Hansard, 2010-09-16

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) Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 19 Sep 23 Sep Mr Teo Chee Hean 01 Oct 06 Oct Mr Goh Chok Tong 09 Oct 20 Oct

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for abolishing the Primary 1 year-end examinations; (b) how will the Ministry address parents' concerns that their children may not be adequately prepared for major primary school examinations including the PSLE; (c) whether such parental concerns will result

in greater pressure on the children as parents put them through additional after school programmes; and (d) what training and additional resources will be provided to teachers to help them handle the changes effectively.

I thank Mdm Halimah for her questions. Assessments – whether tests or examinations – serve as useful and critical tools to provide information about teaching and learning to individual pupils and their parents. Assessments also provide important information about standards of performance for the individual and the system as a whole. Like all tools, assessments must be used judiciously. They are not an end in themselves but should be properly applied in the right circumstances with clear educational outcomes in mind.

Summative assessments like term tests or year end examinations have their uses and at appropriate stages are used to measure pupil achievement for the purpose of grading, ranking or certification. But they do not provide essential information about specific areas that the pupil can improve in that would help him better learn the topic or subject. In this regard, formative assessments provide richer information that can be used by the teacher, pupils and parents to improve in specific areas. For example, for English compositions, teachers can use rubrics to provide feedback to pupils on specific areas such as presentation of ideas, grammar and vocabulary. Rubrics provide a structured way of giving qualitative feedback beyond just an overall mark.

Both types of assessments should be used as tools to enable every pupil to reach his full potential but in the early years of education in lower primary, the

more important focus should be on formative assessment to build basic learning skills rather than summative assessments to rank pupils.

Mdm Halimah asked if formative assessments would prepare pupils adequately for the PSLE. Formative assessments if used well can help accelerate pupils’ learning as they would identify specific skill sets or topics that the teacher could then focus on. We do need to train teachers in the application of formative assessments. Since July last year, MOE has partnered 16 schools to plan and prototype Holistic Assessment models and strategies at Primary 1 and Primary 2. This prototyping has enabled us to draw key learning points from the schools’ experiences as we expand to include more schools. MOE has plans for all primary schools to be trained in the use of formative assessments for Primary 1 and 2 levels by 2013. When schools are ready, they will move towards the use of topical tests and bite-sized performance tasks to check for understanding and mastery for Primary 1 and 2. Such use is appropriate because they are more effective tools to form basic learning skills compared to summative exams.

Parents will continue to receive marks and grades in these assessments. But beyond this, teachers will also provide qualitative feedback to the pupils and parents to highlight areas where pupils have done well, and also ways to improve pupils’ learning. In short, parents will be getting more and richer feedback about their children’s learning. Schools will monitor pupils’ progress and provide parents with useful feedback on the development of their children.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and I can see the shift from having examination-focused type of education to a more holistic education. In my view, the question that is still not answered is

whether the Ministry of Education has really gone far enough in this effort as we still have streaming at the relevant stages and we still have PSLE. Hence, we will continue to see students, parents and teachers focusing on examinations. Worse, this may, in fact, make additional tuition classes more necessary. May I ask the Senior Minister of State for her comments on this because that is the feedback that I am getting from parents?

I can appreciate the parents' involvement in their children's education. In MOE, we see that as a positive phenomenon. Having parents who are interested in how their children are being educated and brought up is important. I would just like to re-emphasise MOE's move towards holistic education. We are trying to make our education richer and more effective for our children. We are creating new and multiple pathways for children of different strengths and abilities to excel in their own areas. While parents are naturally anxious at the critical points of examination in their children's lives, we would like to assure the parents that the school system – the teachers, the leaders – has the interest of the children in their minds and will do their best to help the children. The system itself will provide sufficient pathways for their children.

2. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education in the recent Primary 1 Registration Exercise (a) how many schools have to conduct balloting in Phase 2C of the admission exercise; (b) how many children gained admission to the school of their choice through (i) the parent volunteer scheme; and (ii) their parents' donation to the school; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plan to fine-tune the current system such as giving priority to those who live within 500 metres of the school.

First, let me assure the Member and, indeed, the House, that MOE provides sufficient school places in Primary 1 to take in all students and applications in a given year. There are in fact surplus places at the end of every Primary 1 Registration Exercise. Nevertheless, for popular schools which will always have more applications than places available, balloting is a fair means to determine admissions. The balloting situation this year is comparable to last year when MOE began the process of transition for primary schools to single sessions. Eighty schools or 45% of our primary schools conducted balloting in Phase 2C this year.

The Member asked for the number of admissions in priority schemes before Phase 2C. The Primary 1 registration framework has very clear criteria which set out the priority for admissions. Donations by parents are not a consideration. Those admitted under the parent volunteer scheme in Phase 2B took up only 3% of all places available, or 1,337 places, spread across 77 schools. Overall, in this year’s exercise, over 98% of the children secured a Primary 1 place in their first-choice school or a school within two kilometres of their home. MOE, therefore, has no plans to alter the current registration framework which has worked well to meet the diverse needs of the schools and the applicants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: for those who get in under Phase 2B through volunteer work, is there a minimum number of hours of voluntary work that has to be done?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this judgment is actually left to the schools to make. The reason is simple: it is not just a matter of clocking hours. It is the kind

and the value of the contribution that a parent volunteer brings. A mere measurement of the number of hours by itself may not be an accurate indicator of what they bring to the school and can contribute. We leave it to the schools. If we talk to the principals and the heads of departments, they have very systematic processes, they interview the parents and judge what the volunteers can bring to the school and how that complements the school's plans. That is the basis on which they make the decisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister of State says the current system is working well. May I ask whether he is aware that, for example, some who live in the flats immediately next to the school are not able to get into the school that they prefer, and end up having to travel more than two kilometres?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, in the system we have today, we have priority accorded across the different phases according to criteria. Within each phase, if there is an excess of places available, then admissions are based on proximity to the school. That proximity is tiered. In the first instance, those within a one-kilometre radius are accorded priority. If that is exhausted and there are still places available, then those between a one- and two-kilometre radius are given the option. If there are more applications than places, then there will be balloting. Beyond that, admission will be for those in the three-kilometre radius and further. That is a system that is fair. To guarantee someone who lives across from the school that he will definitely get admission to that school would unnecessarily constrain the system, because, really, a one-kilometre radius accords sufficient priority for the purpose of proximity to the school.

Er Lee Bee Wah, last question.

Thank you, Sir. For those schools that consistently see appeals from parents who live near the school – less than half a kilometre – will MOE consider additional criteria? That means, for the first tier, it would be less than half a kilometre.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is rephrasing the question that was asked earlier. In effect, the answer is the same. Basically, if you live within 500 metres of a school, it means you live within a one-kilometre radius of the school. Therefore, you are already accorded priority. To further fine-tune this may not necessarily result in outcomes that are good for the school or the community at large.

3. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many applications were received for permanent residency in 2009 and 2010 and what is the proportion that was successful for each year; (b) what is the profile of those who were successful in their applications; (c) whether the fall in proportion of permanent residents (PR) is due to more stringent immigration policies; and (d) what are the implications of this restriction on PRs on the old-age support ratio for Singapore in the long term.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received a total of 132,200 applications for Permanent Residence or PR. A total of 115,900 PR applications were processed in 2009, of which 59,500 or 51% were successful.

With the tightening of the immigration criteria since the end of last year, the

number of PRs to be granted in 2010 will be noticeably less than that in 2009.

The Member also asked for the profile of those who were successful in their PR applications. Of those granted PR, the majority of them qualified under the Professional, Technical and Skilled Workers Scheme where they are contributing to Singapore's economy. Others who were granted PR are dependants of Singapore Citizens or are dependants of these economic PRs. We will continue to be stringent in our requirements for PR. PR will be granted to those of suitable quality, are able to contribute to Singapore and integrate well into our society.

An inflow of immigrants helps to improve the old-age support ratio by increasing the number of economically active residents. Let me illustrate. In 1970, when our TFR was above the replacement rate of 2.1, each elderly person was supported by 17 working adults. Currently, we have about 8.2 working adults in the resident population supporting one elderly person. If there were no PRs, we would have slightly fewer adults, at 7.2 working adults supporting one elderly person. If we were to close our doors to immigrants tomorrow, we can expect the old-age support ratio to fall very fast. In short, we would still need immigration to make up for the shortfall of babies and help ease the pressure of an ageing population. We will carefully manage the numbers to ensure the quality of immigrants.

Sir, declining population is a long-term issue. It requires to be tackled well ahead, several decades ahead, of the problems manifesting themselves. Members will know that countries which now face declining population also, as a result, face serious economic challenges. We do not want to be in that situation.

Apart from immigration, we have made extensive efforts to tackle declining birth rates in our bid to address the challenges of an ageing population and to improve the old-age support ratio. Measures such as the Marriage and Parenthood initiatives have been introduced to provide support to couples in getting married and having children.

While such initiatives have helped to cushion the decline in our birth rates, our TFR still shows a downward trend. Unless there is a significant shift in attitudes towards marriage and parenthood, and we see improved birth rates, we will continue to need immigrants for Singapore to remain a vibrant and competitive economy.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for your kind elaboration. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, with the more stringent criteria that we have now put in place, will this have implications on the flow of Permanent Residents (PRs) who are likely to take up citizenship and, therefore, what are the implications on the number of new citizens Singapore is likely to receive in the next five to 10 years?

My second supplementary question is whether the Deputy Prime Minister can comment on the ideal resident population that we are targeting in the short term.

Sir, certainly with the new criteria, it will mean that we will have fewer new PRs compared to the last five years. That means that, in future, the rate of increase will decline and at the same time the pool of people who are available and eligible to become citizens can also decline. Right now, we already have more than half a million PRs and with the numbers we are getting, we will continue to see an increase of that pool. But we are going to watch that very carefully to ensure that number of PRs we see in the future is not going to be

significantly large and overwhelming the Singapore citizen population. We have to watch that very carefully and, of course, like all policies, we will have to review and if there is a need for adjustment, we will continue to adjust.

What is the ideal population size? We have to take into account the size of our country. It is 700 plus square kilometres. There is certainly a limit to what we can absorb new residents. We have to provide space, not just for housing, but for industries, services, schools, hospitals, parks and for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and many other needs in order to support a population. Therefore, while we do not have a target as such, to say that we must have so many people by year 'X', we also need to make sure that when we grow our population, it must be a sustainable one, such that we can support it. Whatever size of population we have, there will be a trade-off which we will have to make. What sort of trade-offs will we make? I think that is an issue that needs further study because it means trading off space, growth rate and many other possibilities. So it is not such a simple issue as to say, "we shall have X number of people and then all our problems be solved". It would not because we are only living in the very small part of the world. Whatever we do, we also have to bear in mind the impact on us of what goes on around us and what we can do in order to continue to survive and to prosper in the bigger world.

4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Prime Minister in light of the 2010 Census which shows that the Malay share of the resident population has slipped from 14.8% in 1970 to 13.4% this year (a) what can be done to prevent the present population mix which has contributed to racial and religious harmony from further

declining; and (b) what measures have been taken to attract Malay foreign talent into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the share of Malays in the resident population, which includes citizens and permanent residents, has decreased marginally over the last 40 years, as noted by Mdm Halimah. In absolute terms, however, the Malay resident population has increased from 298,000 to 504,000 over the same period. If we only consider the citizen population, the share of Malays among the citizen population has grown from 14.1% in 1970 to 15.1% in year 2010. Overall, they remain the second largest ethnic group following the Chinese.

The key factors influencing the population mix are local fertility and immigration. While the Malay resident fertility rate has been declining in recent years, it has remained higher than that of the Chinese and Indians. As fertility rates for all ethnic groups have fallen below replacement levels, I encourage all Singaporeans to avail themselves of the measures supporting marriage and parenthood.

Nonetheless, reversing fertility trends will take time and, in the interim, immigration is necessary to augment our local population. We welcome immigrants of all ethnic groups who can contribute to our economy and integrate well into our society. At the same time we are careful not to allow the inflow of immigrants to upset the current mix of races among our population.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for that clarification. Just one supplementary question. Could the Deputy Prime Minister share with the House what are some of the challenges that the Government faces in trying to attract Malay foreign talent? Moving ahead, as we see the decline in

the birth rate of the Malay community and the difficulties that we faced in attracting Malay foreign talent, what other measures can be implemented to address this issue?

Sir, the second question first. The total fertility rate (TFR) for the Malay population has been declining over the last few years. Many years ago it was still quite high and now it has trended down but still it is much higher than that for the Indians and the Chinese. For the Chinese, TFR has gone to below 1.1; for the Indians, it is not too far from that. For the Malays, it is 1.

82. It is still quite high compared to the other races.

As to how to attract Malay talents from around the region: there are job opportunities in Singapore and those who live around here know that we operate a different system, we have meritocracy and the job markets are available and opportunities are equal for all and people are rewarded by their performance, not by their particular relations with any particular group of people in power. In order for us to make our place attractive, we are already different. What we cannot do is to go overseas and target specific ethnic groups to come to Singapore. And what we do not have are immigration consultants, like for some countries, openly going to other countries to advertise and help and facilitate residents or nationals there to migrate to another country. I think we can read that in our own newspapers that there are immigration consultants giving advice to Singaporeans and facilitating their migration to other countries. We have not done that. We understand the sensitivities involved but what we can do and have done is to make scholarships available. We have ASEAN scholarships, for example, and we have companies who are out there recruiting people and they are also interested in having a heterogeneous, multinational workforce because they have operations, companies and businesses

in other countries. They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about.

5. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Prime Minister what is the primary function of the Population and Talent Division and how will it complement the roles of the National Population Committee and the National Integration Council.

6. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Prime Minister (a) when will the Population and Talent Division be set up; and (b) what kind of programmes will be put in place to manage the impact of Singapore's immigration policy.

Sir, with your permission, I would like to answer Question Nos.5 and 6 together.

Yes.

The key function of the Population and Talent Division (PTD) is to formulate, coordinate and review whole of Government policies related to population and talent. PTD's responsibilities will encompass three main policy areas that are currently under the purview of the National Population Secretariat, the National Integration Council and other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. These are: (i) population augmentation, (ii) talent attraction, immigration, naturalisation and integration; and (iii) engaging overseas Singaporeans.

These policy issues have close linkages with one another. PTD's formation will bring them together under one management and centre of responsibility, and enable policy responses to be considered and addressed more holistically. The National Population Secretariat is working towards the inauguration of PTD at the beginning of next year. As time is needed to work with the various Ministries on portfolio changes and the staff movements, more details will be made available when these are completed.

Just one supplementary question, Sir. Part of the PTD's aim is to manage the inflow of foreign labour and foreign visitors. In the fabric of Singapore society, given that the frustration with immigration concerns seems to stem from the ground, how would the PTD receive inputs from regular Singaporeans at the base level?

I think we do not need to set up any special channel for inputs from Singaporeans on how they feel about the inflow of people. We see that every day. We hear that every day. We read about it every day. We can see that in our television news and newspapers. We can hear that in dialogues and in sessions that Ministers and Members of Parliament hold with their residents. There are enough channels of inputs. In fact, we conduct briefings to our grassroots organisations and that is also a channel for them to give us their views on how they feel about such issues. It is not as straightforward an issue as to say, to take in foreigners and then help to integrate them and so on. We have to create the space for both groups to get together and for them to understand one another, and understand why there is a need for us to continue to keep our doors open to attract people to come and work here and support and contribute to our economy.

7. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Government address the issue of HDB flat owners, especially ethnic minority owners, who have difficulty selling their flats because of the restrictions under the Ethnic Integration Policy; (b) how many such owners have had to sell their flats below market valuation; and (c) whether in such cases, the Government will consider buying back the flat from the owners at market valuation or offer a cash top up equal to the deficit, to demonstrate that such owners will not be unduly penalised because of restrictions resulting from a Government policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was implemented in 1989 to prevent the formation of racial enclaves and promote racial harmony in HDB housing estates. With the EIP, we ensure a good mix of residents of different races in different neighbourhoods and blocks of an HDB estate.

The EIP limits are applied consistently across all ethnic groups, and are reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain relevant. Just recently, we increased the EIP limits for the "Indian and Others" category by 2% points, to address demographic changes. When the EIP limit for a particular ethnic group is not reached, there are no restrictions on the sale and purchase of an HDB resale flat. As at September 2010, 86% of 162 HDB neighbourhoods have not reached any EIP limits. In other words, potential flat sellers may face limitations in 14% of HDB neighbourhoods only. And even when the

EIP limit for a particular ethnic group is reached, sellers can still sell their flats to buyers from the same ethnic group, as it will not increase the ethnic group's proportion.

Resale flat transactions take place on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The resale price is an outcome of the different attributes of the flat such as location, age, extent of renovation and the prevailing market conditions. EIP is not the only factor that affects the resale price. It is also difficult to attribute the resale price to any single factor.

HDB does not take back flats from lessees who have completed the minimum occupation period for resale, as they may sell their flats in the open market. There are a large number of resale flat transactions in the open market, averaging about 30,000 units annually, in different locations, with a wide range of flat types and prices. Sellers who are affected by the EIP limits should have no problem finding buyers from the eligible ethnic groups as long as they are realistic in setting their asking price.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his response. The reason I raised this question is because quite a few of my friends and their friends have highlighted that they have had difficulties selling their flats at market rates because of their ethnic background, especially because they are in the minority groups. I am wondering if this perception is pervasive on the ground. It does not augur well for the multi-cultural nature of our society, if people feel that they are disadvantaged as a result of their ethnic minority status. That is the concern with which I have raised this question. What is the Parliamentary Secretary's response to that?

Sir, as I have mentioned earlier: first, the potential

flat sellers may face limitations due to EIP in only 14% of the neighbourhoods. Secondly, even if the flat is affected by EIP, it is difficult to attribute that EIP has affected the resale price as a single factor. If we look at the argument – that minorities may be affected by the EIP, and who sell their flats below market valuation, as the Member pointed out – the assumption is that if we take out the EIP component, they will be able to sell their flats at higher market rates. This is not necessarily the case because there are sellers who are not affected by the EIP restrictions, who are selling below market rates too. There are also sellers who are affected by EIP restrictions, who are able to sell at way above market valuation, even $30,000 above market valuation. The point that I am making is that EIP is not the only factor that affects resale prices. There are many other factors that affect resale prices.

The EIP policy has benefited Singaporeans as a whole by ensuring that there are no ethnic enclaves. We really seek Singaporeans' understanding that EIP is a necessary encumbrance for a greater social good.

Mr Sadasivan, last question.

Thank you. I understand and most Singaporeans understand the principle of why we need the EIP. But the question is that if an individual, especially from an ethnic minority community, feels that he is disadvantaged financially through the resale flat process because of his ethnic minority status, that is not going to be good. In the instance where they come from one of the 14% of neighbourhoods that the Parliamentary Secretary has talked about, if it is true that he has been disadvantaged because he is from an ethnic minority community, should the Government not find a way to reach out to that individual and help him out?

Sir, the point I am making is that it is not conclusive that a sale is necessarily disadvantaged because of the EIP restrictions. There are many attributes that relate to the resale prices, whether he is able to sell the flat at market valuation, above market valuation or below market valuation, it is not necessarily affected by the EIP alone. As I have mentioned earlier, there are sellers who are affected by EIP restrictions and can command very high resale prices. It is not that because of the effect of the EIP, that necessarily flat prices will be depressed. We have to look at the individual cases. The point we are making is that EIP affects everyone, and it has been shown that it is not just the EIP that is depressing prices, because those who are affected by EIP policies have been able to sell their flats way above market valuation, too.

8. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider reviving the Transitional Rental Housing Scheme which allowed newly-wed couples to rent flats from the HDB pending allocation of their new purchase flats to assist them in their efforts to set up a home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, newly-weds have a variety of housing options while waiting for their new flats to be ready. For example, they can live with their parents or in-laws. If they prefer to stay by themselves, they can rent a whole flat or room in the open market; or they could buy a resale flat in the interim.

Mdm Halimah's suggestion will provide another way to meet the interim housing needs of newly-wed couples. HDB will look into its feasibility, bearing in

mind the housing needs of the different groups which it caters for.

We thank Mdm Halimah Yacob for her suggestion, and we will continue to review that suggestion.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his affirmative response. My supplementary question is: when will the review be done? The three options that he mentioned – living with parents, renting from the market and also buying a resale flat – may not necessarily be viable options for some newly-weds or, in fact, quite a number of the newly-weds. When will the review be done?

Sir, we are currently reviewing that suggestion. In the context of the larger move that we have implemented recently, we want to try to make sure that newly-weds are able to access their flats earlier. For example, the Prime Minister announced earlier that we are going to ramp up the supply of BTO flats, and also reduce the waiting duration for our younger couples. We will make the review inline with all these new initiatives.

9. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) for an update on (i) the cause of the oil spill off the East Coast of Singapore and (ii) the extent of damage it has caused to Singapore's marine and coastal life; and (b) what measures have been and will continue to be taken to mitigate the damage

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the morning of 25th May 2010, the Maritime Port Authority (MPA) detected that a bulk carrier and an oil tanker were approaching dangerously close to each other in the eastern end of the Singapore Strait. In spite of MPA’s repeated warnings, both vessels unfortunately

collided 13 kilometres southeast of Changi East. The oil tanker sustained damage to one of its cargo tanks, resulting in an estimated 2,500 tonnes of crude oil being spilt into the sea.

Upon notification of the incident, MPA immediately dispatched emergency response crafts which arrived at the affected area within 40 minutes. Containment booms were deployed around the tanker to contain the oil spilling from the vessel and chemical dispersants were used to break down the spilt oil.

To supplement these efforts at sea, an inter-agency effort was simultaneously launched to protect our coastline from the oil spill. MPA deployed additional booms near to shore and alerted waterfront facilities that were at risk of being affected by the spill. Oil booms were also deployed by NParks to protect Chek Jawa while AVA loaned and helped to install canvas skirting at our fish farms in the East Johor Straits to act as barriers to the oil slick. Our agencies monitored the situation round-the-clock, including air quality at our beaches given reports of a petroleum-like smell.

As the oil spill could affect Malaysian and Indonesian waters, MPA promptly notified the Malaysian and Indonesian authorities of the incident. We also provided Malaysia and Indonesia with regular updates and offered to assist in their response efforts. This was in line with an existing trilateral arrangement among the littoral States on combating oil spills in our region.

Our agencies did all that they could to contain the oil spill out at sea, but the unfavourable wind and tidal conditions caused the oil slick to reach our shores on the morning of 26th May 2010. NEA and other agencies immediately began cleaning operations on-shore, using a variety of means including the use of oil dispersant, absorbent materials, non-toxic and bio-

degradable cleaning agents, vacuum suction trucks and the removal of crude oil-contaminated sand. In total, more than 495 workers were mobilised for the beach clean-up. Through these efforts, East Coast Beach and Changi Beach were re-opened for water activities on 4th June 2010.

NParks has assessed that there was minimal immediate impact to the coastal and marine life in Chek Jawa. Some marine life was affected at Changi Beach but the damage was not extensive. Nevertheless, NParks and NEA are working with NUS on an impact assessment and monitoring study which will cover short-term impact as well as the long-term recovery of coastal and marine bio-diversity at these areas.

Our agencies have gathered a number of valuable lessons from this oil spill. While we have in place adequate resources to combat an oil spill of this magnitude or indeed even one of a much larger scale, our containment efforts at sea will always face the challenge of factors that are beyond human control, such as weather and tidal conditions. What is important is that our agencies do their utmost to minimise the incidence of oil coming on-shore; and if it still does, to ensure a quick response to clean it up. I am heartened to note that the relevant agencies are exploring new technology to expedite the containment and clean-up efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our agencies did a good job in combating this oil spill. MPA is finalising its investigation into the collision to determine the exact cause of the incident. Nonetheless, I am confident that the lessons learnt from this experience will allow us to be even better prepared for any future incidents.

Thank you, Minister, for your

comprehensive reply, and thank you to MPA, NEA and NParks for containing this in such an expeditious manner. Two suggestions for the Minister's consideration: Firstly, going forward, is there any way the community can get involved, for example, if it is non-toxic clean-up on the beach? This will promote a green outlook on life, especially among the young. Secondly, would NEA be able to share its findings with the community, for those who are green-minded?

NEA will consider the two suggestions, that is to mobilise volunteers to help if there is such an incident in the future and whether some of these findings of the post-disaster study can be shared with the environmental groups.

10. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he will consider a requirement for employers of foreign workers to show proof of accommodation that will be provided for their workers before they are issued with work permits to ensure appropriate housing for the workers; (b) what is the number of workers who have been found to be housed in inappropriate accommodation in the last three years; and (c) whether heavier sentences, such as longer jail terms, can be imposed on errant employers to deter repeat offenders.

Sir, employers are already required to register their foreign workers’ accommodation address with MOM before they can collect their Work Permit cards. The address registration system will reject the registration if the address is known to be

unapproved. Falsely declaring an address is an offence under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, and offenders may be jailed for up to 12 months, fined up to $15,000, or both.

Between 2007 and 2009, MOM relocated about 27,400 foreign workers into acceptable accommodation. Enforcement actions were also taken against the employers for failing to provide acceptable accommodation. There are severe penalties for such offences. Employers may be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to six months or both, for each worker found to be housed in unacceptable accommodation. In addition, errant employers are also barred from hiring foreign workers for a period of time.

We do press for stiffer penalties against employers who repeatedly fail to provide acceptable accommodation for their foreign workers.

Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, what is the definition of unacceptable accommodation? Are the employers told beforehand the requirements that have to be met for the accommodation? Secondly, is there a reduction in the quota of foreign workers that they can employ in future, if they have been charged and found guilty in court for providing unacceptable accommodation?

Sir, the employers will have to comply with the requirements of the various agencies – MOM, HDB, URA, JTC, BCA, SCDF, NEA and PUB. They are told and should know what they need to do to meet the requirements of the various agencies.

On the second question, it depends on the severity of the offence. The employers may be barred for a period of time from employing and applying for a new work permit and renewing the work permits of their existing workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the law is in place and the penalty is serious, why are there still so many workers found in inappropriate accommodation? Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether MOM should step up enforcement? Why is it that with enforcement, we still have this problem?

I am glad to report that enforcement has been stepped up since 2009, and we have noticed that the number of complaints we received since 2009 has declined. This may reflect the fact that the errant employers have been taken to task and there are fewer cases of abuses and unacceptable accommodation for foreign workers. As to why some employers still break the rules, our job is to ensure that foreign workers in Singapore are well taken care of in terms of their accommodation needs and employers must comply with the requirements of the various agencies.

Sir, the crux of the problem is actually a mismatch in demand and supply. There is a severe shortage of housing for foreign workers partly because of the huge influx of foreign workers in the last few years. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what measures are being taken in order to address this issue? Employers are also complaining that they are not able to get accommodation and the cost has also gone up tremendously.

Sir, employers have various avenues to house their foreign workers. There are purpose-built dormitories which meet the needs of most of the foreign workers in Singapore. They can house their foreign workers in converted factories, in housing estates and in private dwellings. Currently, the various agencies are also working together to build purpose-built dormitories, and MPs have been consulted about the construction of these dormitories.

There should be sufficient

supply to meet the demands of most employers.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that employers would have to fulfil the requirements of multi-agencies like MOM and PUB. Are the employers actually told in black and white terms exactly what they have to do, in terms of the ratio of bedding space per worker, sinks per worker, etc? If it was incumbent on them to find out from the different agencies, they will be very confused.

Sir, we expect employers to know these because the requirements are in black and white and made known to employers. The ratio space to people or people to space is well known. For an area of a certain size, how many beds should there be, or that the cooking area must meet the requirements of SCDF are made known to the employers. I would say that employers who want to bring in foreign workers must remember they have to take care of the welfare of the foreign workers in many aspects. Accommodation is one important aspect; salary payment is another. The need for recreation is also very important. Any employer who wants to bring in foreign workers to work for them in Singapore must understand and know the requirements that they must meet. They better get good advice and get the right information from the various agencies to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the authorising agencies.

11. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the recent award of approximately $1 million by the High Court to a worker who was paralysed from a workplace accident and

that the Commissioner of Labour awarded him only $182,000, whether the Ministry will consider raising the maximum compensation amounts in the Work Injury Compensation Act so that the maximum amount in the Act is in tandem with what the Courts award.

Sir, the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) is a "no-fault" compensation system that expedites the determination of claims and payment of compensation. However, this means that work injury compensation is payable by the employer or his insurer as long as the claimant can show that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment, regardless of whether the employer was at fault for the work injury. It is therefore necessary to limit the liability of employers under the Act. In contrast, under common law, compensation is awarded only if the claimant is able to prove that the employer is at fault. Since the two systems are based on different principles, it would be inappropriate to directly benchmark WICA’s compensation limits to awards for common law claims. Claimants may choose the appropriate avenue based on the specific circumstances of the injuries.

In 2008, the caps for compensation under WICA were raised: for permanent incapacity compensation, the maximum amount payable was raised from $147,000 to $180,000, with an additional 25%, or a total of $225,000 payable for total permanent incapacity; for death compensation payable to dependants of the deceased worker, the maximum amount payable was raised from $111,000 to $140,000.

I would like to assure Mr de Souza that MOM will regularly review the compensation caps to keep in step with changes in wages and medical expenses

to ensure that WICA remains an effective means of support for employees suffering from work injuries.

Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your comprehensive reply. I would like to ask a question based on the disconnect between the Work Injury Compensation scheme and what is currently being awarded as just compensation by our Courts. For example, in my parliamentary question, I referred to the $182,000 award limit under the Act, yet the Court awarded $1 million. So, there seems to be a divergence of about $800,000. Given the principle of compensating a workman for his injury, would MOM consider raising the cap because there is a need to pay legal expenses to go to Court and you cannot choose between the two, and you have to either choose one or the other.

Sir, workers who have been injured can decide on either one – the WICA way or the common law. As I said earlier, we revised the cap only in 2008. I think it is a bit too early now to revise it. However, it is a continuous process that we do at MOM to ensure that compensation is consistent with cost of living, cost of medical treatment, and so on. When the time comes for review, we will review it very seriously. I am not so sure how to describe this case. The difference between the WICA cap and the amount awarded to the injured worker was huge. But, then, that is the nature of common law. If the claimant can prove that the employer was at fault, leading to his injury, then the court will take that into consideration. I think this may be the case in this particular claim.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the average time taken to resolve a workman's compensation claim and is the Ministry taking steps to reduce the waiting time?

The majority of claims, about 75% of permanent incapacity or fatal claims, are resolved within six months of the claims being filed. For workers with complicated injuries, more time would be needed for investigation. However, we try to speed it up. All claims must be made within one year. In a nutshell, I would say that we try to speed it up and most of the cases, about 75%, are resolved within six months.

Given that the review was only done two years ago in 2008, and this is a moving target and a review looks to be on the cards, would the Ministry of Manpower take bearing from the common law cases and the judgments of the courts as to what a just and equitable compensation amount is when factoring in how much or, if at all, the cap under the Act is raised?

Sir, we take many factors into consideration in determining the cap for WICA – loss of income, medical cost and other expenses that may be borne by the family of the deceased or the person who has been injured. We may not be able to take into account an amount that has been awarded to past cases in determining WICA per se, because the amount can vary from case to case. It is best that we use what we have been using so far, ie, loss of income, cost of medical treatment, and so on.

12. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the health profile of Singaporeans aged 85 years and older; (b) what is the proportion of these Singaporeans in institutional care facilities; and (c) what constraints does the Ministry face in providing for the healthcare needs of this segment of the population.

Sir, about 28,000 Singaporeans are 85 years or older. Half of them are being treated on an outpatient basis for diabetes, high blood pressure or high blood cholesterol. Sir, I suppose, in due course, I will fall into this group too if I exceed 85 years old. Other significant diseases which afflict this group of seniors are dementia, vision disorders, hearing loss and arthritis.

Each year, about one-third of them would require some sort of hospitalisation. The most common reasons were injuries, especially home injuries resulting from falls, pneumonia, stroke, cancer and heart disease.

About 9% of them are cared for in a nursing home. Among those living at home, two-thirds have no difficulty with basic activities of daily living and self care. But about 6% have difficulties in at least three basic activities of daily living.

Caring for the very old requires more care and assistance. I have spoken at length about the various initiatives and efforts that we are putting in place to cope with the increasing health needs of our ageing population, including a reply to the Member in Parliament last month. I will not repeat the points.

For the current cohort of the very old, we are mindful that they did not have the benefit of accumulating sufficient Medisave for their old-age health needs. Whenever possible, the Government tops up their Medisave accounts proportionally more. MediShield does not currently cover them but we have set aside funds under Medifund Silver as their safety net. And we will continue to top it up whenever Government budget has sufficient surplus to do so.

Sir, I am very sure the Health Minister will

enjoy many more years of healthy living, way beyond 85 years. My supplementary question is this. With the increase in life expectancy and the increased trend in nuclear families, can the Minister comment on the implications on the existing infrastructure for elder care and what plans MOH has in the next few years for nursing home, retirement facilities, and so forth?

Sir, clearly, the rising number of seniors is itself a good outcome because it means with better health and healthcare services, people are living longer. As that population increases, infrastructure has to keep pace. Infrastructure covers a whole range of facilities, part of it is within my Ministry's purview and part of it is outside my Ministry – under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), for example, for the elderly homes; and under the Ministry of National Development (MND), for more studio apartments.

I will just comment on what is within my purview. Hospitals need to expand and that is why we are expanding them. A new hospital has just opened a few months ago, and a couple more will come about further downstream. There is a need for nursing homes as well. Waiting time has been lengthening, and we have been watching this. Two or three years back, we embarked on a programme to review all existing nursing homes, and we decided on two initiatives which we are now implementing to correct the deficiencies. One is the location of nursing homes. Many of these homes were founded many years ago. Overtime, they find their catchment population disappearing with re-siting of the housing estates.

Secondly, they tend to be smaller and therefore do not have the economy of

scale to provide many supportive programmes which we now found to be very important, for example, physiotherapy. We need a minimum size to reap certain economy of scale. The conclusion is that we should expand, rebuild and re-site them. We will be doing so, for example, in my constituency in the north, we will be building two brand new nursing homes. They will replace two existing nursing homes which are poorly located. But it is not just my area. I am also expanding some others in the west as well as in the north-east. And we will continue to watch over this. Nursing home construction is simpler because the lead time is short, quite unlike a hospital. Hospital takes seven or eight years to plan. But nursing home takes only two or three years. I am quite sure two or three will come up within the next two or three years. But development is not just for institutional care. It is also for care at the community level. As the Member puts it, with more nuclear families looking after the seniors at home when there is nobody at home other than the seniors, is a big problem.

I was doing my cardiac rehabilitation this morning and was chit-chatting with my physiotherapist. She has an elderly mother. She was sharing with me the challenges. As she is in the same generation as me, she has several siblings to share and take turns. As for the next generation, they will not have that luxury, and it is going to be a big problem. The western world is already experiencing this. Their solution is more institutional care which we, from the Oriental side, are not sure if that is the right decision. The Japanese are experimenting with more neighbourly help. That is why I am fully in support of MND's expansion of studio apartments. We group them together and, at the same time, there are also other non-studio apartments, allowing the young and old to be together. I think that provides a much more interesting lifestyle, with "buzz". And if people are neighbourly, they can help watch out for

each other. The Japanese do that. Sometime ago, I visited some Japanese old towns and I was struck by how closely bonded the neighbours are. They are not relatives but they watch over each other because today, I help you, next week, you may help me. That is the sort of society and values which we should try to inculcate. At the end of it, prevention is still better. In other words, try to stay well for as long as you can which means keep slim, do not over eat, exercise and eat properly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just one supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider extending home visits for medical care because we are encouraging the elderly to stay within the same residential area. Would the Minister consider asking the community hospitals to develop this arm to support the elderly within the same residential area?

The community care to support the elderly at home can come from all sources. Community hospital is one good source where you can base the home care activities. Acute hospitals can play that role too, especially now that I have re-organised our acute hospitals for them to take a much more regional approach to healthcare needs. If I may give the north as an example again, the new Khoo Teck Puat Hospital's mission is not just to look after the services within the four walls of the hospital. My message to them is that they are a hospital without walls. The hospital is just a focal point of activities, perhaps to even provide the thought leadership because they have the specialists who would be able to give authoritative information, for example, on nutrition and physiotherapy. It can help organise these services which are not necessarily based in the hospital but outside it. A major part of their activities is to reach out beyond the four walls. That is the same mandate I

am giving to the new hospital coming up in Jurong and likewise to the existing hospitals.

Mdm Halimah, last question.

Thank you, Sir. I think for many families, financing home-based care is actually quite a burden, so that affects their ability to keep their elderly sick at home. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will consider providing more subsidies for home-based care and also allow for more flexible use of Medisave for home-based care.

Offhand, I am not too familiar with the details, but Members know they have a very sympathetic Health Minister here. I have always been exploring how to help the seniors more, facilitate them more, whether it is through greater subsidy which needs regular adjustments, anyway, with inflation, or allowing greater use of Medisave or mobilising the community to chip in. My own sense is that money is not the key issue. The healthcare needs of an elderly today are being met, but often in the wrong place. If an elderly could be competently cared for at home, sometimes he may still get stuck in an acute hospital where the cost is very high. If they do not need the sophisticated services in the acute hospitals, their money could have been saved if they are, what we call, "right-sited": whether it is at home, at day care facilities, or being in a lower cost community hospital, or in a nursing home. I think right-siting is definitely the way to go. But I will be the first one to admit that the incentives are sometimes warped so that to a patient, he finds it cheaper to stay or over stay in an expensive Class C ward in an acute hospital when he should be, for example, in a community hospital. Trying to clean up these distortions that have been accumulated over the years has taken me

quite a few years and would continue to take me many more months. But clean it up, we will.

13. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts what measures are there to ensure organisations in the private, public and people sectors do not divulge personal particulars of individuals without their permission, for commercial or non-commercial purposes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Denise Phua asked what measures are there to ensure organisations in the private, public and people sectors do not divulge personal particulars of individuals without their permission.

Currently, we have in place provisions in our sectoral laws, such as the Banking Act and codes for medical professionals to protect sensitive financial and health information. There are also other industry codes of practice, such as in the telecommunications sector, that prevent the unauthorised use of personal information.

To complement the sectoral laws, we have a Model Data Protection Code that was introduced in 2002 for voluntary adoption by any organisation in the private and people sectors. The principles of this Code have been adopted by many organisations, including those engaged in e-commerce under the TrustSg initiative. Some organisations, including charitable and non-profit organisations, that collect and use personal information, have also put in place their own data protection policies.

Within the public sector, the Government takes protection of personal data very seriously. The public sector's data protection policy encompasses the principles of the Model Data Protection Code and is incorporated in the Government Instruction Manual. It requires that public agencies put in place processes and procedures to ensure that data acquired by the public sector is properly managed and protected.

There are also statutory provisions in many of our Acts that regulate the collection, use and disclosure of information by the public sector. Some examples include the Census Act, Income Tax Act, IRAS Act and Official Secrets Act. These serve to ensure that public agencies and officials, in carrying out their statutory functions, are subject to responsibilities to maintain confidentiality and limit the disclosure of personal information.

We recognise that an effective data protection regime is a critical factor in building trust between consumers and businesses, and in strengthening Singapore's global competitiveness and position as a trusted IT hub.

An inter-Ministry effort has been on-going to examine this issue in detail and determine the best data protection model for Singapore that would address consumers' data protection concerns, business considerations and national interests. Going forward, we will be working closely with the relevant stakeholders in the public, private and people sectors to address their data protection needs and concerns.

Thank you, Minister, for a very comprehensive response. There is a growing concern that personal information, especially those captured when one signs up or purchases services, is being used liberally, for example, for telemarketing,

sometimes in the form of overseas telemarketing calls by overseas call centres as far as China. What are the plans that the Ministry has to (i) educate more aggressively both businesses and consumers on a proper and ethical handling of such personal data; (ii) to enforce and introduce consequences for such intrusions of privacy; and (iii) what are the courses by which aggrieved parties can seek redress?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the Member's concerns and they are indeed very valid ones. Firstly, as I mentioned, we have various sectoral laws and voluntary practices in place that put the onuses on the businesses and entities, including the public sector, to adopt the right modes of behaviour. But it is also important I think for the individuals to take the right precautions and not to reveal too much of their personal data, especially if it is unnecessary. The Inter-Ministry Cyber Wellness Taskforce will take this up more aggressively to try to educate and encourage people to be more aware of the pitfalls of releasing too much of their own personal data. For aggrieved parties, because there is as yet no over-arching body that looks after data protection in Singapore, it is for them to go to the sectoral champions to air their grievances and to try to find recourse to their complaints. For example, if it is concerning a medical professional, they could take the case to the Medical Council which is responsible for the ethical behaviour of their members. If it is an alleged misdemeanour by one of the telcos, then they can bring this to the Infocommunication Development Authority who would be more than happy to look into the case for them.

14. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Senior Minister (a) if he will provide

details of the S$30 billion currency-swap agreement between the People's Bank of China and the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and (b) what impact will this have on Singapore's trade and investment linkages with China.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the arrangement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the People’s Bank of China (PBC) will exchange Singapore dollars for Chinese Yuan. The swap facility will provide Chinese Yuan liquidity of up to RMB150 billion and Singapore dollar liquidity of up to S$30 billion. The effective period of the arrangement is three years, in line with that of the other PBC Renminbi swap lines, and can be extended by agreement between the two sides.

The objective of the swap line is to promote bilateral trade and direct investments for economic development of our two countries. Trade and direct investment between Singapore and China, as well as between ASEAN and China have grown substantially in recent years.

This swap line will further strengthen these trade and investment linkages and, in particular, improve the availability of financing facilities for firms based in Singapore and the region that import from and invest in China. MAS is currently working with the PBC to operationalise the workings of the swap line.

Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. I have two questions. One, does the Singapore Government foresee that one day, it will become the RMB swap centre in Southeast Asia versus Hong Kong for the North Asia region? Two, what company in Singapore would qualify for this facility? Does it have to be a Singapore-owned company or as long as the company is registered in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members are aware, currently, the Chinese are keen to internationalise the renminbi and the main vehicle for doing so is through Hong Kong. But having this swap line, we are encouraging them to also provide the facility through Singapore. We can imagine or we can expect the Chinese to do so bilaterally with other Southeast Asian countries. To the extent that Singapore is the financial hub for Southeast Asia and the trade and investment facilitator for many of the deals and many of the MNC operations in Southeast Asia, then, of course, Singapore can aspire to be a renminbi centre for Southeast Asia. But we must also recognise that there will be bilateral arrangements.

Companies which can benefit from this will be largely trading companies and also companies that intend to invest in China. Those companies which are based in Singapore can make use of this facility. As I said, the issue is in the details. How this will work is largely back to back and, therefore, we need specific transactions and specific deals to operationalise the whole procedure.

15. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current process to test the toxicity of toys by importers; (b) whether the Ministry will look into a nation-wide review of all toys in the market before the year-end season; (c) what are the regulatory safeguards to protect children against toxic chemicals in toys; and (d) whether the Ministry has plans to tighten regulations on the importation of toys before they are put on the market.

Sir, the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act provides

the broad legal framework to protect consumers from unsafe consumer products. Regulations issued under the Act empower SPRING Singapore to regulate 45 categories of household electrical, electronic and gas products. Products capable of serious, immediate and adverse effects on consumers are gazetted as Controlled Goods and suppliers have to obtain safety certification before they can be legally sold in Singapore. The Act carries a maximum fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or both. Other Government agencies are also vested with the legal authority to regulate the safety of consumer products in specific sectors such as food and medicine.

The Act also makes it a criminal offence to apply false trade descriptions on all goods. The aim is to protect consumers from being induced by errant traders to buy goods through the application of false or misleading trade descriptions. In the context of product safety, the Act could be enforced against suppliers who falsely describe their products as having met certain safety standards when they do not.

While toys are not screened upfront, their product safety is monitored through various mechanisms such as sharing of information with overseas safety agencies and provision of information by various consumer groups. SPRING Singapore works with suppliers to remove these consumer products from the market once they are found to be unsafe. Given the supply chain involved in bringing a toy to the point of sale, cooperation by all parties is key in ensuring product safety. This was demonstrated recently when the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) brought the discovery of unsafe toys to the public's attention through its tests of 50 toys. Since then, SPRING and CASE have been working with retailers and importers to recall and remove the unsafe toys from the market. SPRING is

also conducting checks to ensure that these toys are not carried by other retailers not covered by CASE, and will step up its efforts to detect and remove unsafe toys during the year-end festive periods.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry and SPRING have been reviewing the existing framework to regulate general consumer products before the recent reports on unsafe toys. Based on the study of comparable economies and consultation with stakeholders, including CASE and departmental stores, we are looking at enhancing SPRING’s power to recall or ban products that do not meet standards, such as maximum level of lead allowed, when they are uncovered through mandatory notification of safety failures by suppliers, overseas incidents, or sample testings by SPRING. We expect to complete the review by the end of the year, before proceeding to amend the relevant legislation.

The emphasis on ex-post actions is also the approach taken by a number of developed economies such as South Korea, Australia and Japan. It provides a balanced approach that does not impose unnecessary cost on businesses.

The safety of toys is an important issue we must address. Along with the thousands of other consumer goods that are sold and used on a daily basis, we will need an efficient regime to ensure the safety of goods sold in the market. However, we should not over-react. Inspecting all toys upfront without consideration of the practicalities not only slows down the entire process and increases costs for the consumers, it has also not been proven to be effective anywhere in the world. For toy safety, we will continue to enhance product safety standards and surveillance based on our ex-post regime. This will require all parties, including importers, distributors and consumers, to play their part.

Sir, I have supplementary questions for the Minister. So far, the measures that he has mentioned are really about detection and the responsibility of the suppliers and also SPRING. What I am suggesting is this. Could the Minister look into having a certain determined percentage of tests by suppliers before they import their toys and also a self-declaration that the toys are tested according to standards that are imposed by Singapore, rather than just relying on standards established overseas? So, it is both: one, the supplier must comply to our standards and, two, there must be a certain percentage of the toys to be sent for testing, before they can be imported.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I forgot to declare that I am working in a retailer chain.

Sir, I want to thank the Member for her suggestions on how to improve the safety regime on toys. Toy safety is obviously very important to many parents and consumers. But we must also realise that, on a daily basis, we come into contact with many things, like the toys for the children, the clothes we wear, the dye and the gel we apply on our hair, the wallet and the cellphone cover that we carry. All of them are potential risks. And toy safety is just not whether it contains certain chemical, like the plasticiser or lead in bright painted products but, also, what if it falls apart and could the small parts pose a danger to children. So far, if you want to certify a particular toy that is safe for a particular age group, there is elaborate testing needed. And what is safe for a 12-year-old to a 15-year-old might not be safe for toddlers, say, below three years old.

We have studied a neighbouring country's example and a particular multinational at one time was asked to send all its toys for inspection before they could be allowed to come in. Based on

just 6,000 toy varieties that they have, it will take six years just to clear that inventory of toys. And this is just for one company. I cannot imagine if we apply it to the toy industry and, extending the argument, to consumer products that we use on a daily basis.

I think the practical approach is really, as the Member suggested, develop our own standard and then increase our ability to detect toys that are unsafe, enhance our surveillance system and enhance our agency's power to ban the sale and recall the products by compelling the distributors, or the importers to do so, backed up by legislative power.

So, I think this is the direction that we are heading. We will continue to educate members of the public and consumers on the need to exercise caution and discretion when choosing their products. We hope to see better labels on toy products, for instance, how they can be used safely and the suitability for different age groups. So, overall, we can look forward to a stronger regime for toy safety next year.

16. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what were the criteria used in the selection of the 16 community clubs to screen the recent World Cup matches; (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending the screening of high-profile sporting events to all community clubs in future; and (c) how can a repeat of the issues in securing World Cup broadcasting rights be prevented in the future.

The recent live screening of the FIFA World Cup matches at the 16 Community Clubs (CCs) was a tremendous

success. About 184,000 residents visited the CCs. Our grassroots leaders and People's Association (PA) staff took this opportunity to organise activities for the participants so that they can get to know one another better. Indeed, the success of the World Cup screening demonstrates the potential of using sports to bring residents together to bond.

As the Member may know, there are costs involved in the screening of the World Cup matches "live". We were fortunate to have Singapore Pools, SingTel and StarHub sponsored the World Cup screening at the CCs. I must first thank Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mayor for Central Singapore District, for initiating this and for getting the support of the sponsors as well as the other four Mayors. However, as the sponsorship was only for a certain number of sites, we could only extend the screening to a limited number of CCs. The CCs were selected on the basis of having one screening in each Group Representation Constituency (GRC), or three per District. This is to ensure a good geographical spread of the screening at CCs throughout Singapore to benefit residents. The selection of CCs also took into consideration the availability of suitable screening facilities.

Er Lee asked whether we will consider screening high-profile sporting events at all CCs in the future. PA would certainly like to encourage and facilitate such activities as a way to bring residents together. However, it would depend on whether sponsorship is available to support such screenings and whether approval can be obtained from the rights holder. Notwithstanding this, individual CCs may also decide to fund the screenings themselves, if the rights are available.

I will now touch briefly on the securing of World Cup broadcasting rights. The bidding of broadcast rights of

major international sporting events such as the World Cup is a matter of commercial negotiation between the pay TV retailers and the rights holders, based on their respective business considerations. For subsequent World Cup bids, I am sure SingTel and StarHub will draw from the experience and knowledge gleaned from this year’s World Cup bidding, especially the price point at which consumers would be willing to pay to view the event. However, the ultimate decision rests on the rights holder – FIFA, in this case. If FIFA demands a higher bid price and consumers are not willing to pay more, then consumers must, unfortunately, be prepared to forego watching the matches.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

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

*Will be reproduced in the printed copy of Singapore Parliament Report.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

In his Budget Statement for FY 2010, the Minister for Finance announced the establishment of the National Productivity Fund to support nationwide initiatives for productivity. The Government targets to put $2 billion into the Fund to sustain our productivity effort over the next decade, starting with an injection of $1 billion this financial year.

This Bill provides for the establishment of the Fund, and the establishment of the

Productivity Fund Administration Board to administer the Fund.

Main provisions in the Bill

Sir, I shall now highlight the main features of the Bill.

Part II of the Bill sets out the purposes for which moneys in the National Productivity Fund may be used. The Fund is intended to fund a range of initiatives related to productivity enhancement and continuing education. These include supporting productivity improvements for specific sectors and industries, as well as developing infrastructure and tools to raise productivity across the economy.

Part III of the Bill provides for the setting up of a new statutory body, called the Productivity Fund Administration Board, to administer the Fund. The primary function of the Board, as stated in clause 10, shall be "to evaluate and review proposals for usage of the Fund and to approve the payment of money from the Fund" in accordance with approved purposes of the Fund.

Clause 12(1) empowers the Board, in undertaking its functions, to appoint a committee or a council to advise the Board. The National Productivity and Continuing Education Council chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean will establish the priorities and programmes of the Fund and provide inputs to the Board in the evaluation of proposals for funding.

Part IV of the Bill provides for the appointment of an Executive Secretary by the Board to be responsible for the proper administration and management of the functions of the Board, and for the presentation of annual financial statements and reports to Parliament.

Part V of the Bill contains several general provisions ranging from regulation-

making to the proper conduct of officers exercising functions under the Bill.

Sir, the establishment of the National Productivity Fund, to be administered by the Productivity Fund Administration Board, underscores the Government’s strong commitment to productivity enhancements over the long term, irrespective of the state of the economy. With the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council overseeing the priorities and programmes of the Fund, we hope to catalyse major productivity improvements at the worker, enterprise and national level.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

*Cols. 1279-1288.

3.04 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am associated with Human Capital Singapore, a CET centre. I welcome the proposed Bill but I do have a few clarifications and one proposal to make. I would also like to focus on the injection of funds into selected industries as well as the power of the Board to invest and, most importantly, the parameters of the Board.

Sir, Singapore overcame the recession in double-quick time and the economy is going strong at the moment, hitting record growth figures. But is it sustainable? To achieve a high growth through high productivity, a new mindset is needed by all – employers, employees and the Government. How do we change the mindset of employers and employees?

By making it a point to set aside funds, the Ministry makes it clear that the Government is committed to providing long-term support for productivity improvements, irrespective of the state of

the economy. We applaud the Government for taking the step towards this mindset change.

Sir, during the 2010 Budget debate, it was stated that $2 billion will be injected into the Fund – with the first billion being given this year. Two hundred and fifty million dollars from the first $1 billion will be used for raising productivity in the construction industry which the Finance Minister described as a sector which needs to improve.

Sir, may I clarify with the Ministry as to how it would determine the industries, which are deserving of the funds, the quantum and duration for which the funds would be disbursed to? How diverse would the disbursement be and how setting aside $250 million or one-eighth of the fund to one industry, namely, the construction industry, be a step in the right direction? How would the Government encourage industry players to be more proactively involved in the productivity drive and in what ways? And, most importantly, how would the Board track and measure the productivity growth of organisations that have benefited from the funds?

Sir, not only must individuals work towards raising productivity. SMEs have to play a part as well, and are under pressure to become more efficient and productive so as to survive in a changing economy. They are often encouraged to abandon old-fashioned ways of operation and to adopt new technologies. The Government is providing grants to adopt technology and improve service levels and human resource practices as well as organising overseas study trips. However, many SMEs do not know how to access these grants and lament the complexity of form filling. How could the application process for grants be simplified and made more user-friendly and productive? After all, these grants are meant to help SMEs and not to add extra burden through a

complicated and complex application process.

Sir, on a separate note, Part lV, clause 20 of the Bill provides that the Board may invest the Fund in "such manner as it thinks fit". I have my reservations regarding this "blank check" to the Board. I have full faith and trust in the Government that it would have chosen only men of exceptional integrity to sit on the National Productivity Fund (NPF) Administration Board. But $2 billion of taxpayers’ money is no small change and I am sure the Government will prudently manage its funds, given the recent minibonds episode. However, I am for a more prescriptive approach towards enforcing the guidelines relating to investment of the Fund. Could I ask for more details and guidelines on the types of investments to be included? After all, the purpose of the Fund is to raise Singapore’s productivity. It would not bode us well to be caught in a compromising situation, where productivity takes a back seat and gains come to the fore.

Sir, I also note that the Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. May I ask the Ministry whether a rough estimate could be provided?

Sir, I see the National Productivity Fund Administration Board as an enabler and supervisor to strengthen the CET system, and growing possibilities for enhancing our productivity. With the set up of the Board, I would like to propose for the need of CET centres to be subject to the GeBiz procurement rules to be waived, as CET centres have already been subject to a stringent set of criteria that satisfies best sourcing practices. After all, best sourcing is not just about pricing alone.

Sir, the principle of procurement subjects vendors to tender for work

belonging to the Government and its related agencies. But to subject CET centres to similar tendering process is not only not meaningful but could also be very unproductive. The GeBiz formula stipulates that for any training that works out to $3,000 at any one time, a tender is necessary.

Ministries, statutory boards and their agencies embarking on company-wide training in order to achieve a common mindset change, find themselves in a fix when pursuing courseware provided by CET centres. Their training budget will definitely bust the $3,000 ceiling. Once they go through the GeBiz, the following ensues:

Call for tender, which works out to a minimum of four weeks; and

Process and award, which is easily another four weeks, since internally the tender committee has to seek Management or Board's approval.

In the words of one agency: "… by which time we would not only have lost the momentum but also the productivity of everyone." Yes, there can be a waiver for tender or a close tender exercise replacing the normal process, but, again, the time savings is maybe two weeks at most, which does not enhance the spirit and essence of productivity.

This is most starkly felt by CET centres and, in the case of courseware provided by national CET centres, it would appear strange when the very criteria governing the CET centres are even more stringent than the GeBiz tendering process. Some of these criteria include:

Courseware to be developed as per standards specified by the Workforce Development Agency (WDA), another agency of the Government;

Courseware to be reviewed and rubber stamped as approved by WDA before being rolled out;

Courseware to be provided by approved CETs appointed by WDA; and

CET centre being subject to stringent internal audit on a regular basis to ascertain its suitability to remain as a CET centre.

Here we ask, what is the purpose of appointing CET centres? Its original purpose is really to aggregate supply under appointed training providers who meet with the stringent criteria stipulated by WDA, including the fee structure. If that were the case, why is there a need for such CET centres to be subject to such procurement rules when the fee structure is already in place? Is it not timely that we review all this red tape?

We should instead stipulate a high standard of governance in the courseware provided by the CET centre, where its role to the Board would be to ensure that high standard prevails in the CET centres. The high standard will include quality courseware, quality courseware providers, quality training materials, quality training environment, visibility of learning support and continuous courseware enhancement.

Is it not a waste of resources and being very unproductive to repeat screenings for the same criteria? We should be more pragmatic and look at other ways of strengthening the CET system.

I propose therefore that this governance role be included as an extended proviso under the Second Schedule, clause 1, to read as, "To ensure that high standard prevails in the CET centres through the provision of quality courseware, quality trainers, quality

courseware authors, quality training materials, quality training environment, visibility of learning support and continuous courseware enhancement."

Sir, the Board can carry out this role by reviewing evidence pertaining to the above stipulations in the CET centres on a regular basis.

Sir, it is also wise that the Board allows itself a linkage with the industry through a double loop feedback channel that will allow it to focus on growing productivity possibilities. After all, if we examine carefully, the Second Schedule, clauses 9, 12 and 13, the Board is operating almost like an enterprise. For an enterprise to thrive, it needs to gather feedback. It is therefore useful to reflect such a mechanism in the Constitution.

Sir, there may be concern that such powers, as stipulated in clauses 8, 10 and 12 may position the Board on an unequal playing field. It is therefore important to define clearly what the Board will and will not do in its consultancy and training businesses and how it differentiates itself from other training providers in these common areas? In fact, should the Board be involved in the consultancy and training business if it were to play a governance role?

Sir, during the Budget debate on this, it was not clearly spelt out but now that it has been defined, I would like to ask what is the Board’s role vis-a-vis CET centres and, more importantly, WDA? Will there be duplication and are we creating another one-stop Government business centre but this time one that specialises in productivity growth?

On this, I support the Bill.

3.13 pm

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

The objects for which the Fund may be expended are stated in clause 4 of the Bill and further enumerated under the Second Schedule of the Bill. It is primarily aimed at achieving the objectives announced during this year’s Budget debate which is to increase Singapore’s productivity level and to promote continuing education.

These are two very important objectives and the fact that we now have a Fund and a statutory board solely dedicated to our efforts to boost productivity is meaningful, as one of the common complaints in the past is that it is not clear which agency is providing the policy direction or coordinating productivity efforts in Singapore. The sense is that this has led to a situation where productivity has fallen through the cracks and is partly responsible for the current low productivity challenge that we are facing. With the establishment of the Fund and a statutory board, our efforts at increasing productivity will be a lot more focused, co-ordinated and policy-driven.

However, Sir, I wish to seek a number of clarifications. First, increasing productivity is undoubtedly our goal but different sectors and industries face different challenges and are at different levels of growth. As a whole, the manufacturing sector or, more specifically, the electronics sector, which faces fierce international competition is doing better compared to the services sector. It has progressed from labour-intensive, low-value added manufacturing activities to capital-intensive, complex manufacturing activities. More companies are also setting up research and development centres, headquarters and regional/global control towers. The electronics manufacturing sector value added per worker in 2008 is $155,000 and labour productivity grew 6% from 1998 to 2008. However, compared to Germany, Japan and US, even our electronics manufacturing sector has some catching up to do. The situation

is far worse in the services sector or the construction sector where productivity growth is much lower and very challenging. Hence, the Productivity Fund Administration Board’s task will not be an easy one. Could I seek a clarification from the Minister on how the Board proposes to allocate its resources to cover all the sectors and achieve these varied goals? Also, we are all aware that the SMEs need more help in order to boost their productivity because they lack not only the funds but also the capabilities to move forward. How will the Fund assist the SMEs? Will there be special provisions for them as they collectively employ a significant number of employees?

Other than ensuring that different sectors with different needs get an adequate allocation of resources, it is also important that the Fund takes into account the different needs of workers as well. Specifically, the Fund has to apply to all workers, including professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and the professional services which have hitherto not been given much attention in our efforts to upgrade the skills of our workforce. Today, at least 50% of the workforce is in PME type jobs and the figure will continue to increase with better education and upgrading of capabilities. We also know based on the statistics that older PMEs find it a lot more difficult to find jobs after they are retrenched. At the other end of the spectrum are our low wage workers and there are several hundred thousands of them. They really need the special attention and support of the Fund to climb up the income ladder through skills training and upgrading. Training for low wage workers can be particularly challenging as they usually hold more than one job and depend a great deal on overtime to boost their monthly income. So, for any training programme to succeed, there will have to be an income subsidy to incentivise them to train and compensate for the loss of income. I would like to ask the Minister,

how would the Fund allocate its resources and support all workers and their different needs?

My last point, Sir, is on the issue of accountability. The Government has announced a big budget to achieve our productivity growth of 3% over the next decade. In some sectors, it is easy to measure productivity but not so in others. We have to ensure that the huge amount allocated to the Fund is really well spent. Could the Minister clarify how would the effectiveness of this Fund be evaluated? What are the measurements and KPIs of this Fund and the Board? Also, the budget allocated thus far is for a five-year time frame. Could the Minister also clarify what are the long-term plans and initiatives of this Fund and the Board as our goal is spread over a 10-year period?

In conclusion, Sir, I support this Bill. I see the establishment of the Fund and the Board as an important move to upgrade our economy and improve our productivity. I see it also as a way of ensuring a more inclusive growth where low wage unskilled workers could upgrade themselves, enjoy a more productive and meaningful working life and enjoy better wages.

3.19 pm

Sir, Paul Krugman in an article published in Foreign Affairs in 1994, had argued that Singapore’s steep economic growth model in the early years since independence was largely input driven by increasing capital and labour contribution rather than by total factor productivity. He believes that our growth was driven largely by perspiration than by inspiration; and like the Soviet Union of the 1950s and 1960s, Singapore maintained the expansion of its economic outputs by a massive growth of inputs, such as steep rise in employment,

Krugman, in essence, is arguing that the true measure of performance of the economy is not just on pure expansion of outputs, but rather the efficiency with which the factors of production such as labour and capital has been deployed to generate that growth. If we apply that principle, a different picture emerges in the case of Singapore in the last decade.

For the past 10 years, Singapore's productivity growth has averaged 1% per annum. Its productivity in manufacturing is only 55% to 65% compared to that of the United States. In construction, our productivity is only 34% of Japan. One key reason for this is that construction companies in Singapore tend to employ low wage workers to do the job while firms in other countries may employ fewer such workers but employ higher skilled workers or employ more machinery or automation. Education, or possibly the lack of, it may yet be another reason for the relatively lower level of productivity. According to a Straits Times report published in February this year, up to 60% of the workers in Singapore never made it past secondary education.

Krugman's analysis of our economy is not without controversy, particularly

when he compared our achievement with that of the Soviet Union. Sir, for now, I do not wish to go into the intricacies of the argument. Suffice it to say that while I do not agree entirely with Mr Krugman, I do agree that it is imperative for the Government to focus more on total factor productivity if Singapore is to continue to grow its economy and to produce the good life for its people. Indeed, I am heartened to note that the Government, together with the Economic Steering Committee, is equally committed to the proposition that priority should be given to the task of nationally raising our level of productivity.

Against this broad canvas, Sir, I give my full support for this Bill. We need to put our money where our mouth is by firmly committing ourselves to promoting productivity in this country. This Bill is timely as the nation is set to bring its economy to the next level. There is no choice. We need to be clearly focused on the efficiency of our factors of production if we are to stay ahead of competition in the global economy. By setting aside money to support productivity initiatives in the form of a Fund to be managed by a statutory board, the Government is clearly putting the issue at the forefront of our nation's consciousness.

Sir, in setting aside money to focus on productivity, I think we should have some public articulation of how and where such money should be channelled. Without a doubt, productivity is an issue that cuts across all sectors of our economy – whether it is organisations or the people involved in running these organisations, or the technologies or innovations associated with it. Unfortunately, our resources and funds are limited. How such funds are channelled, Sir, may have a bearing on the issue of national unity.

Why national unity, one might ask. There is a growing sense of unhappiness on the ground over the significant influx

of foreign labour in recent years into Singapore, making inroads into various aspects of our society. We see foreign labour participation at two levels; first at the PMET level where there is a gap, in or a lack thereof, of appropriately qualified local staff with the necessary skill sets to handle the demands of a knowledge-based manufacturing and services economy. So huge numbers of such employees coming to Singapore whose presence we see in our housing estates or condominiums. Yet, as with many countries elsewhere, the presence of foreigners in our society living cheek by jowl with the locals and working in appointments that many Singaporeans see are their rightful inheritance has fed a growing sense of xenophobia within our society. It is not uncommon to hear Singaporeans complaining loudly of how foreigners have taken their jobs in the offices they worked for.

Truth be told, these foreign PMETs have no doubt contributed significantly to our economy. For without them, Singapore’s economic performance would not have powered so strongly over much of the last 10 years. However, having PMETs performing a role in the development of our economy is not in itself a sufficient reason for not improving the productivity of our own PMETs. We need to get our people to be better qualified and more productive than the foreigners so that they can justifiably command higher salaries and, in time, reduce the need to rely on foreign talents to fill these posts.

Secondly, we have over the years had to rely on foreign labour to take on jobs that Singaporeans generally are not keen on and which typically involve work requiring manual labour. There are two significant consequences arising from this. First, the presence of these foreign workers who command relatively low wages suppresses both the desire of employers to want to hire Singaporeans as well as discourages Singaporeans from

working in these sectors. This has resulted in a significant number of Singaporeans remaining unemployed. Sir, we all know that if we send these foreign workers on work permits home tomorrow, there will be more than enough jobs to absorb the present number of Singaporeans who are unemployed. The question is: are Singaporeans prepared to take up such jobs at existing wage levels? Secondly, the continued use of low-wage foreign workers in our industries will continue to affect our record on total factor productivity. Unless policies are changed to align Singaporeans who provide manual labour with the desire to improve productivity, our employers will continue to be inclined towards hiring cheap labour where possible to bring down the cost of production.

Foreign manual labour imposes on our resources, which include land for accommodation, and extracts a social cost from us. It breeds deep prejudices among Singaporeans. More importantly, for the Singaporeans who are prepared to work in this sector, there is a rising difference in gap between the top income earners and them in recent years. Economists refer to this income difference as the Gini coefficient. In our case, we have relied on foreign labour to boost our economic growth over the years. The result is rather obvious. Over the last decade, the Gini coefficient has widened significantly. Recent studies have indicated that our Gini coefficient has moved from 0.44 in 2000 to 0.48 in 2009. The Gini coefficient in Singapore measures higher; in other words, there is greater income inequality when compared to, for instance, countries like the United Kingdom, which has an index of 0.34, and Japan with an index of 0.38 in recent years. Most analysts agree that the widening income gap arose from our policy of allowing foreign contract workers to work in our industries under

low-wage conditions. Equally, the same may be said that the relatively wide gap in our income distribution will narrow once we get more Singaporeans with better training to work in these sectors at higher wages because of the level of output. We need to narrow the widening income gap if we are truly committed to social equity in our country. After all, we cannot lay claim to want to have the living standards of the Nordic countries and yet have a third world income distribution. Our Productivity Fund must therefore be clearly chartered to address this concern.

Apart from looking at the issue of productivity for workers, the other issue relates to whether a sharper differentiation ought to be made between foreign-owned companies and our local companies, including the small and medium enterprises. The issue of productivity cuts across all enterprises; whether these are locally or foreign owned. However, there is a common perception, and quite rightly so, that foreign companies are better endowed with resources to handle issues of competitiveness and productivity. They do not need as much help as local companies do. For the most part, local companies, particularly those in the SMEs, require Government assistance, apart from labour-related issues, in the area of technology transfer, particularly those that relate to improving processes for the manufacture and commercialisation of goods and services. Many of these companies just do not have the wherewithal to embark on initiatives that will help them become more efficient and to compete better. The question really is whether public resources from the Fund should be focused principally on providing assistance to the SMEs to help these companies compete better. The assistance, apart from being employee associated, may relate to assisting these enterprises to build a better eco-system that will help them improve their productivity. This may include harnessing new technologies or, for that matter, getting relevant qualified

consultants to advise them on improvements to the way they organise themselves so that they can compete better. Through the Fund, we hope that new local companies will be spawned that are world-beaters and carry brand names that would sit next to Coca-Cola or Nestle.

Sir, in a recent study in March this year led by Dr Wilson Chew, CEO and principal consultant at StrategiCom, a branding specialist, it was discovered that nine out of 10 companies surveyed knew what innovation was but only two out of 10 companies went on to do something about it and, more importantly, went on to commercialise their innovation. The innovation had resulted in higher revenues for these companies and, by implication, higher productivity. Quite clearly, a Fund of this nature that is dedicated to productivity through innovation would clearly bring great benefits to our businesses.

Sir, productivity must be based on a certain set of principles. It must not be efficiency at all cost. Over the years, we have learnt to have regard for the environment in the way in which we produce our goods and services. Going Green is not an option but a necessity if we are going to leave something of value for future generations. With the need to protect our environment weighing heavily in our minds, being green in our endeavour to be productive is, I believe, increasingly a standard by which we will be measured by the international community. Against these rising expectations, I hope, Sir, that the new statutory board will, likewise, lean heavily on the side of protecting our environment and the sustainability of our resources when promoting productivity. Improvements in productivity may be celebrated only if it does not come at a cost to the environment, and better still if improvements in productivity help in our efforts to preserve the environment.

When the new statutory board and the Fund are established, it would do well to pay heed to these expectations.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Finance.

increases in educational levels and massive investment in physical capital. Krugman’s thesis contends that there are limits to growth that are focused on expansion of inputs rather than focusing on growth in output per unit of input. In other words, focusing on inputs alone will at some point result in the law of diminishing return applying to the economy. There is, in essence, a limit on the number of workers, level of training and the development of physical capital that a nation can utilise to raise the level of a country’s output. Growth beyond a certain point must be focused on increasing the output per unit of input if we are to sustain economic growth at levels witnessed by advanced economies over the last 150 years.

3.30 pm

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the National Productivity Fund Bill 2010.

It is indeed timely to introduce this Bill as we set targets to enhance our national productivity levels up to 2%-3% per year. Currently, our productivity levels in the larger sectors are measuring up to only about 50%-60% of the global leaders.

With reference to clause 4, Sir, in the provision of financing and incentives, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, how will these overseas courses and programmes be assessed and evaluated to ensure only recognised and respectable ones are incorporated under the scheme? There will most certainly be a very wide variety and range of such programmes and courses in all the 12 priority sectors which have been earmarked. As I see it, there will need to be clearly defined guidelines, with some flexibility for case-by-case consideration as they will arise. Whatever guidelines are decided upon, I feel it is crucial we do not steer away from the primary objective related to enhancing productivity and continuing education, which must be customised to the relevant sectors.

With reference to this Bill, Sir, there will be a need to define productivity in the 12 priority sectors as there will most obviously be differences. There is a great need to enhance the awareness amongst the public as well as companies and businesses in order to drive home the message effectively.

Can I also clarify with the Minister, Sir, pertaining to the workgroups to be set up for each sector, when will these take place and be functional? This is crucial, I feel, as the Members will have to brainstorm the best and most effective ways to create awareness, high rates of compliance and motivation in the proposals, applications and, of course, most importantly, execution.

Can we also look at some of the best practices from other countries, as there are good lessons we can learn from, and where our workers can relate to them? This is especially useful when we reach out to our workers to sell the message on productivity. At the end of the day, no matter how good our policy is, at the workers’ level, there should be enough understanding and conviction so that everyone can work together to make the drive a successful one.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, with the passing of this Act, we must ensure a deep understanding and confidence from all sectors, including the public. How can we disseminate the message and understanding on this policy to the public so that when they apply for jobs they will understand that they have to compete with other applicants, not only from Singapore but also with other workers of similar abilities and qualifications, for example, from India, China or Malaysia?

This is the reality. We now have to compete globally. Therefore, when our skills are better and more specialised, there will be a higher demand for our workforce. Our people must undergo a major change in mindset.

One clarification that I wish to seek is that within the 12 priority sectors identified, who will decide on the type of

training and programmes that should be included? Will it be proposed by the new board or by the workgroups? Can it be suggested by the companies, sectors, or can it be that the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council have the final say?

Sir, I support this Bill and hope that it can be implemented smoothly and fully reach out to all workers and people from the various sectors.

3.34 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Mr Speaker, good afternoon! First, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI). Today, I would like to talk about improving productivity from the businesses' point of view.

This year's Budget focuses on restructuring the economy and raising productivity to further Singapore's economic growth. In his recent National Day Rally speech in August, Prime Minister Lee emphasised again the importance of raising productivity. Businesses respond positively to this call.

Today, I would like to express my views in the following three areas:

First, response from SMEs. The Government is actively pushing the productivity drive, but are our companies taking any actions? SCCCI did a survey. Among the 1,051 companies surveyed, 62% are actively responding to the call to improve productivity and only 8.6% have not taken any actions. Industry-wise, the manufacturing sector is the best with 72% of companies adopting at least three initiatives to boost productivity. This is a very good phenomenon, demonstrating that most companies agree with the

Government and are taking proactive steps.

However, the business models of various industries are different. Therefore, it is difficult to come to a unified standard to measure productivity. For example, a famous local bak kwa shop always sees long queues during Chinese New Year. People need to queue two to three hours. In comparison, other stores are not patronised by so many people. I think, besides branding, the major draw of this shop is that its products are handmade and not mass-produced by machines. This is very common in the food and beverage sector. If they try to use automation to replace manual work, consumers may not like it. Our survey also proved this. In the service sector, only 58% of companies are actively boosting productivity, lower than that of the manufacturing sector. The main reason is that it is easier to gauge efficiency in manufacturing, whereas in the service sector, not only cost and efficiency, but also service quality and the consumers' needs are taken into consideration. This makes things more complicated.

Since the Government and businesses have come to a consensus, the next step is to adopt effective measures based on each industry's specific needs and characteristics. For example, the Workfare Training Scheme is more popular in the service sector than in manufacturing, which shows that, compared to other industries, the service sector pays more attention to improving the quality of their staff. I suggest that in the future, the Government could consult the views of the tripartite partners before launching any business assistance schemes or grants. This will increase the effectiveness of the policy, avoid the "one size fits all" approach, and benefit more companies.

As for the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme, many companies are adopting the wait-and-see attitude. Some

say that if they invest in innovation first and apply for tax rebate later, what will happen when the innovation fails and they cannot even get tax rebate? What is more, the investment cannot get tax rebate until the next financial year. "Water afar cannot relieve current thirst". Hence, I suggest that the relevant agency review this Scheme to deliver more effective grants and encourage SMEs to take bold steps to innovate. We need to deliver "coal when it is snowing" and help SMEs solve their pressing issues.

Two, encourage professionalism and call for cooperation from consumers. Usually, the way to increase productivity is to simplify the working process, improve product, service and staff quality, and develop value-added services. In this process, we cannot under-estimate the spirit of professionalism. We must reward those staff who love their job and demonstrate a good working attitude.

However, to increase productivity, the Government and businesses cannot do it alone. We need everybody to join in. For example, when we eat at hawker centres, and if we put our dishes away ourselves, we can reduce the workload of the cleaners. This also solves the problem of labour shortage. We need to change our mindset. If we can do this at the fast food chains, surely we can do this at the hawker centres. The key is: do Singaporeans want to do it or not?

Third, spread the productivity message to everyone in the society, including secondary and primary students. Increasing productivity has been a national campaign since the 1980s. This year, the Government is again focusing on productivity to prepare Singapore for sustainable economic growth. I feel that the productivity education should involve all levels of society, including students; by inculcating the notion of productivity from a young age, students would cultivate the right mindset and form an efficient team in the future.

Increasing productivity is a long journey. I believe that, under the leadership of the Government and with the joint effort of the tripartite partners, Singapore's productivity is bound to improve.

In conclusion, I support the Bill.

*Cols. 1293-1294; 1295-1298.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of this Bill, for it demonstrates the Government's commitment to investing in human capital and raising productivity among Singapore employees.

Given our demographic trends of sustained ultra-low fertility, it is unlikely that our local resident population will increase in the near future. Thus far, we have relied on immigration to augment our population strength and maintain our labour force at an optimum level. However, it is not sustainable to depend solely on surplus foreign labour to sustain our labour needs. As it is now, we have already seen the tensions in the social fabric when the proportion of non-resident population hit a high of 25%. Therefore, the focus of Budget 2010 on improving productivity is both timely and significant for the future of Singapore.

This Bill details the set-up of the National Productivity Fund and how the

Fund will be administered. On these administrative details, I have two questions. First, on the composition of the Board. Given the power of this Board and its central role in disbursement of the Fund, may I ask the Minister to share with us how the members will be selected? Productivity is a complex concept that we have yet to manage to grasp. Certainly, the composition of the Board will be critical as it will play a significant role in shaping our understanding of this concept. In addition to representation from the Government and management-level professionals, I hope we can also include the inputs of mid-level employees who are in direct contact with sentiments from the base-level workforce.

Secondly, I note that decisions taken by the Board will be decided by a simple majority of the members present. However, in the case of a tie, the Chair will have the casting vote in addition to his original vote. To minimise the likelihood that the Chair should have such disproportionate power, may I suggest that the composition of the Board be set at an odd number so that when all members are present – which I expect would happen as we should only appoint to this important Board members who are totally committed to service – there will always be a definitive outcome. As the Board will have tremendous discretionary power to administer public funds, may I ask if there are avenues for feedback and for the public to query the decisions of the Board?

Finally, while I understand that this Bill focuses on the administration of the National Productivity Fund and this Bill is not intended to discuss policy issues, I think it is important at this stage to reiterate the importance of a holistic approach to understanding productivity and how it can be measured. In this endeavour to enhance productivity, we must embrace labour as value and with

respect, and not just a commodity to be maximised. Particularly in the service sector where there must be a sensible balance between output and quality of service, and especially in the careful consideration of good work-life balance where family time and personal space continue to be factored as important variables in the equation that measures output. For issues on policy, I look forward to learning more about the important work of Deputy Prime Minister Teo and his Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank hon. Members Ho Geok Choo, Halimah Yacob, Sin Boon Ann, Fatimah Lateef and NMPs Teo Siong Seng and Paulin Tay Straughan for their support of the Bill.

Sir, there have been many detailed discussions on the topic of productivity in this House, especially during the Budget debate. So I would not go over old material. As Members' queries and comments revolve around the roles and responsibilities of the Productivity Fund Administration Board, which I will refer to as PFAB, to be established by this Bill, allow me to reply by clarifying the roles of this PFAB, vis-a-vis firstly, the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council, which I shall refer to as the Council in my elaboration and, secondly, the Government agencies and organisations involved in raising productivity.

Sir, this Bill is not intended to establish the typical statutory body with policy-making powers and the matching execution capability. It also does not seek to determine upfront the policies regarding how productivity is to be raised. Instead, the purposes for which the National Productivity Fund (NPF) may be used as set out in Part II of the Bill, are defined broadly to enable it to fund productivity initiatives that cover any industry and any employee segment. These are consistent

with the sentiments expressed by the Members that programmes funded under the NPF must be sufficiently broad to provide for the diverse needs of the various sectors of the economy whilst ensuring that they meet the primary objective of enhancing productivity. This NPF can therefore be applied towards providing more assistance to the SMEs and to support workers, especially low-income workers in the efforts to upgrade their skills.

The use of the National Productivity Fund will be guided by the advice of the Council, which is chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. The Council will prioritise and champion national productivity initiatives at the sectoral and enterprise levels, developing a comprehensive, first-class national Continuing Education and Training (CET) System and foster a culture of productivity and continuous learning and upgrading in Singapore. The Council will discuss, review and endorse productivity plans and initiatives, including proposals, which may tap on the NPF as the funding source. The NPFs monies will be used to sustain our productivity efforts over the next decade, with special emphasis initially on sectors where there is potential for large gains in productivity. The 12 sectors identified by the Council so far which span construction, manufacturing, hospitality and business services, have the greatest potential for productivity enhancements, contribute a significant share to the GDP as well as employ a significant number of workers. And many local SMEs are in these sectors.

I wish to inform Members that beyond the identified 12 sectors, other sectors can also present their productivity plans and initiatives to the Council for funding consideration. To support the overall productivity drive, the NPF would also help fund part of the inclusive growth programme led by NTUC and this

programme will focus on low-wage workers across the different sectors by upgrading their skills, redesigning their jobs and improving the processes within the companies.

Sir, Mr Sin Boon Ann has suggested that the NPF be used to help local SMEs and to level up low-wage workers. While many of the schemes funded by the NPF will benefit these groups, the main objective for the NPF remains that of raising productivity wherever there is significant scope to do so, be it for small or large firms, local or foreign firms, low-wage workers or PMETs. The NPF is more likely to succeed by focusing on the one clear objective of raising productivity. Sir, there are already many other programmes and schemes to cater to other policy objectives, such as to develop the SMEs or to help the low-wage workers. While the NPF will contribute to these objectives, it should not be lumbered with them.

Sir, let me now go on to the role of the PFAB in ensuring accountability for the Fund. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan and Mr Teo Siong Seng asked about the composition of the Members of the PFAB and whether inputs from those who are directly in contact with sentiments from the ground would be included in the decision-making process on productivity initiatives. The PFAB will comprise of Ministers within the Council that will approve the funding proposals that tap on the National Productivity Fund. Precisely for the purpose of achieving broad coverage and wide representation, the Council comprises members from the unions who understand the sentiments of workers well, industry representatives who can take the enterprise and employer perspective and from the public sector for a holistic policy perspective.

Members have also asked how the outcomes of the programmes funded by the NPF would be assessed. In assessing the programme outcomes, the PFAB and the Council will look at broad indicators such as value-added per worker for international benchmarking of productivity levels. But, at the same time, sector-specific targets would also be set to measure productivity in daily operations. This recognises the need, as Mdm Halimah has raised, for a differentiated approach due to the diversity of the sectors. Once funding from the NPF is approved, the programmes will be administered by the respective lead agencies, which will be responsible for promoting and implementing them. For example, WDA will be in charge of the CET courses funded by the National Productivity Fund while BCA will be responsible for the implementation of construction productivity schemes. Members' specific comments on CET and SMEs would be noted by the relevant agencies. The respective sectoral lead agencies will oversee the communications and publicity efforts for each of the 12 sectors to promote awareness about the productivity initiatives so that more companies can apply for and benefit from them. The Council will also look into creating awareness of productivity at the national level. So Assoc. Prof. Lateef and Mr Teo's suggestions will be conveyed to the Council. The lead agencies will have to account to the Council and the PFAB on the utilisation of the funds and the outcomes achieved.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo has raised the specific question about how the monies in NPF will be invested. Sir, the NPF monies will be managed by the Ministry of Finance and a fixed return will be paid by Government to the Fund annually. So there will be no separate team to do just that. The purpose of allowing the NPF monies to be invested is to merely ensure that monies that have yet to be drawn down from the NPF will earn a reasonable

return. The PFAB will ensure proper accountability and governance of the use of funds from the NPF and, here, I would like to refer Members to the clauses 22 and 23 of the Bill which require the PFAB to prepare the annual audited financial statements and annual reports and present them to Parliament.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members have rightly emphasised, productivity must be sustained as a long-term and wide-ranging effort as the basis for, in turn, sustaining Singapore's economic growth and a broad-based increase in our incomes. The establishment of the NPF and the PFAB through this Bill is in line with the Government's intent to catalyse and sustain productivity growth over the longer term. Once again, I thank Members for their thoughtful comments and for the support of the Bill.

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. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua]

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.16 pm

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

The proposed changes in the Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 2010, or the PTA Bill for short, arose from the periodic review of our property tax regime. These amendments will improve tax administration

and provide greater clarity on the tax liability to taxpayers.

Sir, I will highlight three salient amendments. The other amendments are technical or administrative in nature.

Streamlining reporting requirements for property owners

Currently, property owners are required to inform the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) upon the occurrence of certain events such as whether the property ceases to be occupied by the owners or if the property has been rebuilt. These events may affect the property tax payable and the current reporting requirement provides IRAS with the necessary information to re-assess the property tax accordingly.

With the proposed amendment, property owners will no longer need to inform IRAS upon the occurrence of certain events such as when the building is completed, rebuilt, enlarged, altered or improved. The reporting requirement can be eliminated for such events as IRAS will obtain the required information directly from other Government agencies. Clause 5 of the Bill reflects these changes.

Fine-tuning the definition of “structural networks”

The next change relates to property tax on structural networks. In 2008, the Property Tax Act was amended to clarify that structural networks, including a network of pipelines, are taxable.

We propose to amend the definition of "structural networks" in the Property Tax Act to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that even a single pipeline may be regarded as a structural network for purposes of the Act. This is irrespective of whether the single pipeline constitutes the entire structural network, or the single pipeline is a part of a larger structural network.

Further, it will be made clear that property tax can be levied on the installed parts of a network that is currently in use or intended to be in use. For example, a network of pipelines that has been installed but has yet to be put to active use for distribution or transmission is liable to property tax. Clause 2 of the Bill reflects these changes.

Aligning of time-bar to recover outstanding property tax

This change pertains to the reduction in the time limit for the recovery of Property Tax from six years to five years. This reduction is in alignment with the five-year time-bar period for tax recovery under other Tax Acts (such as the Income Tax Act or the GST Act). The change will be effective from 1st January 2012, to provide time for transition. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for this change.

Sir, I beg to move.

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. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.21 pm

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

Sir, this Bill, when passed, will give effect to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Convention seeks to protect the best interests of children from the undesirable effects of transborder parental abduction and retention by providing an avenue for their prompt return and resolution of transborder custodial disputes.

Under the Convention, Contracting States agree to return a child who has been wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State, for an orderly determination by the Courts of the child’s habitual residence on the rights of custody and the rights of access. For the Convention to apply, both countries have to be Contracting States. There are currently 82 Contracting States.

Singapore is an open and globalised state. More and more Singaporeans are studying, working and living abroad and likewise there are many foreigners living and taking up residence in Singapore. It is therefore not surprising that there is an increasing trend of Singaporeans marrying foreigners, both locally and abroad. The proportion of marriages between Singapore Citizens and non-citizens has increased from 30.7% in 1999 to 40.8% in 2009. Given these trends, we can expect an increase likelihood of transborder custodial disputes. There are benefits for Singapore to accede to this Convention, in particular for the welfare and interest of children born and living in Singapore. This legal framework will allow us to secure the cooperation of other Contracting States for the return of these children to Singapore.

At present, Singapore allows for applications to the Court for orders and directions relating to custody, care and control, and access of the child when there is a marital dispute. However these proceedings often involve protracted and expensive legal battles.

Acceding to the Convention will put in place the necessary mechanisms for the expeditious return of the child to the appropriate Court which will then determine the issues relating to the custody and welfare of the child. This is in line with our commitment to protect the best interests of the child.

My Ministry has worked with the relevant agencies, including the Courts and the Legal Aid Bureau, to operationalise this Convention. We have also consulted various stakeholders including lawyers, legal academics and women’s groups on the draft Bill.

Sir, allow me to briefly describe the key provisions in this Bill.

Singapore Central Authority

One of the key features of the Convention is that a Central Authority must be established in each Contracting State. This is provided for under clause 5 of the Bill. My Ministry (MCYS) will be appointed as the Singapore Central Authority. The Singapore Central Authority will be operational by 2011 once the Convention enters into force.

The Singapore Central Authority’s key role is to provide information on and to facilitate matters relating to the application for the return of a child and to work with other respective Central Authorities in the other States in dealing with such applications.

The Singapore Central Authority will advise and assist the parent who is remaining in Singapore to make an application to the Central Authority of the other Contracting State where a child has been wrongfully removed to or retained in. The Singapore Central Authority will monitor the progress of these applications. And under the Convention, the overseas Central Authority is obliged to facilitate

the return of the child, to have the discovery of the whereabouts of the child, and the care and protection of the child. Similarly, the parent remaining in the other Contracting State can also apply to the Singapore Central Authority for its assistance to facilitate the discovery and voluntary return of the child and, where necessary, for the care and protection of the child. These are reciprocal arrangements.

Apart from providing for the application of the return of a child, the Singapore Central Authority will, as far as possible, also assist in facilitating access to the child upon request by the parent whose access rights were breached.

Applications to Court under the Convention

Sir, I shall now describe the provisions pertaining to applications to the Court for the return of the child under the Convention. The Convention stipulates that the judicial authorities are to order the return of the child to the country of habitual residence if the Court found that the child was wrongfully removed or retained.

All applications for the return of a child or access to a child under the Convention will be made to and heard by the Family Court. Clause 8 provides for this. The applicant may be the person whose rights of custody have been breached or any other person appearing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter.

Custody rights will be determined by the Court in the child’s country of habitual residence upon his or her return. This is based on the principle that the Courts in the child's country of habitual residence are best able to make decisions on the interests of the child. Clause 13 of the Bill thus provides for the stay of any decision on merits of the rights of custody, care

and control or access upon an application being filed to the Court.

The Convention recognises the need to protect children and to take into account circumstances where the child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence. These circumstances include situations where, firstly, there might be a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm; secondly, the person having care of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention; thirdly, if the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take into account of his or her views; and fourthly, where fundamental principles relating to the protection of human rights and the fundamental freedoms are in question. In these scenarios, the Court has the discretion not to order the return of the child. Clause 12 of the Bill thus allows the Court to receive advice from persons who are trained or experienced in matters relevant to the application when considering the return of the child.

Where the child has been ordered to be returned, clause 8 of the Bill empowers the Court to impose conditions or require undertakings before the child can be taken out of Singapore. In addition, for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child, clause 10 of the Bill empowers the Court to make interim orders or to give interim directions for the care and control or access to the child before the determination of the return of the child.

Sir, the Convention also requires Singapore to provide legal aid and advice to applicants who are citizens or habitually resident in a country which is party to the Convention. This has been provided for in clause 17 of the Bill. Applicants applying for legal aid and

advice under the Convention will have to fulfil the same means and merits test required by the Legal Aid Bureau in Singapore. In addition, the Legal Aid and Advice Act and the Legal Profession Act will be amended accordingly.

Sir, with the increase in cross-border marriages, this Bill will help deter and to resolve wrongful child removal and retention resulting from the possible breakdown of some of these marriages.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in implementing this Convention, Singapore will facilitate the judicial or administrative proceedings necessary for the prompt return of the child in his or her best interest. This paramount principle will remain to always protect the best interest of the child.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to applaud the Government, through the good efforts of the Minister for Community Development Youth and Sports, for ratifying this Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed before an alleged wrongful removal or retention, thereby deterring a parent from crossing international borders in search of a more sympathetic court. Since society and families have become more internationalised, international cases of child abductions have been drawing attention as a serious social problem. As child abduction is a serious infringement of the welfare of the child, preventing child abduction is an extremely important goal to be achieved by the international

community. As more than 80 countries had already ratified the Convention, Singapore's ratification of it is timely and necessary. This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention and I support it.

However, Sir, I have a few clarifications to seek. First, even as we adopt measures under this Bill in order to give effect to our international obligations, we have to ensure that we do not end up giving greater protection and support to parents caught in cross-border disputes involving the abduction of their children but less or little support to those caught in domestic abductions of their children. In other words, is this Bill giving more rights to parents caught in cross-border abductions of their children compared to those where the abductions took place in Singapore?

This Bill provides substantial support in order to swiftly return an abducted child to the aggrieved parent from a Contracting State. The Central Authority, which under this Bill, will be the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, would have to locate the abducted child in Singapore and then urge the errant parent or other persons to voluntarily return the child to the parent from the Contracting State asking for help. If this fails, then the Minister would either have to bring the case to court or offer various types of support to the parent from the Contracting State to file a lawsuit in Singapore. This is clearly stated in the Bill which provides for the Central Authority to "take all appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained". It also provides for the Minister to "provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers".

In the case of child abductions that take place domestically, however, no such assistance or less of such assistance is

available. Usually the authorities would leave it to the affected parent to seek a court order as the Police view this as a domestic issue which they should not interfere in. Parents affected by domestic abduction cases suffer from the same anguish and pain as those involved in cross-border abductions and they should similarly be provided with help and support to locate their abducted child and to have the child returned to them.

This Bill will also provide legal aid to a parent from a Contracting State who applies to court for an order. Again, are we providing more rights to them compared to our own citizens involved in similar disputes but domestically? We need to have consistency and a balance between the procedures to deal with domestic disputes over parental child abduction and procedures involving disputes over international abductions or cross-border abductions to which the Hague convention applies.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the MCYS will work with the other agencies, such as the Police, to review the current procedures so that more could be done to help parents affected by abductions that take place domestically?

My second point is on the designation of the Central Authority under this Bill. The Hague Convention requires a ratifying state to appoint a central authority. The role of the central authorities in the Contracting States is to do their utmost to achieve the objectives of the Convention. The central authorities of these countries are supposed to be in close contact with each other and also to work with the various agencies in their own countries as well. The Bill provides for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to be the Central Authority for Singapore. I seek a clarification as to whether this is appropriate and what are the reasons for designating the Minister

as the Central Authority? In the US, for instance, the Central Authority is the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues that has been designated as the authority. Should a similar arrangement not apply in Singapore?

Finally, Sir, the Bill mandates the return of an abducted child to his or her "habitual residence" before the abduction took place. This is the most significant part of the Convention as the Central Authority's function is primarily to make sure that the child is returned to the place of habitual residence. However, there is no definition of what amounts to an abducted child's habitual residence in the Convention. Could the Minister give some indication as to what could constitute a place of habitual residence?

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. This is indeed a progressive Bill and this a right move on the part of Singapore to adopt to rectify this Convention.

4.36 pm

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill, which will assist in the local application and implementation of the Hague Convention and I feel it is time for Singapore to align and become a signatory of the Convention which has been around since 1983 with 82 members to date.

Let me reiterate the two main aims of the Convention, namely:(1) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to, or retained in any signatory state; and (2) to ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the laws of one state are effectively respected in other signatory states. As such, Sir, it will be beneficial for Singapore to join as a signatory.

In today’s global village that we live in, cross-border interactions, relationships,

and even marriages are increasing. In the event that some of these do work out, there are certainly risks of one parent taking the child out of the country where the other spouse is not. If not done amicably, or done on a unilateral basis, these can have consequences, most certainly. And the Hague Convention can, thus, offer a framework to help in the resolution of such situations.

Parental child abduction is a global phenomenon, Sir. For example, there was a 27% rise in the number of applications made under the Hague Abduction Convention between 1999 and 2003 and Singapore is certainly not exempt. In a local study by Debbie Ong et al, from 2001 to 2006, 26 cases of child abductions were dealt with by our Family Courts. Twenty-two cases of the 26 were abductions outside Singapore and four within Singapore. Overall, 16 out of the 26 cases or 62% remain unresolved to date and the 10 cases that were settled took an average of 15.3 months to be solved. Some of the cases that involved outgoing countries included countries such as Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Netherlands, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and the UK; and the incoming cases involved countries like Thailand and Norway.

This Bill, Sir, is also a very good illustration of how, national, regional and even international collaboration and teamwork can come into play to assist in alleviating difficult situations. As States abiding to the Convention will have their own unique laws, will there be any other international understanding or binding agreement on the matter? I would like some clarification on that, please. And it is also stated and I quote, "this Convention shall apply as between Contracting States only, to wrongful removals or retentions occurring after its entry into force". This would mean that there will be no retrospective effect of the Bill. What will be the options then, for

cases that are pending or ongoing, ie, those that happened before 2010?

Sir, with reference to article 4, it is stated that the Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Can I clarify what will happen if the abducted is a mentally subnormal person or child who is, say, 17 years of age? What would be the approach for such cases? Also, Sir, with regard to section 13, the clause and I quote, "by any person appearing to the court to have sufficient interest in the matter", there perhaps should be some clarification on this, for example, who is "the persons"? Should it be previous caregivers, a next-of-kin, a child welfare officer or a VWO personnel, etc? Some clarification would be needed on that as well.

Sir, all in, I support this International Child Abduction Bill. Singapore has much to gain with this Bill and from the Singapore study I quoted earlier, the majority of abductions are out of Singapore, thus, ceding to the Hague Convention and passing this Bill will help Singapore-based citizens recover their children quickly.

4.40 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill seeks to implement Singapore’s obligations under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed on 25th October 1980. It enables children abducted from countries abroad in breach of custody or access rights to return to those countries for their cases to be settled there. This is to prevent protracted court battles over child custody and to provide clearer direction for the courts, for example, in divorce cases where husband and wife reside in different countries. The intent of the Bill is to protect the minor child. Given the increase in the number of cross-cultural marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners, this Bill will

become even more significant as it may have direct implication for these Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, as I stand in support of this Bill, I have four queries for the Minister. First, given that it has taken us serious deliberations before we finally acceded to the Convention, may I ask what were the Ministry’s concerns regarding this Convention and how have these concerns been addressed? Second, a reason given by some countries which have not signed the Convention is the protection of their citizens and their children from abusive foreign spouses. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister to share with us the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives had to flee from abusive foreign spouses?

With the passing of this Bill, how can we continue to help Singaporeans who are caught in these crisis situations? Relating to this is my third query on child custody battles involving foreign spouses. Do we have cases currently pending judiciary outcomes and how will the passing of this Bill affect these families?

Finally, the focus of the Convention is the prompt return of the child. This is unlike domestic proceedings involving children where the welfare of the child is the chief consideration. What if a case arises where a very young minor child brought here by the Singaporean parent does not want to leave? Will the children’s requests be taken into consideration by the courts in informing their decision?

The Minister has assured that the courts can exercise discretion. Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, what constitutes being of age and sufficient maturity?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their

support of the Bill and for their relevant questions and comments.

First, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan asked what are our considerations and why did we take so long? I think Members of this House know that the Singapore Government takes its commitments extremely seriously, in particular, before agreeing to an International Convention which will place obligations on us. We need to be very sure first that it is the right thing to do. Secondly, that we have set up a mechanism so that we can do the right thing. Thirdly, that we have consulted our stakeholders and people know what this is all about. So, it has taken us some time but we are now on the verge of acceding to this Convention.

The next question was posed by Mdm Halimah and she asked why the Bill appears to name the Minister as the Central Authority. I would like to reassure her that it is the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports that will be appointed as the Central Authority. My role as Minister is to oversee that this is done properly and in accordance with the law as passed by Parliament. The Authority will, therefore, be a new department set up within the Ministry to perform its role.

The next question I wanted to deal with was from Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef and she said, basically, how would we deal with the applications given that we will be dealing with trans-border disputes. If we sign on, we will be the 83rd country and there are likely to be 83 different unique legal systems in place. Well, on accession, all Contracting States are required to discharge their obligations and their responsibilities as spelt out under the Convention.

The Convention recognises that the Contracting States may have their own

uniquely legal and judicial arrangements and, therefore, Contracting States have the flexibility in the way they implement the provisions of the Convention.

There is a permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law which will monitor the operations of the Convention in all the Contracting States. They will monitor them, for instance, by having yearly questionnaires on the state of the implementation in the respective States. There will also be special Commission Meetings which are organised and there will be reports which we will all have to submit and, based on these reports, they will do their best to ensure that there is alignment and that the objectives and the key principles and the spirit behind the Convention are fulfilled even while we know that implementational details will differ.

The next question was on the issue of age. I think Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef brought up the example of an abducted child who was mentally subnormal but is now 17 years and therefore technically beyond the remit of this Convention. Mr Speaker, the Convention seeks to protect children specifically under the age of 16 from the harmful effects of parental abduction and retention. For a successful application under this Act, the child must be below the age of 16 when the application is made to the Central Authority. The age cut-off is based on the premise that children below the age of 16, by definition, are more vulnerable and in greater need of protection. But for other exceptional cases like the example she has cited, the parents can still apply to the courts under current domestic laws if there is custody or access issues to be determined. In other words, discretion still lies with the Family Court.

The next question posed by Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef was to clarify how do you define a person appealing to the Court to have sufficient interest in the matter. A person who is eligible to apply

for the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child would include a person whose rights of custody have been breached or any other person where the Court exercising its discretion, feels has a right to be heard and has an interest in the outcome of the case. I do not want to excessively hard-code this because, again, I want to remind Members of the House that we do need to leave these decisions, which are difficult decisions, even in the best of times, to be made at the discretion of the Judge in the Family Court.

Mdm Halimah asked a question on whether the Bill in mandating the return of a child who was habitually resident in the Contracting State immediately before that action, constitutes breach of custody or access rights, and asked me on the definition of "habitual residence". The term "habitual residence" is not defined specifically in the Bill. This is in line with the practice of the Convention and the Contracting States. In other words, it is not defined so that the Court will have discretion to determine the child's country of habitual residence and the Court will arrive at such a determination based on evidence adduced. For instance, let me correct a common misperception. The country of habitual residence does not refer to a child's domicile or citizenship or passport that the child may hold but the Court, instead, will take into account factors which determine a child's personal ties to a place. Relevant factors that a Court may consider – I want to emphasise "may" because their discretion still takes precedence – would include factors like the age of the child, whether he or she has his own views, the maturity of the child, the child's cultural affiliations. For instance, the language he or she speaks or the place that he or she has the most links to, the country, perhaps, where he has been in school the longest, and so on. There will be many other factors. The point I am trying to make here is that, we cannot be sitting in this House hard-code

all the different permutations or factors which the Court would have to take into account.

The next point I want to touch is on the welfare of the Singaporean parent and the child and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan has enquired as to the number of reported cases where Singaporean wives have had to flee from abusive foreign spouses. From 2007 to 2009, on average, there were 17 Protection Orders made by Singaporean wives against their foreign husbands but obviously this only refers to cases within Singapore. I do not have the statistics for cases of Singaporean women living overseas who have filed for similar protection from abusive foreign spouses.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan also wanted to know how many Singaporeans are victims, how Singaporeans who are victims of abuse can be helped in the event that they face such a situation. Singaporeans who face spousal abuse can seek advice and counselling support from social workers in the Family Service Centres. If there is evidence of abuse, our child protection and our family violence mechanisms within the Ministry and in the other relevant Ministries will be activated. And victims of abuse who need shelter while the Court proceedings are ongoing can be housed in a crisis shelter until the crisis is resolved. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, the Convention recognises the need to protect children and to take into account circumstances where the child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence. And these circumstances include situations where there is a grave risk that the return would subject the child to physical or psychological harm. If there is lack of evidence of grave risk or harm, the Singapore Central Authority will also work closely with the overseas Central Authority to make sure that protective factors are in place before the child is returned. So, again, the point I am trying

to make here is that this will have to be a multi-agency effort and sometimes even a trans-border effort in order to secure, first, the safety of the child and, secondly, the protection of the more vulnerable member of the partnership.

There was another question: what if a case arises where a minor child brought here by the Singapore parent does not want to leave? Will the child's request be taken into consideration? I think I have answered this earlier. The Court will certainly listen to the child but the Court will have to take into account the age and maturity of the child and the totality of the best interest of the child. It will be a factor for consideration but it cannot be the only or substantive factor to be considered by the Court. There was another question on cases which are currently pending judicial outcomes. I would like to reassure Members, and I know that even as we speak there are cases ongoing, that families who are currently undergoing Court proceedings, they will not be affected as Article 35 of the Convention states specifically that there will be no retrospective effect. So for those cases which have already commenced, we will let the law take its course.

Mdm Halimah brought up a larger issue of whether there is any disparity in treatment: first, a disparity in treatment where the parental abduction has occurred locally and then whether there is a disparity in treatment between citizens and foreigners. Let me deal with the first question on disparity between parental abductions which have occurred locally in Singapore versus trans-border. I think the first thing that I would like to remind Members is that the objective of this Convention is not about returning the child to the parent. It is about returning the child to the country of his or her habitual residence so that the relevant

Court will make that determination. Therefore, in a case where the child has not been removed out of Singapore, the issue does not arise at all because this child and both his or her parents are in Singapore and subject to the jurisdiction of Singapore Courts. So there is no question of disparity in that case. The other issue is whether we are treating citizens and foreigners equally. As I said earlier in my opening speech, even when someone applies for legal aid, they will have to pass the same means and merit tests that all citizens will have to undergo. So I can give Members of this House an assurance that there will be no disparity in treatment.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to emphasise that being a party to the Convention, provides an avenue for expeditious and clear resolution of such trans-border custodial disputes and, hopefully, actually deters parents involved in an acrimonious breakdown of a relationship from trying to take the law into their own hands and abducting their children. This Convention works on the principle that in such circumstances, the proper Court should make a determination after considering all factors in order to secure the best interest of the child. Our acceding to this Convention allows us to operationalise our commitment to this principle.

Sir, I just would like to clarify the point that I made earlier. I think the Minister missed my point. I am fully aware that the purpose of this Convention and this Bill is to return the abducted child to the place of habitual residence of the applying parent. What I am asking about the disparity is that abductions also take place locally by a parent, and usually one parent abducting the child where the other parent has been given custody, for instance. I want to ask whether the Ministry will review existing procedures that are in place because, very often, the feedback I get is that the

parent, who is affected because his or her child is being abducted, will be told that this is a matter for the Court to decide. He or she, who is aggrieved, should go to the Court to enforce the order. Whereas under the Convention, under the Bill, the Central Authority will have to assist in locating the whereabouts of the child when it involves cross-border abductions, and it will have to try and persuade the errant parent to return the child voluntarily, failing which, to assist the aggrieved parent to file a case in Court. So there is a lot more assistance rendered to the parent of a child caught in cross-border abduction as compared to a child caught in domestic abduction because, often, the Police would say that, "Look, this is a domestic matter. Could you please go to Court and get your order enforced?" which I think now that we have this Bill to take care of cross-border abductions, the same principle should extend even to abductions of children from parents who have custody of them domestically. So, that is what I am asking for a review.

I thank Mdm Halimah for that additional clarification of her question. Let us go back to the example of a trans-border abduction, where, pursuant to the application of this Convention, a child has to return to the country of habitual residence. As I said earlier, it does not mean that necessarily this child be handed back to the other parent in the other country. What it obliges us to do is, where possible, where it can be done voluntarily and amiably, to persuade the parent here to bring that child back to the other country and submit himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court in that country will still decide on the question of access and custody.

Now, in a local case, first, many of these so-called child abductions sometimes occur even before a divorce has been made absolute or even before a custody

order or access order has been issued. In such a circumstance, there is no question of abduction or kidnapping because both parents have rights to access and, in fact, have a duty to take care of the child. So you cannot have a situation where one parent goes to the Police and says, "I want you to go and find the other parent because he has taken my child away." And the Police will quite rightly say, "What court order do you have? What judicial arrangements have been made?" If you have a court order which says you have custody of the child and the other parent has contravened that court order, the jurisdictional regulatory and enforcement actions will kick in. But, in the absence of that, the Police are still quite right to say, "This is a domestic dispute. The proper forum for it to be settled, first, preferably is between the two adults who are parents of this child. If you can't, you go to Court, you get a court order and the court order will be enforced." I think underlying the Member's question is an appeal to the authorities, wherever possible, to help facilitate the mediation between parents and to make sure the court orders are enforced.

So, when a person has been ordered under this Convention to bring the child back, he or she is just restoring status quo ante. There are two people in a single country who may have a dispute about custody and care of a child and they have to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court and they must comply with the court order. Each respective country after that will have its own ways of enforcing those court orders. So, that is the point I wanted to make. The Member has a valid point but I did not want to conflate it into the debate on this Bill because this Bill does not resolve all the domestic problems that surround this very difficult and usually acrimonious breakdown in

relationship. The only generic point I want to emphasise here is to make an appeal to all parents that we should prioritise in the best interest of their children, and that unilateral action and certainly action against the law on trans-border abduction is not the ideal way to solve the problems that have been generated by a breakdown in the relationship between parents. I think we all understand that but, having said that, we also recognise that life is not perfect, relationships can always cause problems, and in this area you actually see otherwise normal good people behaving at their very worst because emotions are so raw. To put this in context, we are just trying to reduce and deter the complications of trans-border abduction, but there is still a lot more work that will have to be done in the domestic sphere.

I think we can certainly look into that and we should try to do better there, but I want to emphasise that that is not the subject of this Convention.

One clarification for the Minister. In the process that the child has to be brought back to Singapore or to one of the Contracting States, who pays for the airfare to transport the child back? Because it just so happened that last week I saw a man – an unemployed man – who actually had to come out with his own money to bring his child back from Vietnam. I wonder whether those are some of the things that may need to be sorted out.

The Convention requires a Contracting State to look after its own expenditures – the expenditures incurred by the central authority. I do not think that necessarily commits us to paying for all the airfare and accommodation that will often be generated from this hunt for missing children. So, I am not going to make a commitment in Parliament now that we are going to incur all those expenditures.

One last clarification, Sir. I heard the clarification

from the Minister. Is that a reassurance that when it comes to disputes involving domestic abduction cases where one parent has custody or access, that there will be greater coordination between MCYS, for instance, and the Police to help in terms of locating the child? I am talking about a case where the parent already has custody or one parent has access but is denied access because the child has been abducted and kept somewhere else where this parent cannot have access to the child or this parent having custody does not know the whereabouts of the child. It is a most perplexing situation, not helped by being asked to go to Court to enforce the custody order or the access order. So, will there be that coordination support system from the relevant agencies?

I am sympathetic to the Member's request. I know where she is coming from. But we must also understand that this is still, at the heart of it, a civil dispute, and that a proper forum for resolving civil disputes, in this case, is the Family Court. So, if you go to the Police Post, the Police must, by definition, advise you to go the Court to resolve this dispute, get a court order, and enforce the court order.

Now, Members of the House will also know that we are on a slightly different topic but on the issue of maintenance payments and other issues, there are administrative steps that we can take to make it easier to secure court orders and to facilitate enforcement of court orders. To the extent that we are working on all that, clearly this is a related area where if we can do that, we will facilitate. But I do not want to subvert the correct forum in which disputes are settled and the authority for making those decisions. It is the Family Court and we should not usurp it or in any way short circuit the rules of justice. I think as a lawyer herself, she will appreciate the position that I have to take.

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 – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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

5.08 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That the Standing Orders Committee appointed under paragraph 4(a) of Standing Order No. 100 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary."

Sir, it is the normal practice for the House to review and amend the Standing Orders from time to time to keep them up

to date to meet our current circumstances and also to improve the efficiency of the House. If Members so wish, they may take this opportunity to submit their proposals on amendments to the Standing Orders to this Committee for its consideration. The proposals to the Committee should be submitted by 27th September 2010.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Standing Orders Committee appointed under paragraph 4(a) of Standing Order No. 100 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary."

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes past Five o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the raising of overnight parking charges can adequately safeguard the interests of season parking tickets holders as well as better manage the parking demand at the carparks in HDB estates; (b) what data or studies have been done on overnight parking in HDB estates to support this decision; and (c) what is the Ministry's plan for other long-term solutions to resolve the parking problems in HDB estates.

HDB manages about 550,000 car park lots in over 1,800 car parks. With growing affluence, car ownership has increased in recent years. This has resulted in localised shortages at about 10% of HDB car parks.

HDB adopts a two-pronged strategy of increasing supply while managing demand to meet residents' needs for car park spaces.

To improve availability of car park lots for residents, HDB reserves more red or red/white lots for season ticket holders. HDB also groups car parks together for season parking to even out the demand for car parking and give residents more parking options.

In addition, HDB will spend $66 million to provide 5,000 additional car lots where there are localised shortages. Where land is available, HDB will increase the capacity of existing car parks by extending surface car parks, converting vacant land to car parks, or building new multi-storey car parks. Additional decks will be added to existing multi-storey car parks where technically feasible. Work has already begun and 1,100 of these lots will be ready by end-2010 to address the shortages at 26 car parks.

However, land is limited. HDB also has to balance the need for parking space with other needs for green spaces or other amenities. Thus, it is essential to complement supply measures with demand management.

HDB will safeguard parking lots for residents' needs by regulating short-term demand for parking lots. The increase in the Night Parking Scheme (NPS) charges from $2 to $4 with effect from 1st November 2010 is one such measure. The NPS charges were last revised in 1989. Then, the season parking rates for surface and covered lots were $50 and $75 respectively. The corresponding season parking rates today are $65 and $90. Using NPS for 30 nights costs less than the season parking rates. Therefore, the NPS rates need to be revised to manage night parking demand. More motorists may choose to pay the half-hourly rate of $0.50 instead of the revised NPS charge and shorten their stay. Motorists who need to park overnight regularly are encouraged to purchase a season parking ticket.

At car parks with high demand for season parking, HDB would also remove the Night Parking Scheme and Free Parking Scheme on Sundays/Public Holidays to reduce competition for lots from visitors.

Another strategy to increase short-term parking turnover is the Electronic Parking System (EPS). However, EPS is only viable at some car parks, due to the car park layout and high implementation costs. HDB plans to implement EPS at another 300 car parks over the next five years.

Parking shortages can also be attributed to the increased demand from households with more than one car. There are about 36,000 HDB households owning more than one car, which is an increase of 60% compared to 2006. To manage demand, HDB accords priority for season parking tickets to the first-owned vehicle of each household on a first-come-first-served basis. If there are season parking tickets left, they will be sold to the households with second and subsequent-owned vehicles (second priority). The balance will be sold to residents who buy season parking tickets for vehicles not owned by them and non-residents (third priority).

We seek the understanding of motorists that in land-scarce Singapore, we need to manage the demand for car parks even as we increase the supply where feasible.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will consider allowing prospective buyers of resale flats to request for information pertaining to police reports made of loan shark activity for the flats they intend to purchase; and (b) what measures are in place to protect prospective resale flat buyers from sellers who suppress information which may affect the security and safety of the next owner.

Prospective resale flat buyers should exercise due diligence, and check on the flat attributes carefully before making a purchase. They can also check with neighbours of the flat they are buying whether there were previous harassment incidents. In the case of loan shark harassments, the fact that a Police report was lodged does not always mean that the flat owner is a debtor. According to the Police, there are cases where harassment was targeted at multiple households to pressurise the real debtor to pay up.

The National Registration Act already requires Singapore residents to report their change of address to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) or the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) within 28 days. In addition, HDB and the Police have worked together to prevent such persons from falsely reporting a change of address, or from hiding behind the address of an innocent household. HDB requires flat sellers to provide forwarding addresses. Lessees who sublet bedrooms must also register with HDB within seven days. These measures facilitate the Police's tracing of individuals involved in illegal borrowing. With the amendment to the Moneylenders Act in January 2010, borrowers who deliberately provide false addresses face imprisonment for up to a year.

Flat owners who face harassment by loan sharks should make a Police report. The Police will take appropriate action based on the circumstances of the case.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many applications were received annually for places in Special Education (SPED) schools for the past three years and how many of these were allocated places; and (b) what is the total number of Government and private SPED schools and the total number of school places available currently.

In the past three years, an average of 550 children per year were placed in the 20 SPED schools operated by voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and co-funded by MOE and National Council of Social Services (NCSS). The schools received about 850 applications. Parents have the choice to approach any of the SPED schools to apply for admission and some parents make multiple applications. This largely explains why the number of applications exceeds the number of children allocated places. If an applicant does not gain admission into a particular school because of a lack of fit with the admission criteria, the child will be referred to another school which can better meet his or her needs. Every child who applies for admission should be able to find a place in one of the SPED schools.

All, except one, SPED schools have sufficient places to meet the demand for admission. Pathlight School, which serves autistic children who are able to access the mainstream curriculum, has a wait list. Students in the wait list are currently enrolled in other SPED or mainstream schools. Parents of these children have been advised that there are sufficient places in other SPED schools catering to children with autism. Children with mild autism could also remain in mainstream schools with Allied Educators who can help to support their learning.

The current capacity of the 20 SPED schools is 6,700, of which 4,900 places have been filled. There are sufficient SPED school places across the different disability types, including autism. MOE will continue to monitor the vacancies in each SPED school carefully and will work with schools to cater to demand for places for the different disability groups.

There are five private SPED schools registered by the Council for Private Education. These schools offer about 500 places.

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) based on the objectives of having a sports school in Singapore, what is the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of the Singapore Sports School (SSP) since its inception; (b) does the Ministry have any plans to help athletes balance their career goals and sporting commitments after they leave SSP; and (c) if so, what are they.

The Singapore Sports School (SSP) was set up in 2004 to enable young athletes to realise their sporting and academic potential by combining world-class sports training with quality academic education. Since its inception, SSP has housed and nurtured over 600 talented student athletes to realise both their academic and sporting potential.

On the sporting front, the SSP has produced, to date, two Olympians, six World Champions, two Asian, one Commonwealth and 23 SEA Games Gold medallists. Their students have broken 50 national records. At the recently concluded Youth Olympic Games, 22 out of 131 Team Singapore athletes were from SSP. They won a silver medal in table tennis and a bronze medal in taekwondo, and formed a large part of the football team that won a bronze medal.

Academically, the School has also done well. Of the 39 students who sat for the 2009 GCE O-Level examinations, one in three candidates achieved five or more distinctions. At least 75% of candidates were eligible for junior college, and 97% for polytechnic entrance. The distinction and pass rates for the majority of core subjects have also surpassed the national averages. MOE's Performance Indicators for School Management (PRISM) that evaluate effectiveness of schools based on comparison between actual O-Level results and expected performance, have also shown SSP's value-add, with O-Level students performing above expectations with a mean subject grade of 2.7, higher than the expected grade of 3.5.

To ensure adequate preparation for further education and employability, SSP builds partnerships and pathways that cater to students of differing academic abilities. Students can now sit for the O- and N-Level examinations, as well as enrol in diploma programmes such as the Republic Polytechnic-Singapore Sports School Diploma in Sports and Leisure Management. The School will also commence the six-year International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme from 2011, beginning with the current 2010 Secondary 1 cohort. These extended academic pathways allow students more time in the Sports School to optimise the integration of studies, training and competition, and enhance the quality of young athletes progressing to senior elite levels. The various post-secondary pathways also offer their students the opportunity to gain admission into local or reputable overseas universities.

In addition, SSP, in partnership with the Singapore Sports Council, offers a customised athlete lifestyle programme, which helps provide SSP athletes with support services in education, career and life-skills development, to enable them to integrate their sporting aspirations with their career goals. With the conclusion of the YOG, my Ministry is also planning a comprehensive review of the overall career and education support for our athletes.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how effective has the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme been in boosting the wages of low-skilled and low-income Singaporean workers, in particular cleaners; (b) whether the wages of the

lowest-income group have seen increases over the past five years; and (c) if so, what is the percentage of increase each year, calculated with and without the WIS.

The nominal income of the resident full-time workers in the first quintile increased by an average of 1.5% per year over the last five years, after taking into account a 2.2% decline in 2009 as wages fell across the board because of the recession.

The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme is designed to supplement the income and retirement savings of older low-wage workers. WIS gave each recipient a supplement to their income averaging over $1,000, or more than one month's worth of wages, for work done in 2009. WIS was enhanced this year to include more workers and raise the maximum payout from $2,400 to $2,800. For example, a 60-year old worker who earns $1,000 a month will receive $2,800 a year from WIS. This works out to an extra 23% of his income.

While WIS can supplement the incomes of older low-wage workers, we must also help them to raise their skills through training and upgrading. Therefore, in July this year, we introduced the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme to encourage older low-wage workers to go for training and improve their employability. Under WTS, they can receive up to another $400 cash awards a year if they undergo, complete and pass sustained training. With new skills acquired through regular training and upgrading, these workers can take on higher value jobs and earn higher wages over time.

asked the Minister for Education if he will provide an update on plans to move primary schools to single session and what are the lessons learned or benefits gained by schools that have done so.

In 2010, seven more primary schools turned single-session, bringing the total number of primary schools on single-session to 83 or 47%. Another five primary schools will turn single-session next year. Most Government and Government-aided primary schools would move to single-session by 2016.

To allow all our primary schools to go single session, MOE plans to build up to 18 new primary schools and enhance the infrastructure of up to 80 existing primary schools in phases. In the first phase, MOE will build 11 new primary schools and upgrade 28 existing schools. With the additional places in the new schools, the Primary 1 intake of existing schools can be reduced to allow them to transit to single session.

Schools that have moved to a single-session model have shared positive feedback about being able to provide a better environment to develop their pupils. By providing pupils with more time and space to interact meaningfully with their teachers, the implementation of single-session model helps balance the acquisition of knowledge with the delivery of skills and imparting of core values to our children. Teachers from all six levels also have a common time to collaborate and share best pedagogical practices.

Single-session school operation has also helped to minimise logistical issues in the scheduling of activities, such as the Programme for Active Learning (PAL). For example, New Town Primary School has been able to schedule two hours of PAL activities within curriculum time on two separate school days and it has sufficient facilities to support the allocation of the classes to participate in the different PAL activities during the PAL time slot.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the phasing out of training subsidies under the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) will force employers to cut back on training for their employees; and (b) if so, how will the Ministry address the issue of employees continuing lifelong training for skills acquisition.

SPUR is a two-year programme established specifically to help companies and workers manage the economic downturn and invest in skills for the recovery. With the strong economic recovery this year, the programme will cease in December 2010. Since the inception of SPUR in November 2008, we have seen strong training commitment figures – as at end July 2010, some 259,000 workers have completed or are still undergoing SPUR training.

Nevertheless, our commitment to help our workers continually upgrade their skills remains unchanged. Therefore, the Government will invest a total of $2.5 billion over the next five years on continuing education and training (CET). We will also continue to extend generous levels of support for course fees and absentee payroll for approved CET courses under the Skills Development Fund (SDF).

In addition, employers will be able to leverage on more funded courses for Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) to broaden and deepen their skills. Currently, there are 300 PMET courses available and efforts are underway to roll out more courses and reach out to more PMETs when SPUR ends.

My Ministry and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) will also continue to expand the national CET system, and adopt more targeted measures to support the vision for capability and productivity driven growth. For example, the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme introduced in July 2010 encourages older low-wage workers to upgrade their skills through training, so that they can improve their employability, upgrade to better jobs and earn more.

WTS provides employers of older low-wage workers with higher course fee and absentee payroll support[1] that are on par with or higher than SPUR if they send their workers for Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) training. Older low-wage workers will also receive higher course fee funding when they sign up for WSQ training at our CET Centres, and receive Training Commitment Awards if they sustain training over a one-year period. The Government will also increase the course fee tax relief for individuals from $3,500 to $5,500 with effect from Year of Assessment 2011.

I strongly encourage companies to support the training of their workers. Workers should also take the initiative to upgrade their skillsets. This is because it is important for us to continue to enhance our productivity and maintain our economic competitiveness.

*Under WTS, employers who sponsor their employees (Singapore Citizens aged 35 and above, and earning up to $1,700 per month) for training will be eligible for up to 95% of course fee and absentee payroll support.