Associations (NSAs) in the development of these young athletes and whether additional resources will be given to NSAs?

As the Minister has mentioned, we have a Youth Sports Development Committee that is chaired by Mr Masagos and I. The Committee prepared the Youth Olympic Games athletes for the YOG. They have

exceeded our target, in terms of medal count and also performance.

As Members may be aware, we only yesterday made an announcement of what we intend to do in the future. It is to make sure that we establish a pipeline, a process of grooming and developing these promising athletes and even those who have not been able to represent Singapore at this time in any of the international games, but may be identified later – those late bloomers – that we can train them within the school system, subsequently if they go to the Sports School, they can benefit from the curriculum and after that, possibly going through the process within the Sports Institute. This would have to be a joint effort between NSAs, Sports Council, Sports School as well as Sports Institute so that we make sure that we track their performance from a very young age all the way until they graduate from school. Even when they are working, they can continue their journey as a sportsman.

After that, we must also ensure that we take care of their post-sports career. I think the key question that the Member asked was how much. The budget is a work in progress. I cannot tell her a specific amount today because it is a big massive project.

As Members know, for YOG athletes, through the Committee of Youth Sports Development, we had budgeted $6.2 million to prepare the athletes for the YOG and another $2.5 million were set aside for the satellite centres for all Olympic sports, to be set up all over Singapore, so that young people can learn about the sports, can learn to play and then subsequently identify them. But as Members can see year-on-year, annual funding for NSAs has been on the rise. Even indirectly, they get the benefits of other types of sports services that the Sports Council supplied. If we look at the direct funding and indirect benefits through the SSC services, if we calculate

the total, there is an increase. I am very sure that STTA does get an increase in funding.

I would like to congratulate the Minister for a job well done for the YOG. I would like to enquire on my question 5(b) with respect to how we manage youth sporting talent development as they pass through National Service. I do not think that was covered in his speech. The second question I have is, I do understand that the requirements for the YOG did come in late. How do we ensure that we will not overcharge for some of these services or products that we purchased at the last minute? How do we ensure that we did not over-scope given that the notice was short and that the Games were around the corner?

The Member is right. I missed his question on National Service. I am not here to make any changes in policy on National Service. I think all Members know that National Service is a universal obligation for all Singaporean males. However, MINDEF does try its best to exercise flexibility. For instance, depending on the potential of the Singaporean athlete to win a medal in international games and depending on the four-year cycle, sometimes, MINDEF allows a deferment or a postponement of enlistment but we cannot reach a situation where we entirely discount National Service in favour of someone's sporting career. Unfortunately, this is a price that we pay for the security and success of Singapore.

His next question relates to the fact that the requirements scope came in late. The fundamental challenge that we faced was that we only had two and a half years to prepare for these Games. Again, to give Members an idea of scale for the Summer Olympics and the Winter Olympics – and I remember the Winter Olympics has even fewer athletes than

the Youth Olympic Games – the host countries are given up to seven years to make preparations. Nanjing, the next host of the Youth Olympic Games, is being given four plus years to make preparations. So the fact that we had to scramble hopefully will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, both for the IOC as well as for us.

The Member is absolutely right – because we were scrambling and under intense time pressure, to what extent were we held hostage because of time and even more dangerous, did we over-scope because we did not have the time to argue? These were questions that I kept asking myself. All I can say on this count is – and Members can check with our Organising Committee and even with the IOC – I have been the most unpleasant Minister in asking the most awkward questions and placing enormous pressure on my staff to make sure that we did not spend money unwisely or loosely. The other point, of course, was to make sure that we continued to consult widely with people in the know which means the sports industry as well as consultants from overseas. For example, the sports technology needed to record timings. Yes, we had to use the systems by Omega and ATOS because they are top sponsors of the Olympic Movement and they, in effect, are the de facto standards for timing and scoring systems. Nevertheless, we did bargain very hard with them. They did become sponsors for us as well and they did discount their prices. We did make sure that they worked with our local companies who then would also have benefited from technology transfer and also be in a position to be able to tell me if anyone felt that we were being fleeced. I think at the end of the day, Singaporeans are sensible, pragmatic, rational and sometimes quite calculative. I do not think we got fleeced.

Ms Sylvia Lim, last question.

Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, I would like to bring the Minister back to the original budget which was US$75.5 million or roughly S$110 million. I would like to ask for an elaboration of the due diligence that went into preparation of that original budget. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there were two big items in the budget – technology which was S$97 million and sports and venues which were S$76 million. Together these two items already made up S$173 million and I would imagine that these items are foreseeable expenditures for the Games. So I would like the Minister to elaborate on why our original budget was so low when these two items were clearly big- ticket items.

Secondly, the IOC Report in 2008, reported in the various cities bidding for the Games, showed that there were five bidders and we were actually fourth in terms of our budget, ie, the three other cities bid much higher to host the Games. I wonder if the Minister also noted that Moscow who was competing with us at the end, their budget was more than double of ours originally. So does the Minister actually agree with a comment by his Permanent Secretary that perhaps we were a bit naive in our initial estimates for the budget? And the last question is that now that the Games are over, there have been anecdotal evidence of events which were poorly attended, and so on. So I wonder if his Ministry has had a chance to do an assessment of wastage costs that were incurred during the YOG.

Thank you for the questions. I am not in any position to defend our under-estimation. The Member is quite right. When we compared ourselves to the other bidders and, in particular, at the end when it came down to Moscow versus us, the Moscow budget was somehow on the dot. But Moscow has hosted many Olympic

Games. It has hosted Olympic Games before. It has hosted Youth Games before. They have the facilities and they know what they are doing. In our case, if I ask Members, when was the last time we hosted an international multi-sport event before 2008; Members will scratch their heads and go back, I think, to 1993, the SEA Games. I am giving an explanation and not an excuse. We were plain wrong. She is quite right.

If Members look just at the cost of feeding people, moving people, transport and logistics – that already was over $40 million. Then we take into account technology. Technology, we have a reason to under-estimate because we did not think at that point in time that we were going to host the Games which were at world's standard with world-class timing and information systems.

So I have no excuse for getting it wrong the first time. But I instead am trying to focus on the relevant question which was put to me after it emerged what would it really cost, which is: "if you knew it was going to cost $387 million, would you bid for the Games?" and, second, "would you get $387 million worth of value from the Games?" And once I was convinced that the answer to both those questions was "yes", I had to proceed. The other thing was to keep faith with Singaporeans, and that is why, as Ms Irene Ng recommended, I was transparent and I revealed these numbers to Singaporeans before the Games. So, yes, we took heat for that. But it is much better to take heat for being transparent rather than to present people with a fait accompli.

Were there some events which were poorly attended? In the initial phase, the first couple of days, we had a very peculiar phenomenon when tickets were sold out and because I was there I could see that there were still seats available. That was due to a combination of rigidity

in our sale system. We sold tickets for an entire session but people may only be interested in certain segments of that session. Secondly, like Parliament, some people come late, some people leave early, it is very hard to ensure that even Parliament has a full House all the time. I then had to break Olympic protocol and put my foot down and say, "No. I am going to sell extra tickets as long as there are seats in the house." Yes, I am going to take the risk. When I do that, there will be legitimate ticket holders who would then show up and say, "I have a ticket. Where is my seat?"

I decided to take that risk and I also stated without approval of the IOC that if that situation arose, these legitimate ticket holders will sit in the seats which had hitherto been reserved for officials and if need be, I would tell the officials, "I am sorry, we don't have seats for you anymore." I did this, as I said I broke rules, and may have stepped on some toes. But I did it because I did not want to deprive Singaporeans of an opportunity to watch these Games. By that point, it had also become very clear that my initial worries that the Games would not be of interest to Singaporeans were completely unfounded. In fact, I received more complaints from people who could not get into the Games than people who were not interested in the Games. So in a sense, this was a problem of success. There were some non-sporting events, for instance, nightly concerts at the Bay. All of us have done events at the grassroots level. Once you set up a stage, your marginal cost of leaving the stage there for each subsequent day is actually very low. We said, "Well, we might as well put a stage for the entire duration of the Games."

On weekends and particularly when there were a few very 'hot' items, which were very popular among young people we had thousands of people, on seats or even standing around. On weekdays, or with groups which were

less well-known, there would be empty seats.

I went down on a day that the site was relatively empty. I asked the organisers and then myself, "should I pack up the whole place? Since there was low demand on Tuesday, shall I cancel the entire thing? Or in fact, should I treat this as incremental marginal cost; allow the show to go on and know that there would be certain days and certain acts for which there would be a full house?" In the end, the site was not full on everyday, but there were certain weekends and certain performances in which all the seats were used. So I thought it was still money well spent.

7. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will explain the basis on which the new anti-speculation measures announced on 30th August 2010 were devised; and (b) whether any assessment was done on their impact on genuine home buyers and Singaporean investors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of the property measures that were introduced by the Government on 30th August 2010 this year is to maintain a stable and sustainable property market, where prices move in line with economic fundamentals. There is a danger of a property bubble forming, given the strong momentum of the market, and the likely slowdown in the pace of economic growth, as well as the economic uncertainties ahead.

The measures are aimed at reducing the level of speculative demand in the market and encouraging financial prudence. Genuine buyers, especially first-time buyers, are not unduly affected. The extension of the holding period for the

Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD), from one to three years, is targeted at short-term speculation. The lowering of the Loan-To-Value (LTV) limit for housing loans from 80% to 70% and the increase of the minimum cash payment from 5% to 10% of the property price are also restricted to home buyers who already have one or more outstanding housing loans. First-time home buyers, who do not have any outstanding housing loan, are not affected by the measures. They can continue to take loans of up to 80% LTV and pay only 5% in cash for their property purchase.

For the HDB market, the changes in the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) rules reinforce the long-term owner-occupation objective of HDB flats. Genuine home buyers including first-timers who intend to stay in their flats for the long term will not be negatively affected. In fact, they will benefit from reduced competition from those who are not in urgent need of housing.

There will be upgraders or investors who may be deterred from buying at this point because of the new measures. However, given the current state of the market, where there is ample public and private housing supply in the pipeline and the prevailing momentum of prices, these measures will encourage them to exercise greater financial prudence and think carefully about their purchases. In summary, the measures taken seek to pre-empt a property bubble from forming, and the negative consequences to them and to the economy as a whole, when it bursts.

Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister. I received feedback, as I am sure the other Members have, from Singaporeans who are close to retirement age who wish to rent out the private property which is the only asset

that they have, and to downgrade themselves to live in a resale HDB flat. They are now caught by this rule which requires them to dispose of their private property within six months of buying the resale flat. Does the Minister not agree that the new rules actually would jeopardise such legitimate plans of Singaporeans? The other point, which has been brought up to me, is that there appears to be an anomaly between the rule that allows an owner of an HDB flat to buy private property after five years of the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP), whereas the private property owner has to dispose of his property once he intends or has bought a resale HDB flat. So, would that not lead to a possible situation where permanent residents living in HDB flats are actually able to hold private properties in Singapore after the MOP, while not disposing of their HDB flats? But we may have Singaporeans, in the group which I mentioned earlier, who have to sell off their private property in order to move into a resale flat.

Sir, yes, I do empathise with the concerns of people who probably were hoping to sell their private property and move into a HDB flat. But the rules do not actually disallow them from doing so. In fact, they are able to move from their private property and downgrade to a HDB flat, provided they do not own both at the same time. So, for those people who wish to downgrade for their retirement, the new rules do not penalise or disadvantage them at all.

However, there are some people who wish to buy a HDB flat and at the same time own a private property. I think those are the people that the Member was talking about. To those people, I would say that at this point in time, we want to reinforce the use of the HDB flat as a flat for long-term owner-occupation, not as a mode of investment. Why? Because we want to make sure that those who are in urgent need of a HDB flat will be able to

buy a flat, especially those young first-timer couples who may not want to wait three years for a new flat, and who want to buy a resale flat, can do so. So, yes, there would be some who would be inconvenienced, there would be some who would be disadvantaged in a way, but I hope they understand the reasons for this move. We are trying to make sure that our first-timer couples are able to get the flats that they want.

As to whether the Ministry is penalising the private property owner, as opposed to the HDB owner, I think the rules that we have put in place, in actual fact, address this anomaly. Let me explain. In the past, a new subsidised HDB flat owner could not buy a private property until after five years, which is after the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP); whereas a private property owner could do so. In other words, he could have bought a non-subsidised HDB flat, kept his private property and moved into the HDB flat. He could have owned both properties at the same time, whereas a subsidised HDB flat owner could not. So, we have changed the rules to make it equitable, to make it fair for both the HDB flat owner as well as the private property owner, within the MOP which was three years and now five years, rather than saying that we are penalising the private property owner, we are actually making it equitable for both the HDB owner as well as the private property owner. We are also making these rules equitable and fair for all property owners whether permanent residents (PRs) or citizens.

Minister, let me try to understand this better. Why would an HDB flat owner be required to sell his private property if he is going to stay in his own HDB flat during the Minimum Occupation Period? Is the Minister suggesting that Singaporeans should not be encouraged to upgrade or buy HDB flats for their own investment

during these five years? If they have the money, why can they not use their money to invest in private property, while they are staying in the flat during these five years?

Sorry, I did not quite understand the Member's question. The Member's is asking, "Why can they not stay in their private property?"

If they are staying in their own HDB flat, why are they required to dispose of their private properties during this period that they are staying in the flat? So if a flat owner buys a flat, he is staying in it for the first five years but he is now required to –

I understand. Well, I think that was the point I was trying to make just now to the other Member, Ms Sylvia Lim. If you already own a private property, then please do not, at this point in time, go and compete with the others to buy an HDB resale flat, unless you are genuinely downgrading. If you are genuinely downgrading, you would buy an HDB resale flat and dispose of your private property. That is all right. In other words, that is still a legitimate way for you to monetise your private property in your retirement.

I do understand that there are people who want to have the best of both worlds. They want to keep their private properties, they want to stay in HDB flats. The private property can be rented out for investment, and so on. As I said, we have a genuine need from first-timer couples for HDB resale flats and I think we should let them have first priority. I think the other group that was complaining or probably feel disadvantaged consists of those who are upgraders, people who want to upgrade from HDB flat to another. Again, let me say that the rules actually do not disadvantage them. In fact, the rules require them to be a bit more prudent in their purchases.

I have received a lot of feedback and complaints from Members of the House and as well as from other sources that these new rules actually disadvantage people from trying to upgrade or downgrade or use HDB flats as an investment. They said this is a legitimate aspiration, so why am I preventing them from doing so. These are all very genuine concerns but I guess what does worry me is that they are premised on the assumption that the property market will keep going up. They ask why we are denying them this opportunity to upgrade or to buy another flat. That brings me to the situation in the 1990s. I remember, and Members will remember, that we had a property boom in the 1990s. At that time there was an upgrading fever. Everybody was buying newer, bigger flats and getting bigger loans, and so on. Then in 1996, the market peaked. After the financial crisis a year later, the market crashed. As a result of that, many people lost their homes, many ended up in negative equity, and we are still seeing the after effects of that in our Meet-the-People Sessions today. So I hope that we do not get to see that situation again.

The purpose – I wish to reiterate – is that, we introduced these measures to dampen demand from those who already own a home. If you already own a home, then please refrain from competing in this market with those first-timer couples who do not have a home. Let them have a crack at it. But if you own a home, and you want to downgrade, by all means, do so, and the rules do not disallow you from doing that. You just have to dispose of your private property within six months. I hope that these measures will restore some stability in the property market which has become a bit exuberant of late. It will inconvenience some – those who already own a home, or who hope to upgrade, or who hope to downsize. Even then, I think they will not disagree with

me that they will also benefit from a more stable market. I hope people will understand the reasons behind these measures, especially our desire to make it easier for young couples to own their first home and of course, also, our intention to maintain a more healthy and stable property market.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask if the Ministry has any figures on the number of non-subsidised HDB flat owners who concurrently hold private property, because that seems to be one of the key issues to address.

I do not have figures on the breakdown between subsidised and non-subsidised HDB flat owners who own private properties. A few months ago, the estimate was about 3% of all HDB flat owners own a private property. These are the people who made purchases either after the Minimum Occupation Period, or before we changed the rules. In other words, it could be private property owners who bought HDB flats before we changed the rules, or HDB flat owners who bought private property after the Minimum Occupation Period. Overall, it is about 3%. So if we have about 800,000 flat owners today, those who own private property would be about 24,000 owners. There is no breakdown between subsidised and non-subsidised flats.

8. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there will be enough Executive Condominiums and flats under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) to cater to the needs of those with a monthly income of $8,000 to $10,000; (b) whether there will be an increase in the prices of DBSS flats; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that there will be enough DBSS flats and

their prices are within the means of all those who are eligible.

We have widened the housing options of first-timer households with monthly incomes between $8,000 and $10,000. In addition to Executive Condominiums (ECs), they can now also buy new flats under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), and they will get a CPF Housing Grant of $30,000.

To cater to the demand from these households, HDB is ramping up the supply of land for DBSS and EC developments. In 2010 and 2011, HDB plans to release land for about 7,000 DBSS flats and 8,000 ECs. Just to put things in perspective, in two years, we will almost triple the current stock of 4,000 DBSS flats and almost double the current stock of 10,000 ECs that have been launched since the inception of these schemes.

The large supply will help ensure that DBSS developers set their prices at reasonable levels. They have to bear in mind that DBSS flat buyers have alternative options such as resale flats, ECs and private condominiums, and even Build-to-Order (BTO) flats for households earning under $8,000. So if they set their prices too high such that the flats are not affordable to the target group, they will face the risk of not being able to sell their flats.

Sir, the significant ramp up in the housing supply was only announced recently. I would like to ask the Minister why did the Ministry of National Development (MND) not increase the supply of flats sooner to cater to the increase in immigration in the recent years that has led to this current shortage. Was MND caught by surprise by this surge in immigrants?

Sir, let me first explain the way MND plans our housing

supply by taking a long-term as well as a short-term perspective.

MND will first of all take into account the demand. One has to take into account those people who wish not only to buy flats, but also seek to rent. We take into account first-timer households, the upgraders, those who downsize, the private properties' owners who wish to buy HDB flats, the permanent residents (PRs), and even the foreigners because they would be renting. This is the additional demand for HDB flats. At the same time, we also need to take into account the reduction in the demand, due to flats released into the market, emigration and disbarment of existing families. So when we take these two factors into account, we will get the net demand. We reduce this again by the supply that is met by the resale flat market because not everyone buys a new flat. Some of them will go for a resale flat.

If we remove the demand that is met by the resale market, we will get the net new flat supply. That is on an aggregated overall basis, but we all know that from a year-to-year basis, demand can fluctuate and vary very significantly from the long-term projection. One of the reasons is the sentiment-driven nature of the market. In other words, people buy because of sentiment. They may actually bring forward their home-buying if they feel that prices are going up and vice versa. MND also reviews its short-term supply on a regular basis to respond to such year-to-year flunctuations.

To give Members an example, in 2007, we increased the housing supply by building more flats and by releasing more land in the Government Land Sales programme. In 2008, we had to scale back. In the first half of 2009, we scaled back even further because of the economic outlook at that time was very uncertain. Members may recall that many

economists thought that the world would enter a period of prolonged recession and there was even talk of a depression. Given those circumstances, it would have been foolhardy for us to keep on pushing out flats or land for housing at the same rate.

The Member asked about new immigrants. The influx of new immigrants in recent years has been higher than normal, and they have added to the housing demand. That is only one factor. What is equally, if not, more important in the housing market is the sentiment that is driving other people who also want to buy, and of course the broader economic forces that affect overall demand. In 2009, when things were looking very gloomy, property prices fell even though there were many foreigners and PRs here. The recent appreciation in property prices again is a reflection of improved economic sentiments, low interest rates, a sense that prices are going to go up even further. In Singapore like in many other countries, property prices have moved up sharply. We take a long-term view, but we also need to be cognisant of the short term. Therefore, we have to be very flexible and review our housing supply in a very pragmatic manner. The Government Land Sales (GLS) programme, for example, is done on a six monthly basis. We review the projected demand every six months, for the short, medium and long terms, and we adjust our GLS supply accordingly. Similarly in the HDB market, the number of new flats that are pushed out by HDB must take into account not just the long-term but also the short-term demand. That is the supply side, but of course, as Members are aware, we have recently put in place demand management measures to discourage speculative purchases. These two together – increase in supply and demand management measure – will address the current imbalances in the market and will help to

restore some stability in the HDB resale market.

Supplementary questions for the Minister. How would the Ministry handle cases where the applicants' income grew, slightly above the $8,000 income ceiling while waiting for a flat? Are these borderline sandwich class applicants denied HDB concessionary loan? Is it possible to extend HDB concessionary loans to this sandwich class, especially to the young Singaporeans who are first-timers and applying a flat as a family unit?

Sir, we have the income ceiling of $8,000 to be eligible for HDB flat, grant and loans. In borderline cases which the Member has described, we do take into account when the appeal comes in, the circumstances of the appeals. In some cases that I have seen, where family circumstances are such that members of the household are incurring heavy medical expenses, HDB does exercise flexibility. That is one of the many situations that may arise. HDB will look into each case on an individual basis.

At the same time, like all Government's policies, we need a cut-off somewhere, especially when it comes to the disbursements of grants and subsidies. In the case of the HDB, $8,000 income level is a cut-off mark for the disbursement of such subsidies. Recently, as the Member is aware, we have also raised this $8,000 ceiling to $10,000 and will give subsidies to this sandwich group, not only for ECs, but also for DBSS flats. This is a recognition of the fact that we need to provide more housing options for the sandwich group. For those borderline cases which the Member is talking about, the answer is "yes", we do consider appeals on a case-by-case basis. But it cannot be a blanket approval of granting the CPF Housing Grant to the sandwich group without a proper evaluation of the circumstances.

Thank you, Sir. A clarification on the change in DBSS policy. Will the Minister confirm that those earning between $8,000 and $10,000 are not eligible to purchase unsold units in DBSS projects launched before August 2010? If it is so, what is the rationale for excluding such units which were launched before August 2010?

Yes, that is correct. The eligibility for purchase of DBSS will apply only to those units that were launched after that date, and not before. There are no unsold DBSS flats, because the DBSS scheme was launched two years ago, there is a Minimum Occupation Period.

If I can clarify, I think there are some allocated under the ethnic quota policy, which have not been taken up.

If they have not been taken up yet, they will fall under the old rules. Basically the flats were tendered on the basis of the old rules and we ought to make a clear distinction between those that were sold and tendered out under the old rules, compared to the new ones.

9. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the convenient daily free shuttle bus services running at hourly basis from various HDB towns to Resorts World Sentosa have attracted more Singaporeans to gamble at the casino at a higher frequency and whether it has resulted in an increase in problem gambling cases in the neighbourhoods.

When the Government decided to allow casinos as part of the Integrated Resorts, the key

objective was to enhance Singapore’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. We made it clear that the casinos were primarily to attract additional tourists from abroad. However, we would not exclude locals entirely from the casinos, unlike some other countries. Instead, we imposed advertising restrictions and a comprehensive set of social safeguards. Our aim was to minimise the impact of the casinos on locals, to protect vulnerable groups like young persons and dependents, and to prevent the casinos from targeting locals as their principal market. This was the explicit basis on which the operators bid for the two Integrated Resorts projects, and our position remains unchanged.

In the seven months since the casinos opened, there have been more than one million visits by local residents to the two casinos. These numbers fortunately appear to be stabilising as the novelty wears off but we are monitoring the trends very closely.

My Ministry investigated the bus shuttle services provided by both Marina Bay Sands (Sands) and Resorts World @ Sentosa (RWS). Marina Bay Sands was offering a paid premium service at 12 pick-up points covering the Central Business District and Orchard Road. It charged premium fares but these were redeemable at food and beverage outlets, some of which were in the casino.

Resorts World @ Sentosa provided free shuttle bus services at 19 pick-up points, most of which were in the heartlands and Central Business District areas. They were clearly not part of the public transport network. The buses also operated very long hours, up to 10.30 pm on weeknights and up to 2.30 am on weekends and the eves of public holidays. These late hours meant that most of the facilities at RWS were closed, except for the casino.

In addition, RWS promoted its Genting Rewards programme at heartland shopping malls and the Seventh Month (Hungry Ghost) events. I am very sure they were not trying to entice hungry ghosts to the free food or the cheap food at the casino. Amongst other features, this programme allowed patrons to earn points and accumulate benefits. But these points would have to be earned in the casino. RWS also released stories of casino winners to the media. All these activities contravened the Advertising Regulations and the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) instructed them to stop.

This pattern of casino promotional activities and the expanding network of bus services to the heartlands and the Central Business District led to the CRA’s decision to order an immediate stop to the bus services offered by both Integrated Resorts. Both Integrated Resorts will now only be allowed to provide transport for passengers from specific tourist-linked destinations which are listed in the Casino Control (Advertising) Regulations and only with the prior approval from the CRA.

Mr Speaker, our action conveys a clear signal to both Integrated Resorts operators to confine promotional efforts for the casinos to tourists only. We will not allow any promotions aimed at Singaporeans, especially in our heartlands. The Integrated Resorts operators have been reminded that they must comply strictly with our rules against casino advertising to locals. These rules will be tightened as necessary in the light of experience.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. The two big casinos have only just started and there is a long road ahead.

I have two further questions. Firstly, are there sufficient measures in place to

either encourage or even compel the casino operators to look to the overseas markets, given that the Singapore market will always be a low-hanging fruit for them to pick and an easier recurring income for them to look for? Do we need more disincentives for the local market? And do we need more incentives for them to target the overseas market?

My second question is related to the number that the Minister has given – one million visitors. I think there is this concern on the ground and in the community about problem gambling. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is sufficient awareness among the public about problem gambling in Singapore and whether, at the community level, there is enough traction to work with the various community or grassroots organisations to stem the rise of addictive gambling in the neighbourhoods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that we took this action conveys a very clear signal and I do not think at this point in time we lack the tools to convey clear signals and to enforce strict compliance. As I have said at the end of my reply, we will tighten the rules as necessary in the light of experience.

On the Member's additional point, he is absolutely right. This signal is to reinforce the point that they are not supposed to go after the low-hanging fruit which the local market represents but, instead, focus their efforts on bringing additional tourists from abroad.

His next question was whether there is sufficient awareness. There will always be a need to improve awareness of problem gambling in the community. And the National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG) needs the active support and the participation of our grassroots organisations in the heartlands, so that the message reaches everyone who needs it and people who are vulnerable, especially

people who are affected by problem gamblers within the family, know where to get help and know what avenues are available. There is much work to be done in the months ahead.

Thank you, Minister, for your response. A million Singaporeans going to the casinos, shuttle services until 2.30 am, free stays in the hotels at the casinos – the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) seems to be reactive rather than proactive in this. What can be done to ensure that the CRA is more proactive in the future? What are the repercussions for breaches of orders and has that been made clear to the IR operators?

Mr Speaker, I would not agree with the assertion that the CRA has been reactive instead of being proactive. We knew full well when we embarked on this project and I speak from experience, having been involved with this project since 2004, when I was Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and led the project team which proposed allowing Integrated Resorts with casinos. We knew full well this was going to be a difficult challenge. We knew full well that we could prepare, we could make all the necessary preparations, we could set the legislative framework, we could set and transmit the rules and we could explain and re-explain the principle behind those rules to the operators. However, from time to time, they will test those boundaries. If and when they test the boundaries, we need to respond appropriately, decisively and quickly. If nothing else, this episode has shown that the CRA will act decisively, and will act quickly, if the need arises. But we are not just going to wait for other problems to arise. It is far more important to make sure that there is a robust system of rules and regulations and that the operators understand the thinking behind these rules.

Nevertheless, because the profit motive is so strong, I do not believe there will ever be a final solution. There will always be a series of border incursions and a need to redraw and re-emphasise that line. What I am saying now is that our position, as the Government, remains unchanged. That line is where it was always meant to be. If they transgress that line, we have the necessary tools and penalties to impose on them. And because we are reviewing those rules where parts of them need to be tightened, we will tighten. I think both operators take the CRA very seriously.

Mdm Halimah, last question.

Just two short questions for the Minister. My first question is that the two casino operators have obviously violated the law, other than asking them to stop, will there be any other penalties being imposed on them? My second question is to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the concern on the ground about work permit holders patronising the casinos and gambling away their hard-earned money, which is obviously not the raison d'etre that they are here, and also the concern as to how this would impact their work ethics. Is the Minister aware of these and will any measures be taken to address these concerns?

Mr Speaker, I cannot speak for the Casino Regulatory Authority, whether they are contemplating any penalties to be imposed. There is a due process and they will make appropriate decision at the regulatory level. I am not in a position and I should not be in a position to make pronouncements on decisions of the Casino Regulatory Authority.

Her second question is on work permit holders frequenting the casinos. She is right. Our current regime of social

safeguards and the $100 levy were targeted at protecting Singaporeans, especially vulnerable Singaporeans, young persons and dependants, and also a reminder to the casino operators not to have local promotions. For work permit holders, my Ministry and the Ministry of Manpower will facilitate them making use of the self-exclusion orders which the work permit holders can sign onto and then it would be operationalised, so that they will not enter the casinos. I think it is in the interest of both the worker as well as the employer to encourage the work permit holder to self-exclude himself or herself from the casino.

Mr Seah, last question.

Sir, I note that the National Council on Problem Gambling –

Mr Seah, you have two minutes left.

– is under his Ministry, while the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs. I wonder whether both Ministries should come together and think about whether, from a regulatory viewpoint and from the point of managing these problem issues, they should be parked under one Ministry. Perhaps both Ministers can consider this point.

Two minutes, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

I think Mr Seah has highlighted the need for better communication and coordination. It is a suggestion that I accept. In fact, it cannot be parked under any single Ministry because, even for this issue that arose, it involved the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and MCYS. What we

will do is to have another committee, this time chaired by Senior Minister of State Iswaran, which will also have the requisite representation from all the other Ministries, so that such issues in future will be looked at holistically and comprehensively, taking into account the relevant concerns of all the different Ministries. I think an inter-agency/inter-Ministry approach will be more effective in the long run.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 18, 21-22, 31and 32 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos.10-17, 19-20, 23-30 and 33 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1153-1160.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time

on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 2007 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Subordinate Courts Act (Chapter 321 of the 2007 Revised Edition)",

presented by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee; 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.

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

Sir, it has been eight years since the Road Traffic Act (RTA) was last amended in 2002. During this time, Singapore's road network has expanded greatly, with the addition of more than 175 kilometres of expressways, major arterial roads and local access roads. The number of motor vehicles has also grown from 700,000 in 2002 to more than 910,000 last year.

Sir, against this backdrop, MHA has reviewed the RTA and is amending it to ensure that we continue to have the necessary enforcement and regulatory powers to promote road safety. In addition, as the Act is jointly administered

by Traffic Police (TP) and the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the amendments made by clauses 2B, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 21 seek to streamline the roles of both agencies by transferring some functions from TP to LTA.

Transfer certain functions from TP to LTA

Sir, both TP and LTA regulate land transport for road safety, albeit from different perspectives. TP's role is to ensure that our road users behave responsibly, not causing harm to themselves and other road users. It does this by regulating driving behaviour, enforcing law and order on the roads and promoting good road behaviour by all users. LTA, on the other hand, regulates vehicular and road design to promote road safety and usage efficiency through ensuring smooth traffic flow and minimising congestion. Sir, against this backdrop, we have identified five functions, currently undertaken by TP, that are better aligned with LTA's roles and will be transferring them from TP to LTA. Let me now elaborate on these five functions.

Enforcing and processing summonses for illegal parking

First, illegal parking offences adversely impact traffic flow and road capacity. LTA will be taking over the enforcement and administration of illegal parking, as this function is more aligned with one of the LTA's core functions to manage road usage. Thereafter, efforts to address illegal parking will be more holistic as LTA will keep in mind parking issues when designing road infrastructure and traffic schemes. TP will, however, continue enforcing against moving offences such as dangerous driving, speeding and drink driving – all of which impact law and order on our roads.

Rest assured that LTA will have the necessary powers to enforce against illegal parking. For a start, it will take over the administration of the Traffic Warden

scheme. In addition, LTA officers will also be empowered as TP officers currently are and will continue to be so, to direct motorists to move their illegally parked vehicles or to remove or tow them away.

Gazetted speed limits for roads

Second, currently TP gazettes road speed limits even though it is LTA which makes the call on what these speed limits should be, being the agency with the requisite engineering expertise and technical knowledge to do so. It makes sense therefore for MOT to gazette what LTA decides.

Determining excluded vehicles and authorising such vehicles on expressways

Third, currently TP issues permits to allow excluded vehicles such as ready-mix concrete trucks and tractors to travel on expressways for the purpose of carrying out maintenance, repair and cleaning. LTA is better placed to evaluate the feasibility of allowing such vehicles to go on to the expressways for these purposes and will take over this role. The Minister for Transport will be empowered to make rules to prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of certain vehicles on expressways.

Closing road for repair and reconstruction

Fourth, Sir, currently the Minister for Home Affairs is empowered to restrict or prohibit the use of a road for the purpose of repair or reconstruction. However, it is more appropriate for LTA to do this as road works fall under its purview. A person who intends to carry out any construction works on the road will have to notify LTA which will then notify the public.

Issuing permits for loads on vehicles

Lastly, Sir, currently, LTA administers rules relating to vehicular height and

weight. However, TP currently issues permits where the load carried by the vehicle extends to more than 40% of the length of the vehicle or 1.8 metres, and where the load exceeds 2.6 metres in width. It makes more sense for one agency to administer all rules relating to such vehicular requirements including situations when the length and width are extended by loads carried by the lorry. The transfer of this function will be reflected in amendments to the relevant rules under the Road Traffic Act.

Sir, TP and LTA have been working closely to ensure a seamless transfer of these five functions. I am confident that there will be no disruption of services to the public; neither will there be any lapse in enforcement. We are targeting to effect the transfer on 1st November this year.

Enhancing enforcement framework

Sir, the next set of amendments seeks to enhance Traffic Police's operational effectiveness and efficiency in the light of experience gleaned over the past eight years.

Immediate suspension of driving licence

Firstly, currently, the driving licence of a motorist can only be suspended after he is formally charged in court for serious offences such as drink-driving, reckless or dangerous driving where death or serious injury is caused.

Sir, Members of this House will remember an incident in 2005 where a motorist whilst test-driving a high performance sports car, lost control of it, hitting a road divider and crashing the car into the back of another car when the car he was test-driving then flipped over and collided into another on-coming vehicle. The motorist escaped from the wreck almost unscathed. Unfortunately, the young sales agent seated beside him was killed. As investigations were complex, 18

months passed before the motorist was charged in court. During this time, members of the public expressed concern that he could resume his car-shopping activities despite the crash and death of his passenger. The court eventually sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment for reckless driving and disqualified him from driving for 10 years.

Sir, investigations and court hearings for such incidents may take some time to conclude. During this time, it is in the interest of public safety that such motorists not be allowed to drive. As such, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) who oversees such matters will be empowered by the amendment made to section 47C by clause 5 to immediately suspend the driving licence of any motorist who causes serious injury or death to a person or serious damage to buildings and structures once police investigations commence. Serious damage to buildings and structures has been added to cover situations where the damage has been extensive but, fortuitously, no one was seriously injured or killed, as such drivers should also not be allowed to continue driving on our roads pending the resolution of their cases. The suspension imposed will remain in force until the case is tried and determined in court.

Sir, let me assure Members that TP will exercise this power judiciously. Immediate suspension will not be imposed in all cases where death or serious injury or serious damage to structures or building is caused. Moreover, the suspension will be rescinded if investigations subsequently reveal that the motorist was not responsible for the offence or it is decided that the motorist will not be charged or that the charge would be withdrawn. In addition, an appeal can be made to the Minister within 14 days of receiving a suspension notice.

Breath evidential analyser test

Second, drink driving is a serious offence. From January to June this year, 1,445 persons were arrested for drink driving and 12 persons lost their lives in accidents involving drink driving. Traffic Police continues to act resolutely against drink drivers.

To enhance TP's operational efficiency and enforcement capabilities against drink-driving, clause 7 will amend section 70 to enable Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) tests to be conducted at or near the place where the motorist was arrested using portable test equipment. Currently, with handheld breathalysers whose "pass-fail" results are not admissible in court, a motorist who fails the breathalyser test has to be brought back to a police station so that he can take the BEA test, the results of which are admissible in court. The use of a portable BEA kit on-site will facilitate testing. So, that is used after the handheld breathalyser has been used. The accuracy of the tests derived will not be compromised.

Introducing an additional ground to revoke a licence

Third, currently, a motorist is not allowed to take a test of competence for another class of vehicle if he has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence, or his licence has been suspended or revoked, or when he has accumulated more than 12 demerit points. However, it has happened that a person takes a test to obtain a licence for another class of vehicle when his existing licence is already liable to be revoked or suspended. This can occur, for example, when he commits a serious offence or one that pushes his demerit points total beyond the suspension threshold, very close to the taking of the test when his offence is still being processed by TP or the courts. His road use behaviour has already been found wanting and he should

not be allowed on the roads during the period of suspension or revocation.

To address this loophole, clause 3 will amend section 35A to empower the Deputy Commissioner of Police to revoke the licence of such an errant motorist who opportunistically takes a driving test for another class of vehicle before being dealt with.

Prohibition order

Next, Sir, to maintain parity between probationary drivers on our roads holding foreign and local licences, clause 6 will amend section 47F to empower the Deputy Commissioner to issue a prohibition order against a foreign probationary driver, if he accumulates 13 or more demerit points within 12 months of obtaining his foreign driving licence. At present, this is only issued when the foreign driver accumulates 24 demerit points within 24 months. On the other hand, a local probationary driver will have his licence revoked if he accumulates 13 points. So this will even the playing field.

Tightening reasonable diligence when furnishing information

Next, Sir, a vehicle owner is currently required to furnish the particulars of the driver of his vehicle who is suspected of committing an offence under the RTA to Traffic Police. This is especially important when the vehicle is registered in the name of a business entity such as a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, so that the errant driver can be effectively identified and dealt with accordingly.

Currently, if such a business entity fails to provide the requisite particulars within seven days, it is guilty of an offence unless it proves, to the satisfaction of the Court, that it did not know and could not with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the information required. Sir,

to strengthen the operational effect of this safeguard, clause 8 will amend section 81 to flesh out what constitutes "reasonable diligence" on the part of a business entity in the context of this provision. The business entity can only claim that it has exercised reasonable diligence if it had kept proper and accurate records of persons permitted to drive its vehicles. Information that should be kept include the vehicle's registration number, name, address, driving licence number and identity card or passport number of the person permitted to drive the vehicle and the date and time, or the period, during which the motor vehicle was allocated to the person. Sir, these records are to be kept for at least six months. These requirements are not onerous. Indeed, as a matter of prudence, a business entity which allows its staff to use its vehicles should – and I think many already do – keep such information, even without these legal requirements. In addition, Sir, it will also be an offence to "recklessly" provide false or misleading information.

Sir, I will now briefly run through the other amendments in the Bill which are essentially administrative in nature.

Sir, currently, a foreigner who is granted Permanent Residence (PR) or Singapore Citizenship (SC) is no longer allowed to use his foreign driving licence to drive in Singapore as he is not considered a "person resident outside Singapore". This means that whilst he can drive with his foreign licence whilst on employment pass, he cannot do so once he becomes a PR. Clause 4 will amend section 38 to enable a new PR/SC to drive with his foreign driving licence for up to three months, from the date he is granted Permanent Residence or Singapore Citizenship. This will give him sufficient time to convert his foreign driving licence into a local one.

Sir, next, clause 19 inserts a new section 142A to empower the Deputy

Commissioner of Police and LTA to authorise security officers in uniform, licensed under the Private Security Industry Act, to regulate both vehicular and passenger traffic. These security officers will be trained in traffic control, having to pass the Workforce Skills Qualification module on "Conduct Crowd and Traffic Control", before they are allowed to do so. Sir, organisers of mass events which currently engage Auxiliary Police Officers for mass events requiring crowd and security control will welcome this move as it will lower their costs. A consequential amendment will be made by clause 22 to the Private Security Industry Act to include the regulation of traffic under the Road Traffic Act as a function of a security officer.

Next, the amendments made by clauses 13 and 20 to sections 116 and 143 respectively, will enhance the regulatory framework for the conduct of speed trials and competitions involving vehicles as well as for road closures. The power to approve such trials and competitions such as the F1 Grand Prix will be delegated from the Minister for Home Affairs to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. A permit will be required to hold such speed trials. Where such competitions require the closure of roads, a separate permit for road closures will also be required. In granting this permit, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) may impose conditions such as the posting of notices in the media and road signages of the closure, placing of barriers and barricades at the affected roads and engaging Auxiliary Police Officers and security officers to regulate traffic on the roads. The new procedure for the road closure permit under the RTA will also apply to other events, for example, a road run not involving vehicles.

Finally, Sir, clause 18 amends section 140 to empower the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Transport to make

rules to prescribe the fees, costs and charges that may be imposed for the purposes of the RTA, where no provision has already been made. Clause 19 inserts a new section 142A where both Ministers will also be able to delegate the authority to hear and determine appeals to their Ministers of State or Parliamentary Secretaries.

In summary, the Road Traffic Act was enacted to make our roads safe for all road-users. This Bill will update, streamline and enhance our traffic laws by transferring, strengthening, extending and delegating selected powers. In particular, the transfer of some functions from the Traffic Police (TP) to the LTA will enable TP and LTA to tackle problems associated with the usage of roads and vehicles in a holistic manner. With the Police and LTA focusing on their core responsibilities, Singapore and Singaporeans will benefit from a safer road environment and more efficient road usage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.17 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, transport and logistics are critical areas supporting our economic development. The traffic on our roads is anticipated to get heavier and innovative traffic management technologies have to be explored to ensure smooth traffic flow. Besides the hardware, we certainly have to also strengthen our software, ie, the driver's as well as their behaviour. The fatality rate on our roads in 2009 was 3.67 fatalities per 100,000 population. This is down from 4.57 per 100,000 in 2008.

I have some clarifications and also suggestions, Sir. Pertaining to clauses 3 and 5, I support the enhanced powers of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and feel this is a relevant and necessary move,

especially in recalcitrant cases. Also, pertaining to the foreigners being allowed to drive on our roads here, can I ask and clarify what will happen to foreigners and expatriates who are here longer than the 12 months where their foreign drivers' licence will be valid? This is provided, of course, they do not accumulate any demerit points. With this Bill, does it mean they have to take the driving test again, if they are posted or working here for longer than 12 months?

Also, Sir, I would like to know the stand on motorised vehicles. Every day, there seems to be an increased number of these on our roads, especially on not arterial roads but more on heartland roads.

Another area of concern is pertaining to giving way to emergency vehicles on our roads. Every second counts during emergencies. It is crucial for these vehicles to arrive on site very swiftly. When motorists on our roads do not give way, their response times can be compromised and it could mean a difference between life and death. Are there plans to give more privileges to such vehicles? I would like to thank the Minister of State for clarifying the five main areas to differentiate the role of the LTA enforcement officers from that of the Traffic Police. I hope that there can be coordination, especially in the initial phases after 1st November, and that the "no wrong door" policy can play a role here, because there can be some confusion in the initial phases pertaining to feedback as well as complaints that may arise in the first few months after the change.

Finally, Sir, in a study published in the Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 2009, on a study on fatal road traffic accidents in Singapore from the year 2000 to 2004, the authors concluded that groups at risk had varying

demographic characteristics. Public education should be modified to target these different groups to reduce the incidence of fatalities.

In that same context, Sir, reducing road traffic accident rates through various safety measures, public education, enforcement and collaboration with key stakeholders remain important priorities in our road traffic management.

Indeed, this Bill is very timely and also necessary. I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef for supporting the Bill.

She asked if foreigners or expatriates who are here for longer than 12 months will have to take the driving test again in order to continue driving here.

Sir, Singapore is a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic. Foreigners here, under that convention, will be allowed to drive using their foreign driver's licence for a period of 12 months. But beyond 12 months, a foreigner who wishes to continue driving in Singapore would have to take and pass the basic theory test in order to convert his foreign licence to a local one, after which he can drive in Singapore for up to five years.

The second point that Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked was, what is our position on motorised or what is actually called power-assisted bicycles. The regulation of these bicycles is under the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) purview which determines the specifications required of a power-assisted bicycle before it can be used on our roads. Basically, only low-powered motorised bicycles that meet certain technical and safety requirements are treated like conventional bicycles and are exempted from registration with LTA for use on the roads. What are these specifications?

They are (i) their construction is similar to that of a conventional bicycle; (ii) they are powered only with an electric source; (iii) the maximum power does not exceed 200W; (iv) the motor-power only kicks in when the rider starts to pedal; and (v) the motor-power must cut off when it reaches 25km/h or when the rider stops pedalling.

Sir, every conforming bicycle must also be affixed with a seal by an inspection centre before it can be used on our roads. It is an offence for a person to ride a power-assisted bicycle that does not conform to these requirements. In addition, riders must be at least 16 years old, and they and the pillion riders, if any, are required to don suitable protective helmets. Needless to say, these bicycles, like the conventional ones, are required to comply with all road traffic rules including those that prohibit them from riding on footways or pedestrian pathways.

The Member's next point about emergency vehicles is also a very important point. Let me assure Members, first, that most motorists do give way to emergency vehicles. Some may not do so immediately but, I think, when they realise that there is, indeed, an emergency vehicle behind them, they do give way. Under Rule 12(1) of the Road Traffic Rules, emergency vehicles have the right of way over all other traffic if they make known their approach by means of some distinctive siren bell or a multi-toned horn. Offenders may be given a composition fine of up to $160 and awarded four demerit points. Sir, I think the legal regime is in place and there is no need to tweak it now. But what is important is education and reminding Singaporeans of why they should do so.

Meanwhile, to do this, SCDF is stepping up its education efforts to emphasise the need to "drive with a heart". This is the tagline of a recently-launched four-month campaign. The Police is also doing its part, for example,

the recent CrimeWatch episode, featured a segment to educate viewers on giving way to emergency vehicles. I believe that these initiatives, together with Public Advisories from traditional social media, will help inculcate a greater sense of responsibility in motorists to make way for emergency vehicles on our roads.

I thank Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef for giving a timely reminder, following my assurance in my speech that when the five functions are transferred from TP to LTA, it should be seamless. This assurance has been given in my main speech. Indeed, they have already been coordinating the last several months. I am sure that there will be no drop in the service delivery or in enforcement.

Finally, Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef raised another important point about the need to package public education efforts to more effectively reach out to the various groups of road users. Indeed, Sir, over many years now, I have helped to spearhead Traffic Police's outreach in this area, especially in terms of education, as part of its three-pronged approach. Traffic Police takes the 3-E approach: Enforcement, Education and Engagement. Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef is right. These are groups that need to be targeted – the young, the elderly, motocyclists and also drink-drivers. Over the past years also, several programmes have been tailored to reach out to these specific groups. For example, the annual Shell Traffic Games target primary school children and, for the first time this year, elderly grandparents were invited to join their grandchildren in the games. We had very good feedback from schools and the grandparents. Talks and tea parties are also held in the heartlands using oldies songs, for example, to appeal to the elderly.

In addition, specific collaborations with, for example, heavy vehicle companies, fastfood outlets, courier services and motorcycle clubs, target drivers and riders

to drive and ride safely. These campaigns have led to a drop in the fatality rate over 2008 and 2009. Rest assured that we will continue to press on with these efforts but if she or any other Members of the House have any suggestions as to how we can more effectively reach out to these especially vulnerable segments of road users, please do let us know.

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. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, allow me to first set the context for the Bill, and explain the rationale and approach for the new regulatory framework for estate agents that this Bill will put in place.

Need for new regulatory framework

The property sector in Singapore is a significant part of our economy, property transactions amounting to many tens of billions of dollars a year. One special characteristic of our property sector is the high home ownership rate, possibly the highest in the world, due primarily to our comprehensive public housing programme.

Hence, unlike other countries where property transactions involve only the well-to-do, lower income households in Singapore also buy and sell properties. Many of them do so through estate agents, even though the Housing and Development Board (HDB) is encouraging do-it-yourself (DIY) transactions. For many Singaporeans, their home is the largest single investment they will ever make. Therefore, it is important that they be given the best possible advice and service in making such an investment.

Currently, the real estate agent industry in Singapore comprises some 1,700 real estate agents and 30,000 salespersons. At this juncture, I would like to explain the nomenclature set out in the Estate Agents Bill. The correct legal term for a business doing estate agency work, which is commonly known as estate agency, is the "estate agent"; and the individual doing estate agency work commonly known as property agent is here called the "salesperson". As the new regulation governs the estate agents and salespersons, I will use the correct legal terms henceforth, and I hope Members do likewise.

Estate agents and salespersons are engaged as intermediaries in the sale, purchase and lease of properties, and play an important role in helping their clients to get the best value for their property transactions. To perform this function well, it is essential that they do their work professionally and ethically, and act in the best interest of their customers. They

must be well acquainted with Government rules and procedures, help clients through the whole buying and selling process, give them correct and proper advice, and generally ensure that their property transactions are as smooth as possible. Most estate agents and salespersons are doing a good job.

Unfortunately, complaints against real estate agents and salespersons have risen in recent years. In 2005, the Consumers Association of Singapore received 670 complaints. In 2009, the number had increased by nearly 60% to over 1,070. With over 70,000 transactions in 2009, this translates to about one-and-a-half complaints in 100. The most common complaints are that the salespersons provided unsatisfactory service, were unprofessional in their conduct, misrepresented information, gave wrong advice or used pressure tactics.

To be fair, not all complaints stemmed from wrongdoings on the part of the salespersons. In some instances, the complaints were due to miscommunication between salespersons and their clients. In others, the clients themselves were unreasonable or had unrealistic expectations.

However, there were indeed cases of unethical practices and misconduct, where errant agents and salespersons took advantage of their clients. The actions of errant agents and salespersons could have serious consequences, especially for the lower income and the less educated. I have personally come across many cases in my meet-the-people sessions, and I am sure so have Members, where salespersons provided wrong or misleading advice, especially for HDB transactions, and got their clients in serious financial situations. I shall cite two cases as an illustration.

Case one, an illiterate couple – husband was unemployed and wife was a

full-time housewife – they took the "advice" of a salesperson, sold off their existing 3-room flat and was supposed to "upgrade" to a 4-room flat with a bank loan. The husband was unemployed at the time of flat purchase, so the couple should not have been able to get a bank loan.

In other words, the employment letter was falsified. The couple went into loan arrears within a year and appealed to HDB for help to settle mortgage loan arrears.

In case two, an old aged couple was advised by their salesperson to sell off their HDB flat, so that they could get cash from the sale, and then they were advised or they were told that they would get a rental flat from HDB. The couple did not know that they could not qualify for a rental flat under those circumstances. The salesperson knew but asked the couple to appeal to HDB and to their MP for help.

Sir, the existing system is inadequate to deter and deal with such abuses and unscrupulous practices by errant estate agents and salespersons when these arise. Currently, real estate agents are licensed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) under the Appraisers and House Agents Act. Although IRAS licenses estate agents, the existing licensing regime does not empower IRAS to investigate into complaints against them. IRAS also cannot take action against salespersons as they are not regulated.

In September last year, my Ministry initiated a comprehensive review to strengthen the regulatory framework for the real estate agent industry. Over the last year, my Ministry consulted extensively with members of the public, industry associations, real estate agents and salespersons. Most of them, including the industry players, welcomed greater Government regulation to weed out the bad hats and upgrade the image and professional standards of the industry.

They also gave many useful suggestions on the features of a new regulatory framework.

Sir, the Estate Agents Bill that I have introduced in Parliament is the result of this review. It will put in place a robust legislative and regulatory framework to better protect consumer interest and raise the professionalism of the industry. It will do so through a three-pronged approach.

Three-pronged regulatory approach

Firstly, stronger Government regulation. The Bill will provide the legislative framework to enhance licensing conditions for estate agents, introduce registration of estate salespersons, require mandatory examination and continuing professional development, and impose a regulatory Code of Practice, Ethics and Professional Conduct. These requirements will ensure that estate agents and salespersons fulfil the fit and proper criteria, possess the necessary knowledge to provide professional service to their clients, and adhere to ethical practices.

The Bill will also confer powers for investigation and allow responsive and calibrated disciplinary action to be taken against errant agents and salespersons. A new statutory board – the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) – will be set up under my Ministry to provide dedicated resources and focused attention to administer the new regulatory framework.

Second prong in our regulatory approach is greater industry accountability. Estate agents must continue to be primarily responsible and accountable for the supervision and control of their salespersons. The new regulatory framework will require, and empower them, to do so more effectively. That is the reason we have introduced a registration scheme for salespersons, to be registered with CEA

only, through and with the support of their respective agents.

To allow estate agents more effective control over their salespersons, the Bill will also require each salesperson to operate under a written agreement with only one agent at any one time, rather than represent multiple agents, which is a common practice today.

There is great diversity in the industry. Size of agents varies, and so do expertise and capabilities. Many are sole proprietorships while the larger ones can command a few thousand salespersons. The industry associations with their specialised expertise can help agents upgrade, taking into account their specific circumstances. CEA expects the industry associations to play an important role in this area, and will be working with them to put in place plans to develop the sector.

The last and third prong in our strategy, but perhaps the most important of all, is better consumer prudence and education. Ms Tan Hui Yee, a Straits Times correspondent, in an article entitled "Getting Smart Against Rogue Housing Agents", on the 26th of May this year, pointed out that the upcoming regulations "cannot provide iron-clad protection", and that the consumers "will learn that no amount of rules can protect them if they do not learn to protect their own interests".

I agree with Ms Tan. The public must exercise due diligence to engage the right agents and salespersons, and to conduct their property transactions prudently and judiciously. CEA will help by making public education a key part of its work. A Public Register of estate agents and salespersons will be set up. Members of the public can get more information about their agents and salespersons before engaging their services. The online Register will include any records of

offences committed and disciplinary actions taken. CEA will also look into seminars, forums and consumer guides to inform consumers about their rights and responsibilities, and equip them with the necessary knowledge for their transactions. Public education is an area where lots more can be done and CEA will do this jointly with CASE, HDB and the industry.

While stronger Government regulation is necessary, Government action alone is not enough. The industry and the consumers must also play their part. Stronger Government regulation, greater industry accountability and better public diligence and education – all these three must work for us to effectively safeguard consumer interest and upgrade the industry.

Sir, having explained the rationale and approach for the new regulatory framework, I will now describe the main elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises eight Parts, and deals with the key aspects of regulating estate agency work performed in Singapore.

The regulatory scope is defined in Part I of the Bill. We have been comprehensive, we have covered all aspects of estate agency work, including introduction and negotiation for the buying, selling and leasing of property for a third person, and all types of property, including all land and buildings, whether residential, commercial or industrial, whether local or foreign, so long as they are marketed, sold, bought or leased in Singapore. However, persons selling, buying or leasing properties for themselves, including property developers and their employees, will not be covered under the new framework, as there is no estate agency work involved.

Council for Estate Agencies

Part II of the Bill provides for the establishment of CEA. The Council will

comprise a President and between five and 15 members, to be appointed by the Minister for National Development. The Council will be supported by full-time staff in the discharge of its various functions.

Licensing of estate agents and registration of salespersons

Part III of the Bill provides for the licensing of all estate agents and the registration of all salespersons. The latter is a significant change from the existing framework in which salespersons are not registered.

Clause 34 of the Bill requires applications for salesperson registration to be made through and with the support of their respective agents. So, the onus is placed on the agents to ensure and certify to CEA that their salespersons satisfy the fit and proper, qualification and other registration criteria. If an agent withdraws its support for a salesperson, CEA will de-register the salesperson. If a salesperson leaves its agent to join another agent, the salesperson will have to re-register with CEA again, through and with the support of his new agent.

Clauses 40 and 41 provide that all salespersons are required to contract with only one agent and operate under a written agreement. This is to avoid the current situation where agents may disclaim responsibility over their salespersons, as the salespersons may be acting for several agents.In addition, clause 38 provides that each agent shall appoint a key executive officer (KEO) to be responsible for the proper administration and overall management of the business and supervision of all its salespersons. The estate agents and their KEOs, directors and partners will all be required to fulfil enhanced qualification and fit and proper criteria.

Sir, in the recent Urgent Reading of the Housing and Development (Amendment)

Bill, I have highlighted the conflict of interests that may arise if we allow salespersons to be involved in moneylending because they will not be able to fulfil their obligations to their clients when they also profit from moneylending activities. Clauses 31 and 32, therefore, prohibit estate agents and salespersons from simultaneously holding a moneylender’s licence, or be an employee, director or partner of a licensed moneylender.

Duties and liabilities of estate agents and salespersons

Clause 42 will require estate agents and salespersons to abide by codes of practice, ethics and conduct which the CEA may prescribe. The rules will be included in subsidiary legislation and will stipulate rules such as those banning dual representation by salespersons, proper advertising, and disclosure of conflicts of interest. Failure to observe a provision of the codes may render the estate agent or salesperson liable to disciplinary action by the Council.

We have received feedback from consumers that there are unfair clauses in some of the estate agency agreements such as the auto-extension of the exclusivity period in the exclusive agreement to sell a property. To protect consumers from such clauses, CEA will be empowered to prescribe standard agency agreements for property transactions. I would like to clarify that these agreements are those between the consumer and the agent, and not those between the buyer and seller, or landlord or tenant.

Inspection, enforcement discipline and offences

Sir, notwithstanding the greater responsibility expected of agents to

manage their salespersons, the new regulatory framework will also empower CEA to investigate and take direct action against both agents and salespersons for misconduct.

I shall now touch on the investigative and disciplinary powers of the CEA. To monitor compliance to the framework, and to look into potential breaches, clause 48 provides CEA’s inspectors with powers to enter the premises of estate agents, requisition information and require attendance of persons for proceedings under the regulatory framework.

Clause 49 empowers the Council to refer complaints for investigation or disciplinary inquiry. A Disciplinary Panel will be set up under the CEA to look into such complaints. A Disciplinary Committee of at least three members will be drawn from the Disciplinary Panel to hear disciplinary cases. Subject to the findings of the Disciplinary Committee, clause 52 provides the Disciplinary Committee with a range of disciplinary actions including fines of up to $75,000, suspension, revocation and imposition of additional conditions on licences and registration.To facilitate disciplinary proceedings, clause 53 empowers the Disciplinary Committee to take evidence by oath and summon persons for disciplinary hearings. While the Committee will not be bound by the rules of evidence, parties to the proceedings may be represented by a solicitor.

Other than the Disciplinary Committee, the Council will also be empowered under Part VI to revoke or suspend licences or registration if it deems fit. The CEA will require these powers, provided for under clause 54, to expedite straightforward cases such as if an estate agent winds up or if a salesperson withdraws his registration.

For criminal offences, such as operating without a licence or registration,

providing false information to the CEA or impeding CEA in its functions, the CEA will prosecute the offenders in Court. Offenders may be liable to fines of up to $75,000 or imprisonment of up to three years or both, subject to the type of offence and decisions of the Court.

In accordance with the current procedures, alleged criminal wrongdoings, such as fraud and cheating, which are not provided for under this Bill, will be referred to the Police.

Appeals

Part VII provides for an appeal process independent of the CEA. Clause 57 provides for an Appeals Board of not more than 15 members to be appointed by the Minister for National Development and administered independent of the CEA. Under clause 59, the Appeals Board may confirm or modify the decisions of CEA, or direct the CEA to review its decisions. Decisions of the Appeals Board are final.

Dispute resolution

Under clause 66 of the Bill, the CEA may prescribe dispute resolution schemes and make regulations to require estate agents and salespersons to participate in such schemes. This is to provide a cost-efficient and convenient avenue for resolving consumer disputes with estate agents such as the amount of commission to be paid.

My Ministry had earlier proposed a dispute resolution process involving mediation followed by adjudication. However, after due consideration, we have decided to have the process involve mediation followed by arbitration instead. Unlike arbitration where the decision is final, adjudication is generally not a final determination of the dispute but would be subject to final determination by the Court or arbitration. Also, while an adjudication

determination is subject to judicial review, the grounds of challenge of an arbitral award are more restricted. So arbitration is likely to be faster and less expensive than adjudication.

Transitional arrangements

Sir, let me elaborate on the transitional arrangements. To ensure a smooth transition from the current regulatory framework, clause 75 of the Bill provides for existing House Agents licensed under IRAS to be deemed as licensed by CEA until 31st December 2010. Nonetheless, these licensees and their directors and partners must satisfy the new fit and proper criteria and must not be a licensed moneylender or an employee, a director or a partner of a licensed moneylender.

Existing salespersons who have passed an industry examination such as the Common Examination for House Agents, the Common Examination for Salespersons and the Certified Estate Agents Examination will not be required to take the new CEA examination for salespersons.

For existing salespersons who have not passed an industry examination, they will be given up to a year to take the new examination, provided they have completed at least three property transactions over the last two years prior to the start of the new regime, not an onerous requirement.

The one-year transition which starts from 1st January 2011 gives these salespersons a reasonable period to pass the new mandatory examination. Those who are unable to do so by the end of the transition period would not be eligible for renewal of their registration.

CEA has been working closely with the industry players to brief them on the key changes and to prepare them for the transition. We will continue to do so, to ensure a smooth transition and minimise

the impact on existing agents and salespersons.

CEA, when it is set up, will need to undertake significantly more regulatory work and enforcement actions than what IRAS is doing today. Regulatory fees will have to go up correspondingly. The fees will be kept affordable. The raising of professional standards in the industry will benefit both the public and the industry.

Sir, let me conclude by reiterating that while the majority of estate agents and salespersons are providing professional service, a few black sheep have seriously tarnished the image of the industry, undermined consumer confidence and hurt the interests of consumers they are supposed to represent. The purpose of the new regulatory framework is not just to safeguard consumers against errant agents and salespersons, but also to preserve the integrity of the industry and the reputation of the large number of agents and salespersons providing professional service.

However, the new regulatory regime, and CEA when it is set up, cannot guarantee consumer satisfaction and completely eliminate rogue agents and salespersons. The industry and estate agents must themselves realise the need to uphold professional and ethical standards, and deliver good service. Consumers must also exercise due vigilance in their property transactions. Only then can the new regime succeed so that all stakeholders in the real estate industry – whether they are agents, buyers, sellers, developers or the authorities – will benefit.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has explained quite clearly the reasons for the new Bill – the rising number of complaints against agents, the need for consumer protection as the purchase of a home in Singapore is often the largest financial investment for many individuals here, and the lack of criteria for salespersons. Also, as a fact, only about 6,000 out of 30,000 salespersons have passed industry examinations.

Sir, as the Minister has highlighted, the objectives of the new Bill are to protect consumers and also to upgrade the professional standards in this sector. These are important objectives which I support. The establishment of a new statutory board – Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) – is a timely move.

What is quite significant about the Bill is the removal of dual representation of a single salesperson for both the buyer and the seller. This removes the "conflict of interest" that is inherent with such practices today. This is a good thing and it will enhance consumer protection.

However, there are certain questions that I would like to raise and I hope the Minister can address them. It is heartening to note that in transition to the new Bill, certain provisions are provided such that existing practitioners can adapt and will not be denied a livelihood. So I support the arrangements made by the Ministry of National Development (MND) to help existing salespersons by exempting them from the new minimum requirement of four GCE "O" level passes. However, for new practitioners, I would like the Minister to elaborate on the need for four GCE "O" levels and whether or not there are other equivalent qualifications that such persons can meet before they can be registered.

The Minister has also highlighted that there will be exemptions made for those who had already passed industry examinations (eg, the Common Examination for House Agents (CEHA) or Common Examination for Salespersons (CES) and the National Skills Recognition Scheme). This would be very helpful for existing practitioners. Also, those who do not have such qualifications will be given up to one year to complete the examination. I would like the Minister to clarify that this one-year period will commence only from the date of the introduction of the examination, rather than from the introduction of the Bill.

There is one other area which concerns the registration of salespersons and this criterion relates to undischarged bankrupts and those with past criminal records. I would like to urge MND and CEA to adopt a "Yellow Ribbon spirit" when faced with such reviews. Just because someone had a previous business failure or committed a minor crime many years ago, we should not automatically disqualify him from the trade. Many of these people deserve a second chance, so a balance has to be struck between helping these people get back on their feet and consumer protection on the other hand.

Also, can the Minister explain how the registration fee for each salesperson at $230 per year, as I understand it, is arrived at? Would he assure salespersons that these fees would be kept as low as possible?

Would he also consider charging a fee for consumers who bring cases for dispute resolutions under the Bill. This will prevent frivolous and vexatious cases as well as defray some of the costs involved in such processes. If any of such cases were later found to be with merit, such fees can be refunded in full or in part.

Also, it would be helpful for industry practitioners to understand what the new

mandatory industry examinations would be like. How will they be different from the current industry examinations? There will also be a lot of interest to understand the content and the purpose of the Continuing Professional Development module which has been prescribed as six hours per year.

The last point that I would like to raise is the introduction of what is called a "standard form" to replace customised Commission Agreements between a Principal and Salesperson. Can the Minister also elaborate on this particular aspect?

With that, I support the Bill.

4.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the introduction of the Estate Agents Bill, which I am sure will also be welcomed by not just the practitioners but all who have dealings with them. This is especially for those who intend to buy or sell their properties. A property purchase, be it an office unit, a HDB apartment or a landed house, is a significant financial transaction. Often, it is the biggest ticket item we transact in our lifetime. To many, the procedure and the process are complicated. There are important deadlines to be met and contractual obligations to be complied with, failing which the deal will fall through. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that salespersons are sufficiently qualified to educate their clients on the transaction process and that their services are of the highest standards befitting the commissions that are to be paid to them when a deal is successfully concluded.

The Bill allows anyone, including foreigners, to enter the industry. It is very easy for one to become a licensed property salesperson. All he needs is to undergo the required training and qualify

for certification. From feedback I gathered, there are quite a number of housing salespersons who are foreigners. I do not doubt their ability or integrity, but would they be in a position to advise on local laws relating to property purchase matters? After all, the information they need to know is not simply limited to the buying and selling of the house itself, but extends to many other non-housing specific issues, including loans, parental grants and CPF, not to mention local cultural sensitivities and beliefs. I would like to suggest a minimum domicile period in Singapore of a few years for foreigners before they may enter the industry. This measure will also ensure that our local salespersons will not be put out of job.

Competition among housing salespersons has become increasingly intense. While competition is good as it encourages salespersons to provide better services to customers, it can also result in salespersons using underhand tactics to close a deal, or going aggressively to market themselves. Walk past any HDB estate in the morning and you will most probably see the floor near the letter boxes littered with fliers of different shapes and sizes advertising the services of various property salespersons. And yet these fliers are not limited to being shoved into the letterboxes. Residents have complained of fliers being slipped under their doors and stuck onto their gates, and also on car windscreens. Clearly, such aggressive marketing is an indication that the competition among housing salespersons is extremely intense. I hope the Council will establish guidelines for these salespersons to raise their level of professionalism and bring some prestige to those in the industry. Otherwise, they may end up no better than someone selling "koyok ", the traditional medicine, and before you know it, they may stand at street corners beating the gongs to attract customers.

Since salespersons are now required to undergo training, may I ask if there are sufficient qualified training service providers to run the courses?

I also wish to know what measures will be taken to keep these courses affordable for the real estate salespersons, to encourage them to keep honing their skills and knowledge to cater to their customers' needs. And, what about the need to continually update and upgrade themselves since there will be new regulations and other laws being amended from time to time?

Also, within the industry, there are currently many grievances spanning a wide range of topics from false marketing to Cash-Over-Valuation pricings, salespersons conniving with buyers or sometimes sellers to give a false price and con one party for the benefit of the other. There are also salespersons who would sleaze themselves into a deal and then flip the property for a tidy profit, depriving the owner from getting a better price.

I hope the Council will be strict in enforcing the rules to clean up the industry of the variety of malpractices. Improving the calibre of our housing salespersons through proper professional policing will certainly enhance the image of the real estate industry. I hope the real estate salespersons can be counted on to stand up and face the challenge like the insurance agents, many of whom are now practising as financial and wealth planners. With the bright outlook for the real estate industry, I foresee even more people joining this industry in the years to come. In fact, I have already seen many young professionals becoming salespersons. However, I would like to know if there are any steps to discourage any frivolous complaints to the Council. I am sure we do not wish to see tremendous resources being wasted in investigating frivolous complaints.

4.32 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to improve the professional standard of the real estate industry and to protect consumers' interests, MND will set up a Council for Estate Agencies (CEA). This is a timely move. This Bill will provide for the establishment of the Council for Estate Agencies. The Council stipulates that only those who pass the CEA test can be registered and real estate agencies will have to appoint a key executive officer to supervise their agents. This will better protect the interest of home-owners, buyers and tenants.

I support this Bill.

I have some suggestions. First, avoid conflict of interests. I support the new rule that agents cannot represent both the buyer and seller in the same transaction to avoid conflict of interests. To improve transparency, I suggest that we do not allow the same real estate agency to represent both parties in HDB flats transactions. They can only represent the buyer or the seller. The same practice applies to lawyers handling property transactions.

Second, disallow foreigners from becoming real estate agents. Currently, the law does not prevent foreigners from becoming agents. I know that some foreigners act as real estate agents. MOM issues work permits and employment passes to foreign workers to solve the labour shortage problem of some industries. These foreign citizens are not allowed to do any work other than that stipulated in his work permit. The high commission earned by agents has already drawn many locals into the real estate industry which has about 30,000 agents. The sector is not in need of agents at all. If we allow these work permit holders to act as agents, they may not do their 'real'

work properly. This defeats the original purpose of issuing work permits to them.

What is more, these work permit holders have limited time in Singapore. If they cannot complete the deal within the time stipulated, who will do the follow up work for the transaction after they leave? The sum of money involved in property transactions is very big. It takes many months to complete the whole process and we cannot do this carelessly. To protect consumers' interest, I hope the Minister will consider disallowing foreigners to act as property agents.

Third, improve the professional image. For most Singaporeans, a property transaction would be the biggest monetary transaction in his or her life; therefore the agents must act very professionally and carefully. Property transactions involve tens of thousands and millions of dollars and agents must maintain a high standard and a good image. They should not display advertisements or flyers on HDB walls randomly. Some agents even set up temporary offices in coffee shops or neighbourhood centres to get business. This is no different from "koyok " selling, like Er Lee Bee Wah has mentioned [showing a photograph to hon. Members ]. This kind of sales behaviour tarnishes the professional image of the whole industry.

Therefore, I hope CEA can establish rules to better manage the industry's image by cleaning it up and putting a stop to this kind of unprofessional marketing tactics.

Fourth, control the commission. With the support of a strong economy, property prices have been going up every day in recent years. The resultant amount from the 1% commission has increased substantially as the transaction sums grow. A million dollar transaction can bring tens of thousands of dollars to the agent. In comparison, the lawyer who handles the legal aspect of the transaction, which is

very important, only gets $3,000 to $5,000 in lawyer's fee. The difference is huge. An agent needs to conclude just one million-dollar deal in one month to make more money than a MP's allowance. With such attractive commissions, no wonder so many degree holders and professionals with diplomas join the industry. I do not think this is a healthy trend. This causes a brain drain, and many companies already have trouble hiring enough professionals.

Hence, I recommend that CEA set out rules on how to calculate commission. For example, if the transaction is under $500,000, the commission should be 1%; between $500,000 to $1 million, 0.75%; and over $1 million, 0.5%. Agents can still make decent commissions, but the amount will not distort the market and cause professionals to give up their own profession to become an agent.

I believe this Bill will make our property market more professional. Like accountants and lawyers, agents will be able to provide better service to Singaporeans in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

*Cols. 1171-1174.

4.39 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Minister for setting up a statutory board to regulate the real estate industry, which is growing each day, and for taking a tougher stance on rogue property agents and salespersons. I fully support this Bill that will hopefully open a new chapter for the practitioners in the real estate industry, and save innocent property buyers and sellers from unwittingly falling prey to any unethical practices.

A property transaction is a complicated process. Few people who have no cause

to deal with property on a regular basis would hardly be familiar with it. Besides, the rules are regularly changed. As a result, most people pay hefty commissions to salespersons to handle all the work. Unfortunately, some unethical agents take advantage of the ignorance and trust of these buyers and sellers through a variety of malpractices.

Special mention of the new Bill is the elimination of the role of estate agents who play double roles for the buyer and the seller in the one same transaction. Presently, they represent both the buyers and sellers and receive commissions from both sides. I am glad for the change. Second, is the restriction on estate agents of having both the licence of an estate agent and a moneylender. This clear separation of role is most important as many are more keen on the moneylending activities, as the payout will stretch over a longer period than the real estate work.

However, there are some areas which the new Bill has not considered. I would like the Minister to look into these. First, there is no guideline on the payment of commission for the salespersons by the sellers and the buyers. Our parliamentary colleague, Mr Ang Mong Seng has just mentioned this point and he stated his recommended rates as well. What is reasonable would have to depend on the residents' ability to bargain and many would not be able to do so. It would help the residents if a guide on the fees could be prescribed by the Council. Presently, some salespersons work together to squeeze higher commissions from their clients.

Under section 43, it is mentioned that the Council may prescribe or issue and publish codes of practice, ethics and conduct for estate agents or sales persons – the key word is "may". In fact, I was disappointed that there is no schedule attached with this new Bill stating the codes of practice, ethics and conduct for

estate agents and salespersons. Many of the current practices, ethics and conduct of the estate agents are deplorable. These practices are the fundamental changes that this new Bill hopes to achieve. I urge the Minister to draw up these codes of practices, ethics and conduct on priority when the Bill is passed.

Next, the Bill has also not looked into the misinformation of the advertisements by estate agents. The property details and conditions are different from the information on the advertisement. This group of estate agents put up misleading advertisements, claiming to have very good property for sale, only to direct a client to something inferior when you call up, or worse, when the clients turn up for the open-house and find that the condition is not as stated. Just like how advertisements in Singapore are being regulated by the MDA for unethical content and false claims, I would recommend a committee to be set up to look into and regulate property advertisements published in the newspapers.

There is another issue on the advertisements by estate agents. Many Town Council staff and residents of HDB estates are frustrated with their advertisements at the lift lobbies and common areas. As the pastings of the advertisements on the common properties have damaged the paintings of the buildings, I would consider them as vandalism. I would urge that the new Bill reflects as such and gives the Council the mandate to get the information of the estate agents from the telecommunication companies in Singapore.

There is also no guide on the suspension of real estate agents for malpractices. I would like to recommend that a demerit points system be awarded and then a suspension period guide follows. This would differentiate between minor and major malpractices and better management of resources of the Council. If each malpractice has to be investigated

and a disciplinary committee set up to investigate, the resources needed would be large. On the other side of the coin, I find that the appointment of inspectors and the powers given to the inspectors are too extreme measures against the estate agents. If there is any fraud and these are commercial transactions, we should leave this to the Commercial Affairs Department to deal with the matter as they already have these powers of inspection.

Nationally, it would be more efficient not to have this set of inspectors to carry out such works. The Minister may wish to go under the Bill to have the estate agents or salespersons to provide the documentation required for investigation. Properly certified estates agents are professionals and they should be encouraged to behave ethically and with proper conduct.

As we strive to improve our service sector, let us not forget that estate agents and salespersons, too, provide a service, and it is their duty to make property sale transactions hassle-free and pleasant. Although the Bill has made it mandatory for estate agents and salespersons to receive certification for knowledge on policies and property transactions, I would like to urge that they also upgrade themselves in terms of service and etiquette. Property agencies must exercise more prudence when assessing and hiring salespersons and there should also be a ratio for the number of salespersons that the estate agent can employ. This is to ensure that there is adequacy of supervision and transfer of knowledge and experience. As with most jobs, estate agents or salespersons should also be required to undergo continual training to ensure that they are kept up-to-date, like stockbrokers, insurance agents and others. I would like to urge the Minister to review the current regime of the Common Examination for House Agents (CEHA). Many clients complained that this test has not adequately trained the estate agents and salespersons for property transactions.

To ensure that the estate agents are knowledgeable about all the housing policies, especially since there have been many changes recently, MND and HDB should play an active role in guiding them to understand the new policies, and assessing their ability to apply the knowledge. The knowledge includes mortgage loans, like what the Minister has just said, and Government grants, which are indeed complex issues that change over time.

The final crux for the estate agent is the completed sales transaction for the property. As the property value is high and such transactions have serious impact on the clients' financial outlay, I would like to urge the Minister to consider a "cooling off" period for the transaction. Perhaps a three-day no-hassle, free return-of-cheque policy for both the sellers and buyers should be adopted.

In conclusion, for the thousands of dollars that estate agents and salespersons earn in a property transaction, the public has a right to expect some professional standards in their conduct and delivery. I support the Bill.

4.48 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to commend the Ministry for initiating the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), which is also in-line with the recent HDB Amendment Bill aimed at stopping rogue practices between moneylenders and real estate agents where HDB flats are involved. The establishment of the CEA is to be welcomed, as it is time that the real estate agents industry is regulated, especially since there had been an increase in complaints against such agents and their salespersons in recent years.

The new measures emphasise the professional standards and ethics of agents and salespersons, and represent a step in levelling up the capabilities of this industry. Sir, there have been concerns, however, that the proposed framework only seems to be protective of consumers, neglecting the interest of salespersons. Some salespersons have voiced the fact that real estate agents offer little or no support to their salespersons. It has been reported that real estate agents take a cut of 10% to 30% from each transaction closed by salespersons even though they are responsible only for issuing invoices after a successful sale or rental transaction. This does not justify the cut they take from their salespersons' commissions. Accordingly, many affected salespersons may turn to other rogue practices to earn more, hence, perpetuating the increase in complaints against them in the industry. This is likely to be the root of all the problems discussed. Therefore, I would like to ask whether the Bill could and would provide salespersons with more protection? This will also indirectly reduce rogue practices in the industry.

Sir, with the proposed Bill, an estimated 30% of salespersons may be affected. These are mainly the part-timers and those who are moonlighting as salespersons. In this regard, MND may like to note that there are many salespersons with a full-time job and moonlighting at the same time as a salesperson. This is usually okay if the employment contracts are silent with regard to taking on jobs outside office hours or if the moonlighting job is not in direct conflict with the full-time job. Usually, for these part-timers, the salaries from their full-time jobs may not be enough for their families. Hence, they take on jobs as part-time property salespersons to help supplement their family income.

Sir, the proposed Bill provides that there will be a public register listing all registered salespersons. This has raised some concerns that the moment the salesperson goes into this public registry, the salesperson's employer may know about the moonlighting and the salesperson may have to give up either the full-time job or the part-time job. I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to address this phenomenon. What is the intent of section 32 with regard to part-time employment as a salesperson?

Sir, the Bill also restricts salespersons from working for more than one agent. With the proposed changes, salespersons who hold a licence to operate their own firm will no longer be allowed to be employed by real estate agents. This raises some concerns. For instance, a real estate agent, the Dennis Wee Group (DWG), has said it has a handful of such salespersons who tend to be better and more reliable performers. I would like to ask the Ministry if there could be exceptions to the general rule that salespersons cannot work for more than one agency, based on the merit of each case.

Section 33(1) states an accompanying prescribed fee for application or renewal of the salesperson’s licence. Sir, what would be this fee amount, in particular the renewal fee, considering a regular three-year renewal? What benefits or value-add would the renewal of such licences extend to the incumbents? Sir, we must avoid collection of renewal fees deemed as a source of revenue collection.

Related to this is the situation where a salesperson may decide to leave an estate agent to work under another estate agent. Can the Bill consider the first registration to be portable to the new estate agent so that there is no need for another registration and fee payment? There are situations where the two parties – the agent and the salesperson – just cannot get along, and this has nothing to do with

their professional ethics. So a separation of ways may be a win-win solution for the two parties concerned. However, another registration and fee payment deter a speedy and amicable solution because of the cost involved.

Section 35(5) states that the Council may require applicants to furnish security as may be prescribed before granting or renewal of licence. I would like to ask, Sir, under what circumstances would the Council require the applicant to provide security and what would likely be such a security?

Section 34(7) states the liability for conviction for false declaration for a salesperson seeking registration. I would like to clarify, if in such an ensuing case, the estate agent is equally liable, since application or renewal of registration is accompanied by a certification by the estate agent.

Sir, the Bill covers for both Singapore and foreign properties marketed, sold or leased in Singapore. Does this mean that for foreign properties, foreign estate agents and salespersons could be allowed into Singapore to conduct such transactions or would such transactions be solely restricted to Singaporeans? If the former was the case, how would this impact the local estate agents and salespersons? How do we ensure that these foreigners will be well prepared in our laws to do a professional job?

Sir, the Bill contains many strict requirements of agents and salespersons as well as inspectorate, investigation and disciplinary bodies. It is important that estate agents and salespersons understand such requirements and the powers of the enforcement bodies. There would be concerns on the capability of members of enforcement bodies, especially with regard to enforcing new rules of such nature. How does the CEA intend to communicate and educate both the estate

agents and salespersons the contents and proceedings of this Bill?

Sir, HDB must be commended for its daring move to do what is right for the real estate industry following closely the passage of the Moneylender Act. This Bill will reinforce HDB's determination to evolve the professional real estate industry in Singapore.

With that, I support the Bill.

4.56 pm

Sir, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as the Vice-President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The Bill is timely as over the past years, there has been increasing number of cases where consumers and property owners complained that they have been deceived or taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents.

According to statistics from CASE, there have been 1,017 complaints by consumers against estate agents in 2008 and 982 complaints in 2009. And in the first seven months of this year, there have been 678 complaints. Many of these complaints are either about the unprofessional conduct of the estate agents or misrepresentation by these agents.

It is, hence, critical that the Government introduce legislation in order to protect the interest of the consumers, especially the less educated and vulnerable consumers as well as to regulate the conduct of estate agents.

Sir, allow me to cite a few examples of the common complaints lodged by consumers against their estate agents.

The owner of a flat appoints an agent to sell the flat. The potential buyer calls in response to the agent's advertisements and is told by the agent that unless he agrees to pay the agent's commission, he will not be allowed to view the flat. This is unfair to the seller and an abuse of the agent's fiduciary duty to his client;

The seller appoints an agent to sell the flat. The agent then finds a buyer but asks the buyer to pay him a commission. The agent then negotiates a better price for the buyer despite being the seller's agent. This is a clear case of conflict of interest where the agent collects his fees from his seller client but does not act in his client's interest by representing both parties;

The owner appoints an agent to rent a property. The agent then asks the owner to sign a tenancy agreement. The estate agent then asks the owner to agree to pay the agent a commission if the tenancy is renewed one or two years later. Hence, the agent receives a commission even though he may not have done any work to secure the renewal of the tenancy;

The estate agent advises flat owner to sell flat and informs the flat owner that they can cash out and later rent a flat from HDB. This was referred to by the Minister in his speech earlier on. The agent then fails to advise flat owner that they are debarred from renting flats for 30 months. Or that some of these home owners may not be able to obtain a subsidised loan from HDB after selling their flats. The result, the owner is left without roof over his head and I am sure many MPs in this House would be aware of such similiar instances where the owner then comes to see the MP to ask

for help to rent a flat even though they are within the 30-month debarment period.

There are many more complaints about the poor or wrong advice given by estate agents which has resulted in flat owners either losing their deposits or losing their opportunity to buy or to sell their flats.

There have also been complaints that some estate agents act as moneylenders to flat owners, then ask the flat owners to use their flats as security for the loans, and they ask these owners to sign a Power of Attorney or an option to purchase in advance. In the event that the loans are not paid on time, the estate agents put on their hats as moneylenders and pressurise the flat owners to sell their flats.

I believe that such unprofessional, incompetent or rouge agents are in the minority. As a conveyancing lawyer and as a consumer who has bought and sold properties in the past, I have dealt with many knowledgeable and professional salespersons, however, I have also encountered a salesperson trying to close the sale of a residential landed property to a foreigner, who is in breach of the Residential Properties' Act. As properties and flats represent the largest expenditure item of most people, the Government should take action to regulate this industry to inject a greater professionalism in the industry and to protect vulnerable consumers or flat owners who are in the lower-income group or illiterate.

Sir, allow me to ask a few queries on the Bill. First, may I seek a confirmation from the Minister that the code of practice, ethics and conduct under section 42 of the Bill will adequately address the current shortcomings in the Bill? Currently in the Bill as it stands that there are no illustrations as to what this would cover.

Will there be sufficient enforceable guidelines to ensure that estate agents or salespersons will not act unprofessionally or in breach of their duties to their clients? For example, I am glad to hear the Minister said that the rules prohibit a salesperson from representing two parties.

How would the Council ensure that salespersons do not hide important information from their seller clients and that they comply fully with the Code? Will there be regular checks on this compliance by the salesperson? How will the Council also check that there is no collusion between salespersons to deceive their clients?

Next, Sir, sections 31 and 32 of the Bill provide restrictions on the estate agent and the salesperson from holding a moneylender's licence. May I ask whether restrictions will also be extended to the immediate relatives of the estate agents or the salesperson? What is to stop the estate agents or the salesperson from asking his spouse or parents or children to operate a moneylending business and then make that connection on their behalf?

Third, what is the effect of a reprimand or a fine imposed under section 36(3) or section 52 of the Bill? Does this mean that the estate agent or salesperson can still proceed to sell properties in the industry despite having an adverse record?

Fourth, in section 44 of the Bill, it provides for an estate agency agreement to be in a prescribed form for estate agents. May I know what kind of prescribed form will this be? Will there be any prescription of the commission to be paid to estate agents? The Consumer Association still receives complaints that many estate agents insist that their commission is fixed at 2% of the sales price when, really, it is up to the consumers to negotiate the commission with the agents. I believe that fixed commission have been abolished under

the Competition Act. Also, Sir, how far do we want to micro-manage the real estate market by having standard forms in respect of such agreements?

Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister to explain more about how the Ministry intends to ensure the estate agents receive adequate training so that they will have better knowledge of their scope of work and that they can advise consumers correctly on the policies and procedures of HDB rules in respect of HDB flats? I hope that the training that the estate agents or the salespersons undergo not just be about how to market or sell a property or about geomancy, which I think, currently, a few associations conduct. I hope that the training will touch on the rules of ownership and rental of HDB flats so that estate agents or salespersons who are specialising in their field will have adequate knowledge about these rules.

Sir, finally, may I urge the Minister to have the Bill implemented as early as possible so that adequate protection is afforded to consumers.

Sir, I support the Bill. Thank you.

5.02 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The current regulatory framework is completely inadequate to deal with the multiple problems that had arisen over the years, particularly during the period of the property boom. Malpractices and abuses were not adequately addressed. Accreditation to the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies is voluntary and consumers are not sure who to refer complaints to, whether they will be investigated and what kind of remedies they will get especially if the agency is not even a member of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA). As a

result, public confidence has been badly affected.

In a public perception and expectations survey of estate agents conducted by Ngee Ann Polytechnic last year, about four out of 10 of those surveyed were not satisfied with their estate agents. Despite of this, it is worth emphasising that not all estate agents or salespersons are rogues and there are many out there earning an honest living but the minority that is behaving badly is enough to give the whole industry a bad name. Over time, even the good ones may resort to underhanded tactics if they see that errant agents and salespersons can get away with impunity. Their actions would also cause untold misery because in Singapore an HDB flat is the most important asset for the majority of people and if that is lost or compromised because of unethical estate agents and salespersons, we are depriving people of an important source of security for their old age.

The key thrust of the Bill is to safeguard consumer interest and raise the professionalism in the industry. Currently, there are zero barriers for anyone to become an estate agent or a salesperson. So the requirement for that the estate agents and their salespersons will have to be registered and be professionally competent is a good move. Likewise, the provision that the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) can publish details of estate agents and their past history, including any disciplinary actions taken against them, will ensure greater transparency and certainly enhance consumer protection against abuses. There have been cases of agents who simply switch to another estate agency after being fired from one. Even salespersons convicted by the Court on matters related to their property transactions could continue to function.

A further protection that I strongly support is the provision under the Bill for

the CEA to prescribe standard estate agency agreements between estate agencies and their clients and to ensure that the agreements do not contain unfair clauses. I have heard of cases where estate agents and salespersons make their clients sign agreements appointing them as the sole or exclusive agent in marketing the client’s flat but for months did nothing. But when the client finds a buyer on his own, they demand to have a share of the commission. This is one example of an unfair practice by sales agents that is detrimental to the interest of flat owners and which I hope that the CEA will address in the standard agreements.

I have a number of clarifications to seek from the Minister. First, section 8 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Council of Estate Agencies (CEA) comprising a President and between five and 15 members to be appointed by the Minister. It is important, in my view, Sir, that the voice of consumers and their interest are effectively represented on the Council. In this regard, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider appointing one representative from either the Consumers Association of Singapore or the Singapore Compact which promotes corporate social responsibility, as a member of the Council.

Sir, section 30 prohibits an estate agent from simultaneously holding a moneylender’s licence or be an employee, director or partner of a licensed moneylender. This is a good move and will complement the recent amendment to the Housing and Development Act prohibiting the registration of caveats against HDB properties by moneylenders. But, like my parliamentary colleague, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, I believe that there are many ways for estate agencies to get around this rule. One way is by registering the moneylender’s licence under the name of family members or sleeping partners.

Could the Minister please clarify how the CEA would address such concerns?

Sir, section 49(3) provides that the Council may require a complaint or class of complaints to be supported by statutory declarations. Statutory declarations are intended to ensure that consumers do not make frivolous complaints against estate agents or salespersons, and one cannot deny that even now there are some consumers that are unreasonable and take advantage of their estate agents or salespersons. However, we must guard against this requirement for complaints to be backed by statutory declarations from becoming a deterrent to consumers filing complaints against their estate agents or salespersons, as unlike these estate agents or salespersons, consumers do not have the knowledge or the money to get lawyers to prepare and file statutory declarations for them.

Sir, section 66 provides for the establishment of one or more dispute resolution schemes for the resolution of disputes arising from or relating to the provision of services by estate agents and salespersons. This is certainly a very useful mechanism as it is expensive for consumers to bring a matter to Court against errant estate agents or salespersons. However, it is not clear from the Bill whether consumers will be charged for making use of such dispute resolution schemes and, if so, could the Minister ensure that the cost will remain affordable and the proceedings kept simple. There is also no indication whether lawyers will be allowed to represent the parties but, if so, again my concern is that the average consumer may not be able to afford expensive legal fees whereas a big estate agency will have no such difficulty. This would provide for a lopsided representation at the dispute resolution centres and will undermine the whole objective of mediation in the first place. I seek the Minister’s clarification on this.

Sir, under section 9(1)(g), one of the CEA’s function is to develop measures to equip consumers with the necessary knowledge to conduct their property transactions with prudence and diligence. This is a very important task, as no matter what regulatory measures are put in place, I agree with the Minister that nothing can replace the vigilance and circumspection of empowered consumers able to protect themselves against errant estate agencies and salespersons. Consumer education is an area that is seriously lacking now. I suggest that the CEA works closely with CASE and the Singapore Compact to address this shortcoming and information gap that exists among consumers, particularly low-income consumers who are not aware of their rights, and who may not know how to access the information that will be made available to them about their estate agents and salespersons as is provided under the Bill. Consumer education should go beyond just advising consumers on their rights in property transactions. It should also help them in financial planning, particularly in viewing their flats as long-term investments to meet their old age and retirement needs.

Sir, finally, to be effective, the CEA would require sufficient resources and manpower to carry out its work. I hope that the Minister would adequately address this issue so that we will have an effective CEA that will indeed safeguard consumer interest and raise the standard of professionalism in the industry. I also urge the Minister to extend whatever assistance that is required and to work closely with the industry to help them transit to the new regulatory regime. The Minister had said that it will be at the end of this year when the estate agents will be deemed to be registered. I am not sure whether this is sufficient time because this is already September but, obviously, these are issues which I think the Ministry

should look into to help our estate agents and salespersons transit to a really effective new regulatory regime.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to once again applaud the Minister for this far-sighted and comprehensive legislation that will address the many concerns of consumers. Rather than view this legislation as restricting their moves, the industry should welcome and embrace it as providing them with the necessary legal framework and opportunity to weed out the bad apples from the rest. Estate agents and salespersons who are fair and who are doing an honest day’s work have nothing to worry about. Perhaps they could even show that their standards and practices are higher than whatever code of practice that the CEA will introduce. But errant agents and salespersons with dubious practices better beware. The public’s tolerance level of all the malpractices has reached its limit.

I hope that the estate agency sector will rise to the challenge. I also hope that our consumer bodies, too, would rise to the challenge and, together with the CEA, help to do their part in educating consumers. Apart from the estate agents and salespersons, in my view, Sir, bankers and lawyers, who are part and parcel of the estate agency business, too, can play a role in helping to raise the standards of professionalism and fair play in the industry.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.12 pm

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill, which establishes the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) as a new statutory board to regulate the real estate agency industry.

I am particularly impressed with the clause that highlights the public education

focus of the Council’s work, which will empower ordinary Singaporeans to become informed consumers. However, I do have several concerns.

First, for the CEA to be effective in policing the real estate sector, it must have sufficient power to deal with delinquent agents. To ensure that censored agents will not be able to resurface through another agency, will there be a central database of blacklisted agents that will be easily accessible by the public?

Second, I have a query on the standard agency agreement that will detail the contractual terms between client and agent. Will the clients’ interest be sufficiently represented in this agreement? Can the Minister ensure that there be sufficient public consultation before the agreement is firmed? This is very important as the presence of a standard agency agreement results in the monopoly of market practice.

Third, given the stricter requirements on training, accreditation and regulation dictated by this Bill, will clients have to pay more for the services of the licensed estate agents? Perhaps, it is prudent for the CEA to provide a guide on fees as noted already by Ms Cynthia Phua and Mr Ang Mong Seng.

Finally, with the advent of this Bill, will individual home owners as well as buyers be able to act on their own behalf when they enter a transaction?

5.14 pm

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

The Bill before us now has certainly been a long time coming. It will provide a new regulatory framework for the industry which should raise professional standards of the industry. I have one query which is with regard to the minimum qualifications,

in particular, educational qualifications required for registration as a salesperson or an estate agent.

Will it be mandatory to have a minimum of four "O" levels for registration to be a registered salesperson or an estate agent? Have the minimum qualifying requirements already been confirmed, or will it be up to the Council for Estate Agencies to further propose and refine these? I am sure that many existing agents and those who aspire to enter the industry are quite anxious about this.

The rationale for this Bill is clear. The average Singaporean's life is deeply tied to his home and property: with more than 80% of the population being home-owners, the apartment or house is often the Singaporean's only fall-back for a rainy day and his retirement plan all rolled into one. A less than trustworthy agent can therefore lead to disastrous scenarios. Many news reports have documented problems of errant property agents and loopholes in current legislation relating to real estate transactions. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan has pointed out, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has received many cases of complaints relating to estate agents, with over 600 cases in the first half of this year.

On the other hand, the fact that we need to have this Bill, unfortunately, indicates that the industry's attempts at self-regulation and raising professional standards have fallen short. It is a pity that the only solution for industry improvement appears to be Government intervention.

There has been an accreditation scheme for estate agents since 2005, ie, the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA) Scheme, which was set up with support from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, the Housing and Development Board and the Ministry of Finance. Yet, it seems only around one-third of an estimated 30,000 property

agents in Singapore have been accredited. This suggests to me that many agents do not view raising professional standards to be important, although the numbers applying for accreditation have actually been increasing recently.

Iwould also like to point out that codes of practice and conduct for the industry do exist: the SAEA also provides these guidelines which are available online. Yet, we are now at a point where we need to legislate ethical business practices for the industry. I find this to be a troubling indicator that, in Singapore, perhaps there exists a real issue of the lack of ethical business practices, particularly with respect to conflicts of interest. For instance, the practice of a property agent representing both buyer and seller appears to be fairly common, despite the commonsensical conclusion that this could prevent the agent from acting in the best interests of one or other of his clients. There are also cases of agents referring clients to moneylenders, or even operating as moneylenders themselves. Other Members of this House have already presented anecdotes of these cases.

This lack of awareness, interest, or ethical conscience – however we wish to call it – I believe is the root of the problem. Unfortunately, many people are attracted to become property agents because, currently, there are relatively low barriers to entry and there is a perception that it is an easy way to earn money, and you can see this in the classified advertisements by agents which hint to aspiring industry entrants that they can quickly earn good incomes in a short time. Becoming a property agent should not be a last-resort job option or a get-rich-quick scheme; it should be seen as entering a profession.

Therefore, a crucial aspect of the Council's mandate would lie in improving

the professionalism of the industry and improving the public perception of the profession. It has been unfortunate that a minority of black sheep in the industry has affected those who are honest and professional.

Finally, I would like to also note that it is not only the real estate industry that has been dogged by a lack of professionalism and a flood of consumer complaints. We read of similar problems in many other industries, from private education to spas to renovation contractors. This raises the question of whether a lack of professionalism and a lack of awareness of proper ethical business practices is a widespread problem in Singapore, and whether industries can self-regulate without the Government stepping in to wield the axe. Do we need to do more to encourage ethical business practices, just as we are encouraging companies to support continuing education and training for their employees?

This Bill follows on from the new Private Education Bill which spelt out the regulation of the private education industry after the plethora of complaints and bad practices of private school operators. Is it now time for the Government to throw down the gauntlet to everyone in the services sector to raise their game?

With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

Let me now respond to the specific issues that have been raised. Let me start off by talking about the scope of the Bill and the scope of the regulatory framework. Assoc. Prof. Straughan asked if consumers can conduct their own property transactions and not engage salespersons. The answer, of course, is yes. In fact, HDB has been actively

encouraging buyers and sellers to "do-it-yourself" (DIY). They have put in place measures to help people to do so. HDB does not require or force people to use the services of a salesperson. You can do it yourself. But I must say that the number of people who are able to "do-it-yourself" is still rather low. But, nevertheless, we will continue to encourage such a practice.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked if foreign estate agents and salespersons are also allowed to market or sell overseas properties in Singapore. Yes, they will be allowed to do so as it is the current practice. But now, with this Bill, they will also need to comply with the new regulatory requirement, which is to get a licence before they can engage in real estate work here. Previously, they could do so, fly in, maybe rent a hotel room somewhere, put an advertisement in the papers and they are off. Henceforth, they will not be able to do so. They must get a licence to transact business here in the real estate business. Alternatively, they can also tie up with a local licensed real estate agent if they want to continue to hold property fairs or exhibitions in Singapore.

Mr Ang Mong Seng went one step further and asked whether we can forbid foreigners from working as salespersons and Er Lee Bee Wah also asked if we can introduce a minimum domicile period. She asked whether we can impose this minimum domicile period in Singapore for foreigners before they can enter the industry. Sir, the answer is we cannot because such measures will contravene the various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which we have signed with our trading partners. Under the various FTAs, this would be considered as discriminatory practice. So we are not allowed to do that. But there are other things that we can do. We can put other controls in place to guard against those who, as the Member pointed out, may only be in

Singapore for a short time and may not understand the local conditions and, therefore, will not serve the consumers' interests as well.

Any foreigner who wants to work in Singapore, including as a salesperson, first of all, will need a work pass from the Ministry of Manpower. He must then also fulfil all the registration requirements – meeting the fit and proper criteria, must pass the CEA examination and must also find an estate agent who is prepared to support his registration because he has to be aligned with an estate agent. So, he must find an estate agent who can support his registration and who is prepared to be responsible for his work. And then he must also be able to persuade the estate agent that he is sufficiently familiar with the local market and local laws, rules and procedures to do his work well. All these new requirements will help to sieve out all those foreign estate agents who come here, so called "fly-by-night", to set up shop for one weekend and then fly off.

I think Mr Ang's and Er Lee's concerns are valid ones and my Ministry will monitor the situation closely and take whatever other measures that are necessary to make sure that consumers' interests are protected.

Let me now touch on the licensing of agents and the registration of salespersons. Ms Audrey Wong, a while ago, asked about the minimum qualifications for salespersons. Yes, we do require these minimum qualifications as part of the registration criteria. To reiterate the minimum qualifications – four GCE "O" level passes or the equivalent, and also they need to pass the mandatory CEA examination for salespersons, but these are for new salespersons. For existing salespersons, those who have passed these industry examinations, whether the CEHA examination or the common examination for salespersons or the CEA

examination, they will not be required to take the new CEA examination for salespersons. And they will also be exempted from fulfilling the four "O" level criterion. We have communicated these provisions to the industry players and I think they are happy with that.

Mr Cedric Foo has asked for an elaboration on how the new CEA examination will be different from the current industry examinations. We have looked at this very carefully because it is important as it is part of the effort to raise the professionalism of the industry that we need to have a good common examination. Right now, there is a proliferation of examinations of different standards and requirements. Obviously, people will gravitate to the ones that are easier to pass. What we have done is to set up an Examination and Professional Development Committee to look at a new examination syllabus for agents, licensees and salespersons. This Committee will include people from IEA and also experienced industry players – people who have a good understanding of the knowledge that the agents' licensees and salespersons must have to do a good job. The new syllabus is still being worked out, but they will cover all the relevant topics such as real estate concept, law practice, regulations, etc. But I promise him that it will be more comprehensive and more relevant to the industry and the profession, and it will help to raise industry standards.

I think Members are also very concerned, apart from the examinations, that there is a good continuing education regime. Like all professions, things change very rapidly, more so in the real estate industry, particularly when they are dealing with HDB transactions. HDB transactions change very regularly. So, it is very important that those real estate agents who want to deal in HDB

transactions are up to date with the HDB transactions. It does not mean that they will give the right advice but they should have no excuse after they have gone through the continuing education process. So, we will require salespersons to undergo mandatory continuing professional development – six hours a year. The main focus of the six-hour CPD module will be on the latest changes to Government regulations, policies and procedures, mainly to ensure that salespersons are up to date and can provide sound advice to their clients. The CEA will ensure that there are sufficient qualified training service providers to run the courses and, of course, make sure that the course fees are affordable.

Mr Cedric Foo has asked that CEA reviews salespersons who are undischarged bankrupts, under "all who have past criminal records" in the spirit of Yellow Ribbon. I will ask the CEA to take this into account, to consider applications on a case-by-case basis and not to automatically disqualify these people from the trade. Mdm Ho Geok Choo raised concerns with regard to the restrictions on salespersons working for more than one agent. She cited some examples and asked whether we could allow exceptions to the rule. Let me explain why this restriction is necessary. Because if you allow more than one estate agent to be the supervisor of a salesperson, I think the supervisory controls will be compromised. It is very difficult to exercise adequate supervisory control over your salesperson if you know that he is also working for somebody else. How do you take responsibility for that person's actions? It is best that we enforce this strictly and make sure that both the salesperson and the estate agent understand their roles and both exercise their respective roles responsibly. I expect that this rule will change behaviour significantly – both the behaviour of the agents as well as the

salespersons. The agents will now have to scrutinise their recruits more carefully, check who they recruit, make sure that they are doing their job properly, etc. Right now what they generally do is that they will accept anybody who comes through the door; and if something does happen, and some complaints come in, they will say, "Oh, this person is not only working for me, he is working for many other people as well." We want to stop that. With full responsibility for their salespersons, they will have to scrutinise their recruitment, supervise their work and be directly accountable for their actions. Salespersons will also have to decide which agent they want to join or if they want to continue their own agency business; because some of them may be sole proprietors. This depends very much on the value-add that the agents bring to their work. Agents will now have the right incentive to add value to the work of their salespersons so that they can retain the good ones, and that is what Mdm Ho was concerned about – how can agents retain their good salespersons. The objective of the Bill is not only to protect consumers' interest but is also to upgrade the professionalism of the industry. If we can do that, estate agents and salespersons will all benefit from it. Mdm Ho Geok Choo also touched on a related point – and that was whether an estate agent will be liable if his salesperson makes a false declaration in his registration application. This goes back to what I said earlier. In the registration process, the estate agent has to support the salesperson's application and so he has to certify that the salesperson has met these registration requirements. If there is a false declaration, if the real estate agent has exercised due diligence, made his own checks and these did not turn up any irregularities then, obviously, we will not hold him responsible. But, if we find that the estate agent is in cahoots with the salesperson, and that a false

document was submitted, we will go after the estate agent and we will even, in serious cases, prosecute him in court. Several Members were quite concerned about the prohibition of moneylending activities. Mdm Halimah and Mr Lim Biow Chuan touched on this issue on prohibition of estate agents and salespersons being licensed moneylenders, and they ask if this prohibition can be extended to their family members and also to business partners because they fear that these people will find loopholes and get around the rule. Yes, we have thought about this in our deliberations. The question is how do we address this effectively. Because if you prohibit family members and business partners, they may find other people who may register the moneylenders' licence: their friends, their close associates; people whom we may not be able to detect; there are many number of names that they can use. What we have decided to do is to ban estate agents and salespersons from making referrals to moneylenders. This is under the new code of ethics and conduct. They will not be allowed to make referrals to moneylenders; and if they do, we can take action against them. If they have moneylenders' licence under the name of a relative and so on, that is not going to help them because they cannot make a referral. Having said all that, again I think they would probably find ways around that and so we will have to continue to monitor the situation. If there are rogue agents who find creative ways to get around this, then we will have to take the necessary action. Several Members have touched on this code of ethics and conduct. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, for example, asked what it involves and whether it will bear due representation, etc. This code of ethics and conduct is a key instrument for CEA to regulate the industry and to weed out errant practices. It will do many things: it will ban referrals to moneylenders, it will

ban dual representation; it will also prescribe the standard agency agreement; it will stipulate the duties of the estate agents and the salespersons; it will lay down the requirements for advertisements; it will address conflict of interest situations; and so on and so forth. The code has been drafted comprehensively to cover the many present malpractices of rogue agents, but we will, of course, need to update it regularly to make sure that it remains relevant and effective. Mdm Cynthia Phua, Er Lee Bee Wah and Mr Ang Mong Seng asked if CEA can establish guidelines to stop marketing practices such as the mass distribution of pamphlets, the pasting of advertisements in public areas, and so on. Again, I come back to the code of ethics and conduct. Under this code, estate agents and salespersons are required to comply with all relevant local laws and regulations. In other words, where you have a Town Council's common property by-law or other relevant by-laws which make it an offence to paste flyers on common property, then the code of ethics and conduct will require that they must comply with these local laws. It is difficult for Town Councils and HDB to stop businesses like estate agents from distributing flyers. I know that this is a very pervasive practice and it is a very irritating one, but it is difficult for us to regulate against it. What we can do is to get industry associations to discourage such marketing practices, to get them to promote best practices in marketing – not just because it is an irritation but also because, I think, it will help to raise the standard, the professionalism and the image of the industry. We will be working with the industry associations to try to get them to do so. There are quite a few questions about the standard agency agreement. Mdm Halimah strongly supported the provision

for such a standard estate agency agreement. She suggested that it excludes unfair clauses, address issues such as salespersons doing nothing and demanding commission, and so on. The standard agreement will have a termination clause. What this means is that the consumer, the buyer or seller can terminate a contract and not pay the commission fees in the event of a breach in the terms of the agreement. It will disallow auto renewal of the agreement. The exclusivity agreement is usually for, say three months, six months; if you do not renew it, it will lapse. It does not automatically renew itself, unlike the current situation. Each exclusive agency contract or renewal contract will now be limited to three months and the renewal would have to be done by executing a formal written contract.

Mr Cedric Foo asked how consumer protection will be enhanced with the new standard agreement. Besides this termination clause, and besides removing the auto-renewal clause, the standard agreement will also require disclosure of any potential conflict of interest. It will require the estate agent to go for dispute resolution if the consumer asks for it. It will also prescribe for the commission to be payable to the agent only upon the completion of the transaction. To address Assoc. Prof Straughan's suggestion to consult the public: yes, the standard agreement has gone through many rounds of consultation with the industry players and with consumers associations like CASE; in fact, we have been cooking this whole Bill for more than a year and the standard agency agreement was one of the things that everybody agreed was a good thing to have. It will allow for add-on clauses, it will allow for other flexibilities that do not contradict the prescribed clauses of the agreement. Our main intention is to protect the consumer, and we will endeavour to do so as much as possible without micro-managing the

industry as Mr Lim Biow Chuan mentioned just now. Next, the subject of the security bond. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked under which circumstances will the security bond be required? The provision in the Bill gives CEA the flexibility to require a security bond when this is needed, for example, situations when there are risks involved in granting or renewing a licence. It is not for all cases but some cases where CEA perceives that there is risk, it will require a security bond. Complaints handling: Mdm Halimah asked about the requirements for the statutory declaration to support complaints. She said they may become a deterrent – she is concerned. I would like to clarify that while the Bill has made such a provision, it will be used selectively. For example, if there is reason to believe that a complaint is frivolous, false or malicious, then CEA can – it is empowered to – require a statutory declaration, but not in all cases. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the effect of a reprimand or a fine – whether a salesperson can continue to practise with adverse records. Well, reprimands and fines are really for minor offences; and as such, the salesperson can continue to work in the industry but his records will be reflected in the central register so that consumers know when they engage this person, they will know whether this person has a record and what kind of record it is. If they commit subsequent offences, more severe penalties will be meted out and then, of course, they can be banned, debarred from practice, have their licence revoked. Let me now touch on dispute resolution. Mdm Halimah sought clarification on whether consumers will be charged if they use the dispute resolution scheme, whether lawyers will be allowed to represent the parties. Consumers have to pay the fees set by their prescribed

dispute resolution centres, such as the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) or even by CASE. But, of course, CEA will try to keep these fees affordable. On legal representation, consumers do not need to engage lawyers to get a fair hearing. Mediators and arbitrators from the dispute resolution centres are trained to conduct the sessions in a fair manner. So, the proceedings in these centres are not overly legalistic, so they do not need to hire a lawyer.

Finally, I want to touch on public education. I thank all Members who spoke and agreed that public education is a very important part of the new regime. There is a lot more that we can do in this area. We can have seminars, forums, consumer guides, and equip them with the necessary knowledge for their training. But CEA cannot do it on its own. It has to work with the industry associations, the authorities, HDB, consumer associations like CASE, and so on. Part of the process of public education must be publishing of relevant information. So the central database of information is necessary. I think Assoc. Prof. Straughan asked whether there will be such a central database to highlight what the Member calls the "black sheep" in the industry. We will have a central database of blacklisted persons, and this will be accessible to the public. We will also set up a public register and this will allow consumers to get more information about the estate agents and the registered salespersons they wish to engage. So the advice or education to the public will be that before you engage that person, log on, get the information from the central register, and find out what this person is doing, who he or she is registered with and whether he or she has any adverse record. It will also, of course, show other things. Like their photographs, where you will know who you are dealing with. So I think all this information will allow the consumers to make a more informed

judgement as to who they are dealing with and it will place the salesperson on notice that the consumers know who they are dealing with.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo is concerned that the public register may cause people moonlighting as salespersons to lose their jobs because, as she rightly pointed out, some people may moonlight as part-time agents. The new regulatory regime does not prohibit people from doing part-time real estate work but it will require all persons doing estate agency work, part time or full time, to be registered. Their names will be captured in the central register, the public register, which is an important tool for keeping consumers informed. This is not to deter part-timers but if they want to do this work, if they want to be part of this industry, they must be registered and once they are registered, they will be in the public register. I do not think we should exempt them from this. They will have to sort it out with their employers, whether or not their employers will allow them to do so.

On the regulatory fees and commissions charged, once the benefit of regulation is clear, I think Members will accept that there is a cost for regulation as well. The newly set up CEA will have to do a lot more work – regulatory work, enforcement work, investigative work, public education work and development work. There will be a lot more work compared to what is being done today. I think it is not unfair to require the industry to actually contribute to this additional workload and, of course, as Mdm Halimah said just now, CEA must be adequately staffed and has the resources to do its work well. So, cost would go up and CEA would need to recover this cost through the licensing and registration fees. But I would like to assure Mr Cedric Foo that the fees will be affordable. They will be set to recover the regulatory costs and

not over-recover. We are not yet fully cost-recovering. We will seek to work towards full recovery over time. Mdm Ho Geok Choo then asked if a salesperson who has left one agent for another would need to pay registration fees. The answer is yes, because when you change to another agent, the whole process starts, you have to re-register again, and the workload is the same.

I think a lot of concerns were expressed by Members about the commissions to be paid. Let me address this issue. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if the CEA would prescribe the commission. Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mdm Cynthia Phua, and also Assoc. Prof. Straughan suggested that CEA regulate the new commission rates. Let me state that CEA cannot fix the commission charged because it is anti-competitive. I think the Competition Commission has ruled that fixing a commission is anti-competitive. But more than that, I think it is better for the commission rates to be influenced by the market place, demand and supply of agents' services, and also by educating consumers by telling them that they can exercise their right to negotiate the best commission rates based on the level of services to be provided. I think this is something new but it is something that we must endeavour to inculcate in the consumers.

Finally, let me talk about implementation. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked when the new Bill will be implemented. I would like to assure him and Members of the House that my Ministry will act on this with the utmost urgency. We plan for CEA to start operations on 22nd October, which is slightly over a month from now. Mdm Halimah suggested the new Council include a representative from CASE or Singapore Contact. We have not yet set up the Council, but we will look into her suggestion.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Mdm Halimah asked MND to work closely with the industry to educate and help them transit to the new regulatory regime. I would like to inform them that we have been working with the industry for over a year, consulted them on the key changes and prepared them for the transition. So we will continue to work closely with them to ensure a smooth transition.

Sir, I believe I have addressed all Members' concerns and queries. Let me conclude by once again thanking Members for their strong support and useful suggestions. I share Members' views that incompetent and rogue estate agents and salespersons are in the minority. But as Ms Audrey Wong suggested, it is now necessary for the Government to play a more active role to regulate the industry, to safeguard consumers' interest and to upgrade its professional standards. Self-regulation, in this case, clearly did not work. So we need to not only serve the interest of consumers but we also need to protect the integrity of the many people in the industry – salespersons and estate agents who are doing good honest work. Government regulation, however, is not enough. The CEA would never have their resources to directly police an industry which has about thousand over agents and 30,000 salespersons. So the industry and the members of the public and, indeed, others such as bankers and lawyers, as mentioned by Mdm Halimah, will also need to play their part, and I hope they will work with CEA to make the new regime succeed. Only then will we have a professional and healthy real estate agency sector that will meet the needs of both consumers and those who work in it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered the point on the cooling-off period which I have suggested. Could the Minister comment on that?

I am sorry. Yes, we will look into the cooling-off period, but this will not be under the CEA regime. This will be part of the HDB's sales procedure.

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 Mah Bow Tan].

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Question proposed.

5.59 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to propose the motion to introduce a Biennial Singapore Games to sustain the renewed enthusiasm and community support for Sports beyond the Youth Olympic Games and to build a sporting legacy, to develop sporting excellence and a sports culture in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion is inspired by the athletes, organisers and volunteers of the recent Youth Olympic Games (YOG). Through the YOG, we saw our young athletes compete well – and who could forget the medal winning performances of Isabelle Li (table tennis),

Nurul Shafinas (taekwondo), Rainer Ng (swimming) and my personal favourite, the soccer boys. And I am not downplaying the contributions of others who had also made us proud in representing Singapore throughout the Games.

During the Games, I remember the vociferous supporters at the stands during the various competitions, the many volunteers who braved the sun and rain to help us make the events a success and even residents who came down and took leave from work to support us as we ran with the torches in our estates.

This got me thinking – that building a sporting legacy, achieving sporting excellence and developing a sporting culture in Singapore – they may not be a pipe dream after all.

The only question is how? What platform can we use to showcase our local sporting talents and yet achieve broad-based participation across Singapore? How can we bring the community and the families together through sports?

So, the concept of the Biennial Games came up in a discussion and the credit goes to my parliamentary colleagues, Ms Josephine Teo and Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan, for coming up with the idea initially, and I just happened to develop on it later on.

Through the Biennial Singapore Games that is being proposed, we can provide a platform that can bring sporting talents and community sports participation from across Singapore together. This will involve identifying a number of sports, getting the community to participate in a series of competitions and sporting events, culminating in the Singapore Games every two years.

The Biennial Games is not and should not be an end in itself. It should, over time, develop a sporting culture across Singapore. As we develop mass participation, there is also room to include games for senior citizens and the disabled to keep them active and bond them closer through sports.

Singapore's sporting legacy should be as much about a sporting culture as it is about achieving sporting excellence. And to succeed as a sporting nation (especially given our small population), it has to be development at both ends of the scale. We should have the cake and eat it too.

It is a tough balance for the Government in deciding how and where to put its money and focus on sports: on the one hand, at the pinnacle, we develop sporting talents, push for sporting excellence and aim to win medals; or, on the other hand, do we spend across a broader base to provide more for community participation, given finite resources?

I am mindful of the complexities and logistics implications in organising the Biennial Games taking on a two-pronged approach. So I believe to some extent, we are doing well.

In the former objective, the elite sports infrastructure and the funding for sporting excellence. For the latter objective, I am proposing to develop our local club networks to achieve this and to fill this gap in our sports ecosystem.

There is merit in doing this. If we look at nations with strong sporting cultures who are able to produce world-class teams – in particular, countries whose population sizes are comparable to Singapore such as Finland, Norway and New Zealand. They have some things in common – a sporting culture that spans families, neighbourhoods, schools and that they also have a strong club culture.

The Singapore Sports Council estimates that there are about 1,600 clubs – ranging from the established Singapore Swimming Club which produces many of our national swimmers to the community-based ones like People's Association's CSCs to the informal clubs and networks such as cycling and soccer and running groups all over Singapore.

Our club networks exist today, but they seem to be fragmented and stronger within the schools and it seems that the networks are a lot stronger within the schools and the elite which are going for medals. So there is a gap in between the two ends of the scale.

There was a recommendation of the Sporting Culture Report in 2008 by MCYS, suggesting that strengthening the clubs to bridge the gap in mass participation. This is an ideal proposition, given the Singapore Games proposal. With the right team in place, combining the SSC, PA, Schools Conveners and the NSAs, there is scope to align the activities, pull together funding and garner sponsorship support to bring better synergies to the clubs and the sporting calendar.

As a start, we can focus on the games featured in the Olympics. If this is too much, we can consider starting with just 10 to 15 sports first and expand as we gain more traction.

By harnessing the synergies between the SSC, NSAs and PA’s CSC, we can organise events for these sports in different formats all year round to cater to different interests. I recall when I played rugby in school, competitions were almost all year around, seven-a-side tournaments early in the year, 15-a-side mid-year and 10-a-side towards the end of the year. So in the same spirit, we could look at different ways to keep the sporting calendar fresh, interesting and engaging.

We should also find ways to involve participation from the disabled community, taking a leaf out of the Para Olympics and use this opportunity to develop more sporting facilities for them or adapt current infrastructure for their use as well.

For senior citizens, one recent suggestion I think is being considered is to look into new sporting formats so that senior citizens of various abilities can also participate in sports and I like this approach.

Ideas taken from other games such as the Para Olympics, which has wheelchair basketball, may prove to be interesting formats for senior citizens. This will also help provide greater community bonding and outreach to seniors who want to remain active through competitive sports. This unique sporting format can also help them bond and find common games which can bring families, friends together as well as neighbours of all ages to form teams.

As we speak about bringing people together, we should not forget the spirit behind the games as well. The 20,000 odd volunteers and the thousands and thousands of supporters behind us. They made the difference to the success of the YOG and I think we can harness all these energies behind us too.

During the YOG, soccer matches of Team Singapore versus Montenegro and Haiti, I had the pleasure of being ushered by a Mdm Rosminah Ahmad and a Ms Shuheerah Rosli. They were warm, friendly and gave me the impression that they were a mother and daughter team and as Mdm Rosminah was often referred to as "mummy". Only later was I told that Mdm Rosminah was referred to by the younger ones, the younger volunteers as "mummy" because of the maternal mentor role she played with the young volunteers. Now, this exemplifies the spirit of volunteerism and community bonding and I agree with Minister Vivian,

in his speech earlier, that is, it is amazing to the extent that our volunteers go to make everything a success and I hope that games can bring about the Singapore spirit on a sustainable basis and inculcate this Singapore spirit in our young.

The reason for raising this proposal as a motion of adjournment rather than a parliamentary question for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is that for Singapore to develop a sporting culture, we need to start pooling our efforts across Ministries to make this work.

With such sporting buzz being generated, we should also use this opportunity to maximise the use of sporting facilities in our estates, especially the schools. We can do better to maximise the scheme to use school infrastructure in the estates. I can understand the apprehension of principals and their concerns about safety and maintenance. I think many of these concerns are valid.

But I would like to suggest that MOE re-consider the policy by making the policy an opt-out scheme rather than an opt-in scheme. So schools who feel that they have a strong case against opening up their facilities should explain their case against opening up the facilities rather than if they choose to opt-out because this is important to promote more ground-up initiatives and grassroots sporting activities in the neighbourhood.

I also hope that the MND can also review how we can make sporting facilities more accessible and build more sporting facilities in the neighbourhoods to cater to wider sporting interests of the community. Take the cue from the sports organised in the Singapore Games and and align these facilities to the overall sports road map for Singapore.

MND should also explore how we can also make existing sports facilities adaptable to senior citizens and the disabled to be more active in sporting activities.

Finally, for MCYS and MTI, as we develop the sporting industry and enable more private sector involvement, we need to ensure that sporting events remain affordable even for low-income earners. My concern with the private-public partnership (PPP arrangement) for projects such as the Sports Hub, it is that sporting events organised should remain affordable and accessible to all.

One more point to think about since the Minister also answered my question earlier, on the MINDEF issue of National Service. There may come a point when we need to review how we balance this because at some point, we may have young athletes who may turn professional before they turn 18, 19. In the US, UK, you might find the likes of Tiger Wood or likes of Wayne Rooney and the Michael Owen going professional before then. How will National Service impact them? How will we manage such situations? We are seeing many of our athletes achieving global standards and I think there may come a time when we will find one or two prodigies in our midst.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] The recent Youth Olympic Games (YOG) was a very valuable event which Singapore hosted. As hosts Singapore has invested wisely for the future of the younger generation. Some of the benefits that were gained can be viewed from a long-term perspective. Firstly, we can see for ourselves the emergence of a young generation of Singaporeans who possess the ability and talent. The fact that they are able to compete with participants from around the world is a source of pride

and inspiration to Singaporeans, especially the young.

Secondly, the YOG saw the participation of all levels of society, be it volunteers, sponsors or even spectators or supporters. It has widened the common space in which Singapore residents can participate. I feel that we must continue this YOG spirit by providing opportunities for Singaporeans, not only in terms of sport competitiveness and developing young talents but also in public participation. With the presence of an event like the Singapore Games, held maybe once in two years, we can sustain that spirit and community support.

(In English ): Singapore has defied the odds in so many ways and in areas where we never thought were possible. In the YOG, we have shown that we have the talents and are able to garner support from the community to make a dream a reality.

The YOG can and should be more than just a memory in our history books. It has to be more than us saying, "Yes, it was 2010 and we were there to experience it." It would be nice to see the YOG leave a sporting legacy and the YOG being that spark that inspired us to create a sporting nation.

With this, Deputy Speaker, I end my proposal and leave the motion for the House to consider.

*Cols. 1175-1176.

6.09 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, August saw Singapore host the inaugural YOG. I believe that we did well. It brought our nation together and brought out the best in our people. From the point of view of logistics, organisation and administration, ie, the hardware, I do not think that there was any doubt that we could do it but I think it was our people that made all the

difference. Our volunteers performed above and beyond the call of duty. The volunteers were always gracious and never once lost their composure nor did they crumble under pressure and then there were athletes who did us proud by winning more medals than expected. They showed grit and determination in the face of stiff competition from some of the best sporting talent and they showed courage in the face of defeat. Last but certainly not least, there were the supporters. I witnessed the expressions of national pride which I have not seen or heard since the days of the Malaysia Cup and even when we lost, the support was unrelenting. And that is really what sports is about. It is about cultivating and bringing out the best in people, be they athletes participating in the Games, supporters cheering them on or volunteers helping with the Games. And so I rise in support of the Motion tabled by the Member, Mr Zaqy Mohamad. There is no point hosting the inaugural Youth Olympic Games if we are not going to follow up on it and develop on it. We need to keep the momentum going. We must open up opportunities for both mass participation and sports within the community as well as develop our sporting talents.

Many talents shone during the games. We cannot and must not lose them but sustained participation in sport cannot be without a goal, without something to look forward to, without something to try and win and, therefore, I agree with Mr Zaqy Mohamad when he says that through the Biennial Singapore Games, we can provide a platform that can bring sporting talents and community sports participation from across Singapore together. I also believe that with a Biennial Singapore Games, the progress made by the Youth Sport Development Committee will not go to waste. Five satellite centres have been established and another 21 will soon be established. These centres will give the community an opportunity to try their hand at the 26 Olympic sports, the

immediate goal being mass participation. The long-term or underlying goal being to identify the sporting talent within the community. If we hosted a Biennial Games, those who have had a chance to try out the various sports in the satellite centres and who have decided to develop their skills, in particular, sports, will have an avenue to test those skills. As for the rest of Singapore, it will give us a chance to watch our sporting talents up close and personal and to cheer them on. This, instead of having to wait for the occasional World Championship for Asian Games or Commonwealth Games which may get some airing on local television and a news snippet or an article in the sports section of the local press. As an added incentive, we might also consider inviting certain international athletes to participate in the Games. This will give our local athletes some exposure to international competition and an idea of what they can expect to be up against if they compete on an international platform. These international athletes need not be of the top tier but even mid-level or young international athletes will provide healthy competition for our local talent.

Sir, a vibrant sporting environment will enhance our social cohesion and national identity and the Biennial Singapore Games will certainly facilitate that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the motion.