Hansard, 2011-02-14

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 (2011) To (2011) Mr Alvin Yeo 13 Jan 15 Jan 20 Jan 23 Jan 02 Feb 06 Feb Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 18 Jan 18 Jan 20 Jan 23 Jan Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 18 Jan 22 Jan Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 22 Jan 25 Jan Dr Lam Pin Min 23 Jan 28 Jan Mr Baey Yam Keng 24 Jan 26 Jan Mr Chan Soo Sen 24 Jan 31 Jan Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 24 Jan 26 Jan 03 Feb 05 Feb Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 24 Jan 26 Jan Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 24 Jan 30 Jan Mr Seah Kian Peng 25 Jan 31 Jan Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 26 Jan 28 Jan Mr K Shanmugam 26 Jan 31 Jan Dr Ng Eng Hen 26 Jan 28 Jan Mr Hawazi Daipi 29 Jan 05 Feb Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong 01 Feb 03 Feb Mr Zaqy Mohamad 01 Feb 01 Feb Er Lee Bee Wah 02 Feb 06 Feb 12 Mar 15 Mar Mr Teo Chee Hean 04 Feb 07 Feb Mr Wee Siew Kim 08 Feb 08 Feb 10 Feb 10 Feb 15 Feb 17 Feb 22 Feb 24 Feb 28 Feb 28 Feb 07 Mar 07 Mar 14 Mar 14 Mar 15 Mar 18 Mar 21 Mar 22 Mar Column: 2505Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 09 Feb 10 Feb 19 Feb 25 Feb Mr Inderjit Singh 09 Feb 11 Feb 01 Mar 03 Mar 06 Mar 11 Mar Dr Lee Boon Yang 16 Feb 17 Feb Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 20 Feb 23 Feb Mr Lim Hng Kiang 26 Feb 28 Feb Mrs Mildred Tan 04 Mar 11 Mar

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

25th January,2011 (1) Allied Health Professions Bill (2) Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill (3) Children And Young Persons (Amendment) Bill (4) Retirement Age (Amendment) (Bill) (5) Employment Agencies (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and

Minister for Defence in light of the tragic deaths of two full-time National Servicemen involving reversing army vehicles, what additional measures have been put in place to prevent such accidents from happening again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am saddened by the loss of Lance Corporal (LCP) Eugin Wee Yong Choon on 28th January 2011. I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family.

Assoc. Prof. Straughan referred to two incidents. The first incident occurred on 3rd July 2009 at Seletar Camp. A Motor Transport Officer was pinned under a landrover and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. A Committee of Inquiry convened to investigate the incident found that the driver of the vehicle had been negligent in his duties as a driver, and had failed to follow the correct vehicle mounting and starting procedures. The Police also conducted a separate and independent investigation. The driver of the vehicle was subsequently charged in Court for causing death by doing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. He pleaded guilty and was fined $5,000 and disqualified from driving all vehicles for four years.

Following this incident one and a half years ago in 2009, MINDEF and the SAF conducted a review on the procedures for vehicle mounting and starting and concluded that they were fundamentally sound, and the incident could have been prevented if the driver had followed them. The SAF has continued to reinforce these procedures and remind its vehicle commanders and drivers to adhere strictly to them before mounting and starting any vehicle.

The most recent incident involving LCP Eugin Wee occurred on 28th January 2011. The SAF immediately ordered a

safety time-out that same day, for unit commanders to go through with all vehicle commanders and drivers vehicular safety drills and procedures. The SAF does this when there is an incident of note because these are teachable moments when safety procedures are reinforced and lessons learnt are shared, so that every person is aware of the relevance of procedures and safety consciousness. And each person knows that safety is in his hands and that what he does or does not do can have serious consequences on his buddies or himself.

Mr Speaker, MINDEF takes the safety and well-being of our servicemen very seriously. The Army safety system is not simply one which is drawn up on its own but it is also certified in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS). Adherence to OHSAS provides a comprehensive system of safety management based on a set of standard procedures designed to systematically and methodically manage risks in our work processes. For those who are not familiar with it, OHSAS is an internationally recognised system created by a group of world-leading bodies and consultancies who are the authorities of standards. These include countries like Ireland, Australia, South Africa and Britain.

The Army constantly upkeeps our OHSAS standards and undergoes annual inspection and audit by an independent external agency. In addition, the Army also conducts internal safety management system audits on core Army units. The prescribed safety procedures are hence fundamentally sound but we have to continue to do better to make sure that they are followed. This includes regular reminders to those responsible for operating vehicles and special reminders during such teachable moments. However, safety procedures cannot cover every specific condition that may arise. Hence, it is also important that every

Serviceman has safety consciousness, looks out for the safety of his men, his buddies and himself.

MINDEF is conducting a Commission of Inquiry and the Police is independently conducting its investigations into the death of LCP Wee. As these inquiries are in progress, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this specific case incident at this point in time.

I would like to thank the Minister for assuring all parents and NSmen that their safety is of primary concern. As my son is a proud member of the SAF now, I am deeply appreciative of the Minister's detailed assurance. I have just one supplementary question. The difficulty for us in all organisations is to guard against human error more than anything else. I would like to ask the Minister if the SAF would consider having a third person involved whenever vehicles are moving forward or backward, to be that extra pair of eyes to check and to ensure that the driver is aware there is a person or persons behind the truck, rather than to just have the driver and whoever is in-charge of off-loading or taking care of those behind-the-vehicle kind of operations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure whether Assoc. Prof. Straughan is referring to a second person or a third person because we already have a second person.

The driver who is managing the vehicle, the officer or the man who is behind the vehicle and taking care of his responsibilities back there, and the third person who stands there and says, "Watch out, watch out."

Indeed, Sir, for the operation of SAF vehicles, we do have a

person called the vehicle commander and he is, in fact, responsible. He is the most senior person sitting in the vehicle. He sits next to the vehicle operator, or the driver. It is his responsibility to guide the vehicle operator and to correct him if he sees any situation which requires correction. The vehicle commander may not know the operation of the vehicle itself but he is able to assess the surrounding situation, particularly for safety. In the case where vehicles are manoeuvring in tight or confined spaces, the vehicle commander actually does dismount and guide the driver with hand signals and other signals, and helps to ensure that the area around the vehicle is cleared. As I have said, every person who is operating vehicles, the vehicle commander and others who are around vehicles have to look after themselves. We cannot cover every specific situation which may arise when operating a vehicle.

The procedures are also very, very detailed. If I may read the procedures for mounting a vehicle, or the drill which a person is supposed to go through: "open the door wide enough to get in; mount the vehicle with mounting handle; check safety; close the door firmly; check that the master switch, gear and hand brake are in the safe position; locate the main control and devices; adjust seat to correct driving posture; adjust mirrors; put on safety belt." So, there is a whole sequence of things that a person needs to do. And also before mounting the vehicle: "approach the vehicle from the front; check traffic; move around the vehicle for safety check; remove wheel chocks, obstacles", and so on. There are very detailed procedures. We need to emphasise to our vehicle operators and vehicle commanders that they do have a responsibility to themselves and to their buddies to follow the procedures.

2. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the compelling factor that prompted the Government to implement the latest property cooling measures; (b) whether the Government analysed buyer data to ascertain whether foreigners or Singaporeans were responsible for the speculative buying; and (c) why the release of state land for housing developments have not had the intended effect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the property market was very buoyant last year. To meet the strong demand, the Government had increased the supply of land for private residential development. In 2010, the Government sold land that can potentially yield about 13,300 units. For the first half of 2011, the Government launched sites under the Government Land Sales programme that can yield another 14,300 units. As at the beginning of this year, there were about 33,000 unsold units, or roughly equivalent to three years’ take-up of private residential units, if we go by the average annual take-up rate over the past four years.

Despite the large supply in the pipeline, market sentiments had remained bullish, with signs of renewed exuberance in the market towards the end of last year. The majority of the buyers were Singaporeans. We were particularly concerned that low interest rates plus excessive liquidity in the financial system, both in Singapore and globally, could further drive up demand for private housing. This, in turn, could cause prices to overshoot economic fundamentals. The interest rates would also not continue to stay low. Purchasers who over-extended themselves financially could be caught

when interest rates eventually rise, and they could be forced to sell their properties at an inopportune time.

Therefore, the Government introduced additional measures in January to pre-empt a property bubble from forming. These measures aimed to temper demand, encourage greater financial prudence among property purchasers and discourage short-term speculation.

We will continue to monitor the property market closely and take further steps, if necessary, to promote a stable and sustainable property market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what is the intended end-result of the latest cooling measures. Would the Minister like to see property prices stabilise or go down?

It is not the intention of the latest measures to crash the market, certainly, but rather to cool the market. Given the current situation of strong economic growth, low interest rates and a lot of liquidity in the market, it is not unnatural to expect that property prices would remain strong. But we do not wish to see prices shooting up so fast as to be unsupportable by the fundamentals in the market. At the same time, we also do not want to see a lot of short-term speculation in the market. Our measures in January were pre-emptive in nature because we wanted to act before a bubble forms. They were calibrated so as to cool the market and not to crash the market. They were very targeted at the short-term speculators and not at genuine home-buyers. If we meet these objectives, then I think the measures would have done the job. It is a little too early to say at this point in time what the outcome of these measures are, what the results are, because it has only been slightly over a month since we introduced the last set of measures. We will continue to monitor the

market closely and as I have said, if necessary, we will take further measures.

3. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Minister for Education what are the reasons for the consecutive fee increases in 2010 and 2011 for local students studying in polytechnics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, polytechnic fees were unchanged for three consecutive years from 2007 to 2009, due to the GST increase in 2007, and the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. Subsequently, fees were increased by $50 in each of the Academic Years, 2010 and 2011.

The increases were necessary to meet rising costs and, more importantly, because polytechnics continue to invest in capability-building initiatives in order to deliver high-quality education to Singaporeans. Where justified, it is preferable to have regular but small fee increases rather than a significant hike in any one year. Even after the current increase, the Government continues to heavily subsidise the cost of polytechnic education. The Government subsidy amounts to about 86%. MOE and the polytechnics will also ensure that various modes of financial assistance are available to students and that no eligible or deserving student is denied a polytechnic education due to financial difficulties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, given the concerns over rising inflation, could the increases have been further delayed, perhaps for a year? Secondly, could the fee increases have been applied to new cohorts only, in other words, for students who are enrolled from this year onwards? And, thirdly, will financial assistance be expanded in connection with this round of fee increases?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. Could the fee increases have been delayed? Of course, in principle, yes. But I think it is a balance between what is happening on the ground, in terms of the needs of the polytechnics operationally and the costs that they are dealing with, and the plans they have to enhance their capabilities versus upping the burden on students. In this case, if Members look at the order of the magnitude of the increase, it is about 2%. It has gone up from about $2,100 to $2,150, so it is a $50 increase, or about 2%. In the case of most students, it should be within their means to meet that increase.

Secondly, would it be preferable to apply the increase only to new cohorts versus the entire enrolment? The answer is what the past practice has been and maintaining the equity and the treatment. The treatment is always being that the entire enrolment is affected by the fee increase. If we now change the policy, there will be questions of inequitable treatment.

Thirdly, the Member asked for assurances on whether we are expanding the financial assistance scheme. As Members are well aware, we have a whole slew of financial assistance measures, ranging from loans to bursaries and other community-based support measures. At this stage, about half the students in the polytechnics avail themselves of this range of facilities. We will continue to be ready to make them available as required. There is no resource constraint on that score.

Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I recall that when I was in university and there was a round of fee increases, it applied only to new cohorts. I am making this appeal to the MOE to consider such a practice for the polytechnics. I do not know whether the universities still do that, but I am making

a case for such a practice, if it has not been in practice, then to be in place. It gives assurances to parents whose children are already enrolled. Sir, I would like MOE to consider that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully understand where the Member is coming from and I empathise with her motivations. I just want to draw a distinction between the university fees and polytechnic fees. A key consideration is the order of the magnitude of difference. The typical university fees are at least three times what the polytechnic students pay. When we are talking in terms of financial planning, there is a significant difference. In university fees, we look for about 25% cost recovery and we are not quite there yet. In the case of our polytechnic students, it is a far lower target level. We are talking about very different orders of magnitude. But the point is well-taken. In the first instance, our objective is to ensure, and it is a central tenet of our education system, that any deserving student that is admitted to the polytechnics will not be deprived of that education because of financial issues. If it is because of the marginal fee increase, then that will be rectified.

4. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Minister for Education why is there a need to announce PSLE results along ethnic categories.

Mr Speaker, after each national examination, various ethnic groups and their corresponding language media show keen interest on the identity of the top students from each of their respective communities in order to recognise and celebrate their achievements. The Ministry has therefore been

releasing listings of the top students from the major races in national examinations since the 1990s.

This practice is consistent with our overall approach of regular release of national examination results by ethnic group since 1988. This provides feedback to the various communities on how their students have fared and to monitor the effectiveness of their programmes.

Sir, I see the value of ethnic category-based results to ethnic self-help groups, for example. Could the Ministry consider at the mass media level when the information is released to the general public – in other words, the announcement to the public – that it is presented as a whole instead of being divided along ethnic lines? I am concerned about students, in particular ethnic communities, who may not have fared as well. Can I have a response from the Government, please?

Mr Speaker, there is no sinister reason why we communicate this along ethnic lines. Basically, like myself, when the Malay community performs well and the top students are announced, I celebrate just like my community does, and even my wife, when she opens the newspaper in the morning. I think this practice is consistent. We will continue with it. We are celebrating for the four races – Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian – 98% of the community in Singapore.

5. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport with the building of the North-South Expressway (NSE) in highly urbanised areas (a) what are the considerations taken to minimise the impact of noise levels on residents when the NSE is in operation; (b) why certain

segments of the NSE are not designed as a full tunnel; and (c) what is the total cost of the project and duration of the construction.

Mr Speaker, the North-South Expressway (NSE) is a major road project that will provide a high speed road link to the city centre from residential estates such as Woodlands, Sembawang, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio and Toa Payoh. Many residents will directly benefit from the NSE as travel time to the city is expected to be reduced by up to 30% after its opening. Without the NSE, congestion on major roads along the North-South corridor, such as the CTE and Thomson Road, will build up with the expected future growth in households living in the North. We estimate that the entire NSE project will cost between $7 billion and $8 billion, and that construction will take about six to seven years.

The Government proceeded with the NSE project only after careful planning and deliberation. We considered various factors, including the need to minimise land acquisition and land take, and to mitigate the potential disamenities that could result from the project. We also strived to adopt the most cost-effective solutions available.

As far as possible, LTA has designed the NSE as a full tunnel in the highly urbanised areas. However, this is not always feasible. The NSE was designed as a semi-tunnel between the SLE and south of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 9, and between Sin Ming Avenue and north of Pemimpin Place after careful consideration. In order for these stretches to be full tunnels, more land would be needed for ventilation buildings. These are large buildings, each requiring around 15,000 square metres of land. They have to be sited close to the tunnel, and at certain intervals to fulfil ventilation requirements.

The possible sites for these ventilation buildings such as the undeveloped land around Lentor Avenue and Yio Chu Kang Road are encumbered by the existing MRT viaduct or currently form part of MINDEF’s training ground, or are close to Yio Chu Kang MRT Station where the land has been set aside for high-density residential use. To place a ventilation building on any of these sites would put at risk the operations of a live MRT line or impede training for our national defence, or constrain our ability to have more homes in close proximity to the Yio Chu Kang MRT Station. In addition, a ventilation building in the vicinity of Bishan Park would also be required. However, this would adversely affect PUB’s Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC) upgrading programme at the heavily-used park.

I hope Members will understand that some difficult decisions had to be taken in order to bring about a major road project like the NSE. The Government had to decide on an alignment and expressway design that takes into consideration the competing land uses while still meeting its intended purpose.

We recognise that some premise owners and residents may have concerns with noise from the NSE. Let me assure Members that, regardless of the configuration, LTA will ensure that the NSE will comply with NEA’s standards for road traffic noise when the NSE is in operation. LTA will conduct a detailed engineering study and implement appropriate mitigation measures wherever necessary. Possible measures include dense planting, the use of porous asphalt on the road surface, and design features such as shaped screens at the openings of the semi-tunnels to reflect traffic noise away from residents as much as possible.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the comprehensive

answer. I have four supplementary questions. Since the announcement of the NSE, I have been receiving overwhelming feedback from my residents from three condominium developments. Due to the overwhelming feedback from the affected residents, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider converting the semi-tunnels that are close to the residential area to full tunnels. The second question: how sure is the Minister that the noise mitigation measures just mentioned, for example, the planting, porous asphalt and shaped screens, will work? The third question: how long will LTA take to conclude the details of these noise-mitigation measures studies? Lastly, the six to seven years of construction period is very long for the affected residents. Can the Minister look into phased completion, that is, to get the contractor to finish the stretch near to the residents in a shorter duration?

First, I would like to thank the Member. I know the Member has been working hard and bringing the concerns of the residents to the LTA. LTA has found this very useful, and I think the Member's decision to form a working committee in her constituency to look into this matter is a good one. The Member has my assurance that LTA will work very closely with her on how best to address these concerns.

Let me now take the Member's four supplementary questions. On the issue of whether we could convert the semi-tunnel to a closed tunnel, I have explained in my reply why we could not do so. LTA, in the planning process, considered as one possibility a full tunnel in the affected areas. To do that, they needed to find land to put the ventilation building. The ventilation building is quite sizeable – 15,000 square metres, which is close to two-and-a-half football fields. They have to find land for that. The possible land sites had competing uses. Members know that in Singapore, our scarcest resource is

land. So in any project that we do, we try our very best to minimise the land take. We have a Master Planning Committee, chaired by the URA Chief Planner, comprising all the land-use agencies from MINDEF to HDB. They sit whenever there is a major road project like this, looking at all these competing land uses for the land. They decide on what is the appropriate balance. In the case of a major road project, they need to balance the need to minimise the land take against the need to minimise the potential disamenities of the major road project. They went through a very rigorous process over a few years looking into these, and the road configuration they decided upon is what they feel would maximise the overall benefit for Singaporeans, as a whole, in the long term.

The Member's second question refers to the noise mitigation measures. LTA actually has considerable experience in doing these. This is not the first time that LTA, because of the compact nature of Singapore, has had to build a major road in close proximity to residential areas. They have done this before, and have been fairly successful in ensuring that it complies with the NEA's standard for road traffic noise. Those measures that I have mentioned in my reply are things that they have done before, whether it is dense planting, using porous asphalt or shaped screens to reflect the noise inwards. These are things that they have had some experience with.

Could the Member repeat the third question?

How long will LTA take to study all these measures? As I understand, they are at the studying stage. Like the shaped screens, I think there is no project that uses the shaped screens as yet.

They are studying it right now. They are doing the

engineering studies and I think they will try to complete it as soon as possible and explain to the Member's residents once they are done. One of the estates in the Member's constituency – I think it is Bullion Park Condominium – came up with a suggestion on how to put the screen. LTA is looking into all of these suggestions.

Yes, the project takes six to seven years. It is a major project that goes from the North to the South. Can we complete it in phases? I think this is something that LTA can consider to see how best it can be done.

6. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Health (a) what circumstances led to the demise of the participant from the "Lose To Win" reality TV programme organised by the Health Promotion Board; (b) whether there were sufficient safeguards in place to ensure participants were selected carefully and the weight loss programme executed safely; and (c) whether there were any other adverse consequences experienced by other participants of this programme.

7. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he will provide details on the "Lose to Win" programme of the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to encourage people to lose weight and the medical and scientific basis for such promotion of health; (b) what were the causes that led to the death of a contestant; and (c) what assurances can be provided that future HPB health-related promotions will not compromise public safety.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 6 and 7 together?

Yes, please.

Dr Lam and Dr Ong referred to the late Mr Ong Joo Aun who had participated in the Health Promotion Board’s "Lose to Win" programme. We were all saddened to learn of his death.

The late Mr Ong took part in the “Lose to Win” programme in 2009, two years ago. He joined the programme to raise his fitness level. During the course of the 12-week programme, he lost 3.2 kg from his original weight of 75.8 kg. His Body Mass Index (BMI) improved from 28 to 26.

For the 2010 "Lose to Win", Mr Ong did not compete in it. However, he joined the group exercises as a returning alumnus. He was a jovial and cheerful person, and very popular with other participants and the trainers.

In fact, in December, on his own accord, he joined and completed a 10-km run at the Standard Chartered Marathon. His family and colleagues were very proud of his achievement.

On 22nd January, Mr Ong took part in a fitness assessment organised by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) at Yishun Stadium. The assessment included a safety briefing, a 10-minute warm-up session, followed by a 2-km walk test. All safety procedures were in place: HPB and fitness staff kept watch on the participants; an ambulance was on standby, with three paramedics.

The walk was uneventful. All the 67 participants completed the 2-km walk, taking from 14 to 23 minutes. Mr Ong completed it in 17 minutes, an average speed of 7 km per hour. As part of the fitness assessment, his heart rate was measured at the end of the walk. It registered 93 beats per minute.

While he was resting and chatting with fellow participants, he suddenly collapsed. The paramedics were close by

and they were able to deliver immediate resuscitative measures while he was sent to the nearby Khoo Teck Puat Hospital by ambulance. Unfortunately, he passed away soon after at the hospital. The cause of death was recorded as "ischaemic heart disease".

The "Lose to Win" is a team-based, 12-week programme. It includes comprehensive fitness assessments, supervised physical activities and nutrition workshops. After the course, there are follow-up maintenance activities. The entire programme is designed to achieve a safe approach to losing weight. While there is some competitive element to raise interest among the participants and the TV audience, HPB’s programme emphasises safe, gradual and sustainable weight loss. This is a very different approach from similar reality TV programmes in other countries.

There are safety measures at various stages of the programme. First, the programme is designed to target weight loss at not more than one kilogramme per week. Second, the programme does not take in applicants whose BMIs exceed 37.

5. Such applicants are advised to join hospital-based weight management programmes instead. Third, there are rigorous screening procedures to pick up applicants with medical risk. The latter will require medical clearance to participate. In Mr Ong’s case, although he had a heart bypass 10 years ago, his doctor had found his medical condition stable and that he was fit to exercise regularly. Fourth, the exercises are properly supervised as I have described earlier.

Apart from this incident involving Mr Ong, there had been no adverse consequences, other than simple muscle strains and sprains. Nevertheless, to be absolutely sure, HPB has suspended the "Lose to Win" programme. We have also set up an expert panel to review the entire programme including its selection criteria

and safety measures. The panel is chaired by Prof. Ng Han Seong, Chairman of the Medical Board of the Singapore General Hospital.

Meanwhile, the fight against obesity remains a priority for my Ministry. With rising obesity, we must all strive to win this battle in a sustainable and safe way.

I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. I am glad that all safety measures were in place in this incident. I understand that there had been several physical activity-related deaths over the past few years, and one life lost is one too many.

I would like to ask the Minister if the investigation results and lessons learned in this incident were shared between the Ministries and also with the relevant stakeholders; if not, whether such a practice can be implemented so that organisers of sports-related events can learn from this incident and minimise unnecessary loss of lives in the future.

The short answer is "yes". Once the panel has completed its findings, we will certainly want to share them with other organisers as well as to make them public.

8. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) what criteria are used to determine whether or not a drug is to be listed on the Standard List and how often is this list reviewed; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider higher subsidies for implants instead of the current fixed quantum for patients in the subsidised wards.

Our Standard Drug List (SDL) was modelled after the World Health Organization's (WHO) Essential Drug List, with modifications to

suit local disease profiles and practice. It consists of drugs assessed to be cost-effective and essential to the provision of medical care to all Singaporeans. The assessment is done objectively and professionally by the Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) which comprises a few senior doctors and chaired by the Director of Medical Services.

The DAC, with inputs from other clinicians, reviews the SDL on a yearly basis to take into account changes in clinical practice and advances in medical science. It considers three main factors when determining whether a drug should enter into the SDL:

whether the drug is essential for the treatment of medical conditions that are important causes of morbidity and mortality in Singapore;

whether the drug offers a major improvement in terms of efficacy and effectiveness, as compared to existing standard drugs; and

whether there is sufficient evidence of long-term safety and cost-benefits of the drug.

As for implants, we do not have an equivalent standard implant list. Instead, our general policy is to subsidise 50% of the cost of the implant prescribed by the doctor, subject to a cap of $500 per implant. The guideline to our doctors is to prescribe implants that are cost-effective. This is to save money for the subsidised patients.

We review the subsidy cap regularly to ensure that implants remain affordable. Eighty per cent of implants used in the public hospitals cost below $1,000 each. This explains the current subsidy cap.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions to ask

the Minister. Firstly, given the concerns of our rising healthcare cost, could the Ministry consider covering more medicines under the Standard Drug List? Secondly, there is a fund which pays for non-standard medicines, such as most recently HIV has been included for those who cannot afford to pay for this medicine. Could the Ministry consider expanding the scope of this to cover other medicines as well? Thirdly, could the Ministry also consider increasing the $500 limit imposed for subsidising implants precisely because of rising cost of healthcare? Finally, for the more expensive implants ordered by the doctor, and not by the patient, could the Ministry consider subsidising these implants as well for those who are in the subsidised wards?

As I have said, we review the Standard Drug List as well as the subsidy cap regularly. We will revise them when necessary but it has to be based on logic and evidence. Whether we would include more drugs into SDL: if there is justification for it, we will. We have been reviewing the SDL annually. In fact, we are right now in this exercise. The inputs from the doctors are rolling in and the committee will be meeting soon, and we will see.

The special fund that the Member mentioned is the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) which I introduced last year, precisely to help needy patients who are hit by very expensive but essential drugs which are not yet on the Standard Drug List, subject to means testing. Again, we are in the midst of reviewing the MAF and I may be able to do some adjustments soon.

As for the payment of non-standard items which are ordered by the doctors and for which patients have difficulty in payment: remember our 3Ms. Subsidy is not the only pillar for ensuring

affordability. There is also Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. And that is why, periodically, I adjust Medisave withdrawal limits and MediShield claim limits to assist patients with that kind of problem. If over and above that, there is a need for Medifund, we will always be sympathetic.

9. Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the principal considerations for the Government's decision to gazette The Online Citizen (TOC) as a political association; (b) what did the TOC do that differentiates it from other blogs that post political and social commentaries; and (c) what are the principal restrictions on the TOC as a political association in using its new media platforms in a general election.

Sir, with your leave, I am answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Political Donations Act (PDA) sets out a framework to protect our political process from foreign interference. It prohibits political associations from accepting donations from foreign sources, and requires transparency on large donations received. Several countries have similar laws concerning foreign donations to political and lobby groups, including the United States, Canada, India, France, Japan, Germany, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The Online Citizen (TOC) is not a passive website that simply hosts social or political commentaries by individuals which have nothing to do with it. It provides coverage, commentary and analysis of political issues, and a platform for discussing such issues. TOC has organised online and offline campaigns to change legislation and Government policies, provided a forum for local politicians, and polls on public support for

local politicians and on other political issues concerning Singapore. The PDA defines a "political association" to include "an organisation … whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore and which is declared by the Minister, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of the Act". The Attorney General’s Chambers has advised that TOC is a political association within the meaning of this provision.

Declaring TOC as a political association will not hinder its existing activities, nor impede its freedom of expression. The primary impact of the gazetting is that TOC cannot receive funding from foreign sources, and it cannot receive anonymous donations beyond $5,000 a year.

Apart from the prohibition against foreign funding, there are no additional restrictions on the lawful activities of TOC. It can also continue to receive financial support from Singaporeans and Singapore-controlled companies.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response as well as the assurance he has provided. I am just wondering if the Government would be able to give further assurance to the ground, and in particular netizens, some of whom were concerned that this particular act of gazetting the TOC is politically motivated.

It appears from what the Minister has highlighted that that is not the motivation. But could we have an assurance from the Government, please?

Some questions are asked because the answer is sought. Some questions are asked to make a political statement. I think this question falls in that second category. I have made it very clear that, first of all, what the criterion is under the Political Donations Act (PDA) and, second, why we say TOC

falls within the definition. And when Government makes such a move, it does so with advice from the Attorney-General. Here, there is the advice that, on the facts, TOC is a political association and that therefore it ought to be so gazetted. The facts fit the law and the step was taken, and it has no impact on any activity that TOC wishes to do. That is critical. So whatever netizens or others may think, look at what the consequences are. The consequences are that the main restriction is that TOC cannot receive foreign donations and anonymous donations over $5,000. What is wrong with that?

10. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will explain the rationale for allowing citizen siblings and PR siblings to buy an HDB flat even though they do not constitute a proper family nucleus; and (b) whether there will be a review of this policy and, if so, what is the timeframe for this review.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB flats cater primarily to the housing needs of families. Unmarried children are strongly encouraged to stay with their parents for mutual care and support. Nevertheless, single Singaporeans may purchase resale flats with a housing grant under the Single Singapore Citizen (SSC) Scheme or Joint Singles (JS) Scheme if they meet the criteria.

In 1990, HDB introduced a scheme to cater to, on a case-by-case basis, unmarried Singaporean or Permanent Resident (PR) siblings who cannot form an eligible family nucleus to buy a flat because their parents reside overseas. This was necessary then because the sublet market for HDB flats and rooms

was limited, and there were few viable housing options for these siblings. Under the scheme, Singaporean siblings could buy a new or resale flat while PR siblings could only buy a resale flat. Their parents must not already own and cannot subsequently own another HDB flat concurrently. As HDB has been very stringent in assessing applications for this scheme, the number of such cases is small – there are about 300 cases each year, or less than 1% of total flat transactions.

With the liberalisation of the subletting market for HDB flats over the years, unmarried Singaporean or PR siblings whose parents are residing overseas can now rent a room or a small flat from the open market. As such, this scheme is no longer necessary and HDB will be discontinuing it with immediate effect.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in that case, whether unmarried PRs would also be allowed to buy a flat because HDB is discontinuing the scheme to allow Singapore citizen siblings to buy a flat.

This will apply to Permanent Residents as well.

11. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the attempt by an employer to penalise its staff who take sick leave during Chinese New Year is against any law; and (b) what more can be done to protect the interest of workers in Singapore against unreasonable exploitation especially during festive periods.

Sir, under the Employment Act, an employee has the right to take sick leave. While employers can introduce incentive schemes to motivate their employees to meet operational needs or enhance productivity, schemes which deny employees of their right to take sick leave would not be in line with the law. Employers should not unfairly penalise their employees for taking such leave.

If employees feel that they are being compelled not to take sick leave or are unfairly penalised in the consumption of sick leave, they can seek advice and assistance from MOM. If they are union members, they can also seek help from their union. On the part of the employer, they could better familiarise themselves with the law by attending training courses as well as to work with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) or other employer organisations to look into how appropriate incentive schemes could be introduced without depriving employees of their rights under the law.

Sir, I have a few supplementary questions. First, besides denying employees from taking sick leave which is a very clear infringement of the Employment Act, there could be other forms of exploitation of the workers, such as requiring them to work unnecessarily long hours. I would like to ask whether there is any clear guideline on the working hours and the demands that the employer can make on the employees during festive periods. Secondly, I would like to know whether there are any cases of complaint of exploitation during festive periods by the workers and, if there are, how many are there in the last few years. And, thirdly, what is the redress that workers can seek?

Sir, complaints from employees that they have been compelled

to work during the festive holidays even when they are on sick leave is not an issue. On whether there are any other forms of abuse by employers, there can be. But if employees have any issue with that, they can come to MOM for advice or seek the advice of their union leaders if their company is unionised. As I said in my reply, it is an offence to deprive any worker of their sick leave.

12. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what initiatives has the Ministry introduced to reduce employers' dependence on low-paying work; and (b) how active are employers in redesigning low-level work or amenities so as to reduce dependence on foreign workers.

Sir, the proportion of low-paying, low-skilled work in a company depends on its nature of business. For example, a manual cleaning company would have more low-paying jobs than one that is automated and uses more mechanisation. However, all companies can improve over time, if they innovate and automate. In fact, raising productivity is our key strategy to achieving sustainable and inclusive growth.

The National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) was established to drive our national effort in productivity improvement over this decade. The Government has set aside $2 billion to support the various productivity initiatives. One such initiative is the $40 million Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP), spearheaded by the NTUC. IGP aims to support companies in their efforts to redesign jobs, encourage automation and promote best-sourcing initiatives. Five months into its implementation, a total of 166 productivity improvement projects has been commissioned, benefiting

15,000 low-wage workers. More than 80% of these workers are expected to experience wage gains of over 10%.

One example under the IGP initiative is the HotSOS system implemented in Novotel Singapore at Clarke Quay. Under the project, front office staff, bellmen, technicians, housekeepers and operators on duty will carry an iTouch (it is a PDA device) to monitor service requests. With many-to-many instant communication channels, Novotel's employees can now respond to customers' requests speedily and satisfactorily. As a result, the hotel will realise 10% savings in service recoveries and the savings will be shared amongst employees in the form of higher wages.

Last year, the Government also introduced the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC). Companies that invest in the qualifying activities such as training, automation and process redesign can deduct 250% of their first $300,000 spending on each activity from their taxable income. Companies can make full use of the PIC incentive to raise their productivity.

Beyond the company level, we also provide opportunities for our workers to continually upgrade their skills, so that they will become more productive and take on better-paying jobs. Under the CET Masterplan, we continue to add breadth and depth to the Singapore Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) infrastructure. As at last year, there are 26 WSQ frameworks, comprising about 12,500 courses, to meet the skill upgrading needs of our workforce.

To further encourage more low-wage workers to attend training, we introduced the Workfare Training Support (WTS) scheme in July last year. Under WTS, employers receive generous subsidies on course fees and absentee payroll support

in sending their low-wage workers for training. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) also subsidises company-specific training programmes that are directly relevant to productivity improvement.

To complement all these productivity measures, my Ministry announced last year that we will progressively increase foreign worker levies in phases. We have already implemented two phases of the foreign levy increases. This will help to provide an additional push for our companies to invest in productivity and training, and reduce their reliance on low-skilled foreign workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. We used to have productivity campaigns. Would the Minister of State consider reviving this campaign for different areas, such as food preparation, busing table and retail sales?

Sir, the NPCEC is driving the national effort in terms of productivity and 12 sectors have been identified to develop sector-specific productivity improvement plans. We need to do so because each of the sectors has its own requirements in terms of technology adoption and workforce skills upgrading. By doing so, we hope to evolve various specific solutions that are optimised for each of the sectors. In terms of general buzz, education and awareness building, the NPCEC, through its Secretariat, is also considering various options.

13. Assoc. Prof. Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if

he will update the House on the flood control measures taken to manage flooding in Singapore; and (b) how have these measures helped to manage the flash flood incidents in view of the recent heavy rain spells.

Sir, I would like to update Members on the progress of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) flood control measures since my previous statement in July last year. PUB has an ongoing drainage improvement programme to reduce flood prone areas. Since the 1970s, Singapore's flood prone areas have been reduced from about 3,000 hectares to 58 hectares in 2010. This will be reduced further to 40 hectares by 2013. A number of drainage improvement projects are in progress, such as the upgrading of the Bukit Timah Canal from Jalan Kampong Chantek to Maple Avenue and the Geylang River from Guillemard Road to Dunman Road. Work to raise Orchard Road is also progressing smoothly and will be completed by June 2011.

In addition, PUB has worked with building owners affected by the floods last year to implement flood protection measures. For example, Liat Towers has installed a flood barrier at the front of their building, which can be raised to protect the basement shops from flood waters entering their premises.

To provide the public with early warning of possible floods, information from PUB's network of sensors, which tracks water levels in the key canals, has been made available on PUB's website. We have increased the number of sensors from 32 to 90, and this will be further increased to 150 by the end of this year to provide more comprehensive coverage. An SMS alert system to inform subscribers of impending heavy rain and rising water levels in canals has also been

developed. Schools and building management in areas which have a history of flooding have already been put on these automated SMS alert systems.

Sir, our drainage infrastructure has held up well during the recent monsoon season. There were a few minor and localised flooding incidents despite the heavy and prolonged rains in January and these were typically resolved within an hour. PUB will continue its efforts to enhance the drainage infrastructure to alleviate occurrences of floods, within the constraints of cost effectiveness and competing use for limited land in Singapore.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, the Minister mentioned the SMS alert system for heavy rain and flood risk. I would like the Minister to elaborate further on how users have responded to such a system and how it has helped to manage the whole process of managing floods in Singapore. Secondly, I would like to know how effective have been the measures taken so far, with regard to the areas in the heartlands, particularly, the public housing estates where majority of Singaporeans are staying.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The PUB and NEA have developed the SMS alert system to provide early warnings of heavy rains and rising water levels in canals so that subscribers can be better protected against for floods. In fact, the feedback that we have received is that it is very well utilised. Obviously, for owners who were affected in the floods last year, the alert about the possibility of floods will be very useful for them. And in fact, this system will be opened to the public for subscription by the middle of this year. We want to extend the system as much as possible.

Let me turn now to the second question of whether or not the flood-alleviation programme has been effective. If the Member looked at the numbers alone in the flood-proned areas, the numbers have been coming down from the 1970s, from about 3,000 hectares to about 58 hectares. So, it shows that our programme has been effective. But as I mentioned in my reply, there are certain areas whereby it may be difficult for us to do so because of certain constraints. As I have mentioned in my previous reply, in certain areas, we have to wait when the place is being re-developed, and we can then do something. Meanwhile, we will do our very best to try and help Singaporeans as much as possible to build up protection measures. I have mentioned in my reply about what building owners can do, household owners also can do something as has been done in the previous flood incident in June where several of our advisors met the PUB to discuss what we can do in some of the landed property areas.

In the heartlands, when we do come across flooding, they tend to be localised incidents as a result of chokage and therefore, maintenance of our drains become important and, here, we work very closely with the local authorities to ensure debris are removed as soon as possible.

14. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether there are any measures in place to ensure that hawker centres and food courts do not overcharge or continue increasing their prices indiscriminately; and (b) what can be done to help residents when food prices in wet markets and supermarkets become more expensive because of an increase in demand.

Sir, we share the public's concerns if stallholders

are overcharging and we urge stallholders to charge fair prices. This is in their own longer term interest as consumers have no lack of choices and raising prices indiscriminately will make them less competitive.

Sir, there are several factors which have an impact on food prices such as the cost of raw materials and labour, stall rentals, as well as market competition. About 42% of the nearly 15,000 cooked food and market stalls that NEA manages are paying subsidised rentals. This has helped to keep food prices affordable.

Sir, we recognise that some segments of the population may be more impacted by the rise in food prices than others. The Government has schemes administered by MCYS to support families in hardship. Low-income families who need assistance with basic living can approach the Community Development Councils for help.

Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive response. Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, what can be done to help retirees and low-income households when the population in their district surges and food prices in hawker centres and wet markets go up? Secondly, would the Ministry consider having hawker centres in all housing estates?

Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, in terms of assistance to retirees and low-income families, there are many schemes administered both by MCYS, CDCs and even at the local constituency level. The best solution is really for us to find ways to assist them and point them to the various schemes which I am sure the Member is familiar with. I will not have to reiterate all the schemes administered by MCYS. Thus far, from our experience,

most retirees and low-income families do avail themselves of the help which is available on the ground.

To the Member's second question as to whether we can assure that there is a hawker centre in every housing estate, the Member would know, we have stopped building hawker centres. The point is that if you look at the spread of hawker centres that we have in Singapore, there are sufficient numbers across all localities for people to avail themselves of food at affordable prices.

15. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the Ministry will consider providing subsidies for parents who send their children to student care centres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MCYS currently provides subsidies for student care fees under the Student Care Financial Assistance (SCFA) Scheme for families with household incomes of up to $2,500 per month. The subsidies range between $60 and $180 per child. About 2,600 children currently benefit from the SCFA Scheme. We have no plans to introduce more subsidies beyond the SCFA, as student care fees are still generally affordable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I came across a household where the sole breadwinner – the father – told me of an instance where his child was receiving student care subsidy. He subsequently received a salary adjustment. He got more pay but as a result of that, the student care centre stopped giving him the

subsidy. So, he said that, "I ended up getting $200 more pay but I also ended up with no subsidy, so in essence, I did not experience a pay increase." Could MCYS look at, perhaps, tiering the subsidy so that the family still feels that it did have improved circumstances and not have the subsidy taken away?

I think we can consider that.

16. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the Ministry will consider increasing the family income ceiling for eligibility to the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Child Care (CFAC) and Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) from the current $1,800 to $2,500 so that more families can qualify and be encouraged to have more children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Child Care (CFAC) and Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) provide fee subsidies to help low-income families send their preschool children to childcare centres and kindergartens respectively.

In July 2008, we extended the CFAC and KiFAS income criteria from $1,500 to $1,800 to help more low-income families afford preschool education for their children. The number of children who have benefited from these schemes has increased over the last three years. In FY2009, about 3,200 children received CFAC and another 7,200 children received KiFAS, an increase of 24% for CFAC and 15% for KiFAS from FY2007.

As part of our regular reviews, we are studying the scope and adequacy of CFAC and KiFAS to help more low-income

families afford preschool education. Sir, we will consider Mdm Halimah's suggestion.

Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister of State if the Ministry can relax the criteria for CFAC, especially the requirement for both the mother and the father to work to qualify for the subsidy? Would the Minister of State not agree that this would inadvertently disadvantage lower-income families since in these families, the mother is usually unable to work, and the children should not be penalised for this situation and should be able to have the opportunity to go to childcare centres to get a good foundation for life?

The childcare philosophy is to encourage the women to work. We have already relaxed the criteria because for those housewives who send their children for half-day care, we would still help them, so that they can get half subsidy. For instance, those women who want to go back to work, or whom we encourage to go back to work, we would also consider giving them support. So, it is not only those women who are already working. If they are prepared to come back to work or they are seeking a job or are under training, we do consider giving them subsidy. The whole philosophy, so far, is to encourage the women to work and help them remain in the workforce.

Can I ask the Minister of State if the intention of the subsidy is to encourage children to go to childcare centres no matter what their financial situation is at home, or to encourage women to work? Because then, we will have very different policy outcomes.

That is true. So far, the schemes are to encourage

mothers to go back to work, especially those in low-income families. We hope that they can supplement the husband's income and that will encourage the children to have a better start and better education, and we hope that the children will get out from the poverty cycle.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for the positive response to my suggestion. Can I ask the Minister of State when the review will be completed and the new rates introduced?

Very soon.

17. Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the measures in place to (i) promote the safety of elderly pedestrians, especially at traffic crossings; (ii) encourage the able-bodied public to assist the vulnerable frail elderly crossing alone; and (b) what can be done to ensure that speeding cyclists stop and look out at pedestrian crossings so as not to endanger the elderly.

We recognise that the elderly form a vulnerable group of road users, and the Government has placed emphasis on both public education and infrastructure improvements to promote the safety of elderly pedestrians on our roads. LTA and the Traffic Police have been working together on this.

The Traffic Police has tailored their education and engagement efforts to better inculcate road safety awareness amongst the elderly. For instance, the annual Shell Traffic Games was revised

last year to include senior citizen participants. The Traffic Police and the People's Association, with their Citizens on Patrol and Community Emergency Response Teams, have also organised many smaller-scale activities to disseminate road safety messages to elderly residents during patrols and community events. Radio commercials carrying road safety messages in the various Chinese dialects have also been broadcast to reach out to the elderly.

In addition, LTA has also improved the design of pedestrian crossing facilities over the years to enhance pedestrian safety. Since 2009, LTA has piloted the Green Man Plus scheme that allows senior citizens to extend their crossing times at selected pedestrian crossings through the use of their senior citizen Contactless e-Purse Application (CEPAS) concession cards. This has been well-received and LTA is exploring the expansion of the scheme to other parts of the island. Other infrastructural improvements that have been introduced at various selected locations include raised zebra crossings, dotted pedestrian crossing lines that help motorists distinguish pedestrian crossing zones from vehicular stop lines, and green man countdown timers that allow pedestrians to know the time remaining for them to cross the roads. These improvements enhance the safety for all pedestrians, including the elderly. As for cyclists, they are required to adhere to the road traffic regulations when travelling along the roads. Accidents can be prevented if good road use etiquette is practised.

The Traffic Police has been working with the Singapore Sports Council to display road safety banners along routes used regularly by cyclists. They are also collaborating with the Safe Cycling Task Force to conduct safe cycling clinics at various community clubs and grassroots

events. And these clinics cover a pre-riding checklist and impart safe cycling tips.

The Traffic Police also reaches out to the various dormitories and organisations that employ a large number of foreign workers to promote road safety awareness amongst the foreign workers. A road safety video on safe cycling habits has been produced and screened at the premises of the Ministry of Manpower, the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority and the major dormitories to reinforce this message.

The LTA and Traffic Police will continue their efforts to improve transport facilities, public education and enforcement efforts. We encourage the public to use our roads responsibly, with due consideration for our elderly and less mobile road users.

Thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Older people find it very hard to climb the overhead bridges. Is there any way to make them more accessible or any breakthrough solution to this problem?

I do not think I will call it "breakthrough" but I believe Members have raised the possibility of having lifts on overhead bridges, especially for the elderly. And I believe the Member, Er Lee Bee Wah, has raised this a couple of times. We are already exploring the possibility of retrofitting selected overhead bridges in the immediate vicinity of MRT stations with lifts. We will share more of our feasibility studies soon and the next steps that we will take.

18. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will consider introducing caps on the amount

of interest that licensed moneylenders can levy in view of the exorbitant rates that some are charging their borrowers since the law was liberalised in 2008.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we amended the Moneylenders Act in November 2008, we had carefully reviewed the issue of whether the interest rate caps for moneylending transactions should be lifted. Interest rate caps may not necessarily protect the borrower, as the moneylender can simply refuse to lend if he judges the risk too high. So if all interest rates were capped, moneylenders would be reluctant to lend to people with higher credit risk, who may then have no choice but to turn to loansharks. It was for this reason that interest rate caps were eventually lifted.

Sir, I should point out that, nevertheless, certain caps remain in place in the Act to protect low-income borrowers earning less than $20,000 annually and who take small loans of no more than $3,000. We know that at times, borrowers with low or no immediate income may need to have access to credit to deal with situations such as family emergencies.

Sir, at the same time that the interest rate caps were lifted, safeguards to protect borrowers were put in place. Firstly, before granting a loan, the moneylender must inform the borrower of all the terms and conditions of the loan, including the interest rate, in a language that the borrower understands. The intent is to enable the borrower to make an informed choice. Secondly, the quantum of unsecured loans is capped at two or four times the borrower’s monthly income, depending on the borrower’s income. This safeguard discourages individuals from spending beyond their means. Thirdly, the moneylender is required to give the borrower a copy of the loan contract and

provide half-yearly statements of account. These statements must contain details such as the principal, interest and fees outstanding.

Sir, let me emphasise that borrowers have a right to ask, and indeed should ask, the moneylender to explain all the fees. They should also compare interest rates offered by different moneylenders. There are 239 licensed moneylenders listed on the website of the Registry of Moneylenders, up from 221 at the end of 2009.

And, finally, Sir, where the interest or late interest charged is harsh or excessive and the borrower finds the transaction substantially unfair or unconscionable, he can file a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal or the Court under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act or section 23 of the Moneylenders Act. The borrower can also lodge a complaint with the Registry of Moneylenders, who will investigate and take to task moneylenders who flout the law.

Sir, I have three questions for the Senior Minister of State. My first question is to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Ministry monitor licensed moneylenders to make sure that they comply with the law? My second question is: how can borrowers charged with excessive interest rates seek redress? The Senior Minister of State has actually mentioned that they can seek redress at the Small Claims Tribunal. How many such claims have been filed and have been successful? Thirdly, I do believe that borrowers, too, have some responsibility. Could the Senior Minister of State advise this House in what ways we can educate borrowers to know about their own responsibility as well when they borrow money from licensed moneylenders?

Sir, I thank the Member for the three questions. First,

on how compliance can be effected. When we amended the Act in November 2008, we also enhanced the Registry of Moneylender (ROM)'s powers. For example, the Registrar is actually very proactive. When complaints are received, together sometimes with the Police, they can carry out raids on the premises, to inspect documents. And, indeed, returns are also required now of the moneylenders, both monthly returns as well as quarterly returns. So, my assurance here is that the ROM realises that once we have a construct given, where we free up interest rates, there is a possibility that some moneylenders may charge high interest rates, the ROM, in this case, a lady, she will have to take more proactive stance in ensuring that the laws are complied with. So, that is my assurance to Mdm Halimah – that ROM will continue to do this.

The second point is on redress. As I have said, a person who is not happy with any aspect of the moneylending contract, including the interest rates, can file a complaint either with the Small Claims Tribunal, which is an easy process, or with the Courts, under either the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act or section 23 of the Moneylenders Act. In fact, the process under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act was something introduced only last year. So, that is after the amendments in November 2008. The process is there and any aggrieved borrower should use it.

The third point, of course, is a very good point which I think all borrowers must take to heart: prudence in borrowing, both in terms of the reason for borrowing and also the amount that he or she wants to borrow. At the national level, there is this programme called MoneySENSE where there is a national literacy financial programme to ensure that not just borrowers, but even prospective borrowers – because this reaches out to the schools – will know

what is financial prudence. And, secondly, I think more importantly, the regime that is provided under the amendments, there is transparency and accountability. I think that is a key point. We have modernised the regime to ensure greater transparency. So, the borrower has to take that step – go to the website, where all the moneylenders are listed out, compare rates and make a borrowing that is within his means.

19. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development why HDB pays compensation of only 90% of the market value for a flat which is under compulsory acquisition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB takes compulsory acquisition (CA) action against flat lessees who have committed major lease infringements such as the unauthorised subletting of flats. CA action is also taken, as a last resort, against mortgage arrears cases where lessees are unresponsive to HDB’s efforts to help them work towards a long-term solution.

HDB’s compensation policy under CA is designed such that lessees do not enjoy undue financial gains as a result of the CA action. The compensation quantum takes into consideration the financial penalty for the lease infringements as well as HDB’s holding cost and administrative costs. Hence, for flats that are eligible for resale in the open market, HDB compensates them at 90% of the market value of the flats at the point of CA.

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, if the cases involved are lessees who are unable to pay their

mortgage instalments on time, would it be more fair to the lessees for them to be compensated based on 100% of the market value? After all, the Land Acquisition Act does provide for compensation to be paid at the full market value when the State acquires land. So, why should HDB be any different?

Sir, I think Members of the House are well aware that when HDB decides to finally acquire the flat of owners who are in arrears, it really does this as a last resort, meaning that it has tried to work very, very hard with each and every case. In the first place, from the moment the lessees are in arrears, HDB tries to understand their circumstances and tries to help them. And at different points in time, there is no stopping a lessee from selling the flat in the open market and get market value, or even higher than market value. So, at any point in time, the lessee is allowed to do so. Even at the very last moment when HDB issues the note of intention of the acquisition of flat, the lessee is still eligible and can still sell the property in the open market. There is no reason for HDB to compensate the lessee for the value equivalent to the market value because the lessee has the option to do so, even before compulsory acquisition action takes place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a last resort or otherwise, if HDB allows the lessees to sell at market value before acquiring the flat, then why not just compensate them at market value? Why allow them to sell at market value and yet, when HDB does decide to acquire the flat, it chooses to pay them 90%. That 10% is lost by the lessee. We should be fairer to them.

Sir, as mentioned earlier, we should not unduly incentivise or allow lessees to get financial gains from CA action. When HDB

puts in the processes of trying to help these families, there is a lot of manpower as well as administrative costs that goes into it. And I think that it is not unreasonable for HDB to tell the lessees that if it compulsorily acquires the flat, it can compensate them for lesser than that, because it has always given them the opportunity to do so. If that is the case, the lessees will just wait out and do not want to pay for their flats and, at the end of the day, expect HDB to just give them compensation according to market value.

20. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has a set of guidelines for operation hours of primary and secondary schools; and (b) whether it stipulates the frequency of activities that can be held outside of official lessons and the times which these co-curricular activities and supplementary lessons must end.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the Ministry does not stipulate operation hours for schools. However, there are guidelines on formal curriculum hours, which account for the biggest proportion of school hours. For Primary 1 and 2, the guideline is for 48 periods of 30 minutes each per week and for Primary 3 to 6 – 49 periods of 30 minutes each per week. This works out to five hours a day including recess time. For secondary schools, the curriculum time guidelines stipulate 40 periods of 40 minutes each per week. This works out to six hours a day including recess time.

Schools have the autonomy to vary the hours of instruction time based on what is best in the educational interests of their pupils. In addition, as part of holistic education, schools carry out a range of activities outside curriculum

hours. Schools exercise discretion on the types and frequency of activities to meet the needs of their student populations.

In planning and implementing the different academic and non-academic activities, schools do bear in mind the well-being and workload of teachers and pupils.

Sir, it is not uncommon to have students practise an almost 12-hour school day, where they report to school at about 7.20 am or so, and then by the time they are done with CCAs, it is about 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm, especially for the secondary school students. Will the Ministry of Education consider putting some cap on this because as a parent and as an educator, I am not quite sure if this rate is sustainable, especially for our teachers, clocking 12 hours a day, five days a week?

As I have mentioned, the well-being of our teachers and pupils is really our utmost concern. We do not, as a matter of governance, dictate the school operating hours, but from time to time we periodically do a survey of actual operating hours. And we do that quite frequently to ensure that the workload of teachers is manageable and sustainable and, also, the well-being of our students is not forgotten. So, while we do not, as a matter of rule, dictate the hours, we would like to facilitate and allow the schools to have the autonomy to plan around their resources and needs. But we do keep an eye on this issue.

21. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider reviewing the foreign worker policies in view of the latest official statistics revealing a record number of job vacancies left unfilled for a

protracted period especially for rank-and-file workers and in the services sector.

You have two-and-a-half minutes left, Mr Gan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the robust economic recovery in 2010 had brought about strong economic and employment growth. As a result, job vacancies rose by 36% over the year, to 50,200 in September 2010.

Amidst the tight labour market, it is natural for employers to desire greater access to foreign workers. However, an over-reliance on low-skilled foreign workforce is not sustainable in the long term. Companies which are heavily dependent on low-skilled foreign workers for growth should instead improve their productivity – they should move up the value chain, review their business models, redesign work processes, and upgrade the skills of their workers. Such efforts will not only enhance their competitiveness but are, in fact, critical for their viability.

This is why we need to continue to moderate the demand for foreign manpower and encourage companies to improve efficiency and raise productivity. Sir, we announced last year that the Foreign Worker Levy (FWL) for Work Permit and S-Pass holders would be increased in phases, starting from 1st July 2010. Entry criteria and other requirements have also been finetuned to raise the quality of our foreign workforce here.

The Government has introduced several schemes to help companies innovate and improve. For example, the Government has established a S$2 billion National Productivity Fund (NPF) to support productivity initiatives at all levels. In particular, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has tapped on the NPF to launch the S$250 million Construction Productivity and Capability

Fund (CPCF) which aims to improve productivity in the construction sector through technology adoption, workforce development and training, and capability development. The Government has also introduced a Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) during last year’s Budget to provide enhanced tax deductions when companies undertake productivity or innovation-related investments, such as training, research and development, and design.

At the same time, the Government is working closely with our tripartite partners to facilitate the employment of local residents. For example, we have a large pool of inactive residents, especially women, who could be encouraged to rejoin the workforce if the jobs offered flexibility. The Flexi-Works! scheme offers a grant of $100,000 to help companies hire the economically-inactive on part-time or flexible work arrangements. NTUC Women’s Development Secretariat (WDS) also holds regular job fairs targeted at women who are new to the workforce or who have not worked for a long time. Another pool of potential labour that companies can tap on is the older residents. The Retirement and Re-employment Act will take effect from 1st January 2012 to provide more job opportunities for older workers. Through the ADVANTAGE! Scheme, we offer a financial grant of up to $400,000 to help companies recruit, retain and re-employ older workers.

Sir, therefore, I encourage businesses that have manpower needs to tap on these sources of local residents and make use of the various schemes for their businesses to raise their productivity and to reduce their reliance on foreign workers.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 22 and 23 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*.]

"to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2011/2012, and to be printed.

"to amend the Environmental Protection and Management Act (Chapter 94A of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2011/2012, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.04 pm

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to first set the context for the Bill and explain the rationale for the new regulatory framework for amusement rides.

The amusement ride industry in Singapore is fairly small, with about 20 companies operating about 60 permanent rides and 40 relocatable rides. In recent years, the industry has witnessed significant changes with the development of large scale theme parks like Universal Studios Singapore and the use of larger and more complex relocatable rides like those found at events such as the Annual River Hongbao Carnival.

Today, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) regulates amusement rides through its Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) under the ambit of the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA). Under PEMA, a Public Entertainment Licence is required to operate amusement centres, amusement parks or funfairs. SPF seeks the input of other agencies such as the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and SPRING Singapore before issuing the licence.

Sir, historically, this licensing approach stems from law and order concerns over the operation of these amusement parks or centres. The situation is different today and calls for a review of the licensing approach. While law and order concerns are still valid, there should be greater emphasis on our regulatory approach to enhance public safety in amusement rides, especially when there are increasingly more complex and sophisticated rides. The safety of amusement rides covers several dimensions. These include: the design of the supporting structures; electrical, mechanical systems and safety harnesses; the construction and erection; compliance with safe operating procedures; regular checks and maintenance; and emergency procedures.

Under SPF's licensing regime, different agencies are responsible for different dimensions of amusement rides safety, using different pieces of legislation

pertaining to safety. For example, there is the Building Control Act on building safety; the Workplace Safety and Health Act on worker safety; and the Fire Safety Act on fire safety in buildings. These laws do not provide an appropriate framework to tackle the multiple dimensions of amusement rides safety.

With these considerations in mind, my Ministry has jointly reviewed the existing licensing approach with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Manpower, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The new regulatory framework will focus primarily on safety as the primary motive for regulating amusement rides. We need a more structured and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that rides are designed, installed, operated and maintained according to recognised international safety codes and standards. For the new regulatory approach, the BCA will be the lead agency and is supported by the SCDF to regulate amusement rides safety.

Key features of new regulatory approach

Let me now briefly touch on the key features of the new regulatory approach and how it differs from the current licensing regime under PEMA. Currently, SPF issues a Public Entertainment Licence and imposes several licensing conditions on the ride operators to be fulfilled in operating the rides. Some of these conditions relate to the safety of the ride while others relate to law and order issues. In terms of safety, the operators must fulfil the licensing conditions which include ensuring that the ride is certified safe for use by a conformity assessment body; that employees are trained and familiar with safety procedures; and that safety and rescue support measures are in place.

In addition, SPF differentiates amusement rides on the basis of whether they

are permanent or temporary. For permanent rides, such as "Enchanted Airways" and "Revenge of the Mummy" found at Universal Studios Singapore, SPF requires the operator to ensure that the ride is certified safe for use by a Conformity Assessor (CA). CAs are third party inspection bodies with technical expertise to provide a comprehensive assessment on amusement ride compliance to safety standards and codes.

For temporary rides on the other hand, such as those found at pasar malams and carnivals, SPF does not require operators to apply for a licence, provided that they meet certain conditions. For instance, the carnival ride equipment has to be certified safe for use by a registered professional engineer. Other conditions include those relating to operating hours; the rides must be operated within a barricaded area; and that there should not be an element of gambling or betting.

We have observed that some of the temporary rides at our pasar malams or carnivals have a rather high risk profile as they move patrons as high as 30 metres above the ground. I am told this, I have not tried it myself but my staff tells me that it is happening now. Some even rotate the patrons through 360 degrees. Other high-risk profile rides involve controlled free falls and travel at high speeds.

Under the new regulatory framework, we will be adopting a risk-based approach. We will cease to use the basis of whether rides are temporary or permanent. Instead, rides will be defined on the basis of their risk and safety profile. Rides which have a high-risk and safety profile will be classified as "Major Amusement Rides", to distinguish them from ordinary amusement rides. It is imperative to ensure that rides which are assessed to have a risk profile are

regulated based on a higher level of safety standards. Given the larger scale and higher risk level of some rides today, we will incorporate the use of technical codes comparable with international standards to guide the safety assessment of the design and installation of these rides.

We are also introducing statutory duties and liabilities of stakeholders to ensure proper accountability for safety of rides, and introducing provisions for enforcement, offences and prosecution. I will elaborate on these later.

Let me now describe the key elements of the Bill which contains a total of 11 parts.

Proposed scope and administration of Act

First, on the scope of the Act: Part I of the Bill defines an amusement ride as any mechanised or power-driven device that is designed to carry patrons on a fixed or restricted course, or within a defined area, for the primary purpose of giving patrons amusement, pleasure, thrills or excitement, and is made available for use by the public. Examples of rides that will be regulated under the Act include roller coasters, flume rides, ferries wheels such as the Singapore Flyer, swing devices, carousels and go-karts.

This definition is not intended to cover devices or systems that are designed primarily for transportation purposes such as trams, buses, trains or monorails, whether these are operated within amusement parks or not.

The Bill also provides for the inclusion of amusement rides that do not strictly meet the definition, for example, bungee devices, high water slides and the Jewel Cable Car ride. We decided to include cable car as we recognise that it is also operated for amusement although it is primarily a transport device. We also took

into consideration the risk profile of the ride. The Bill also allows us to exclude rides like low power, battery-operated rides for children and coin-operated devices.

The administration of the new Act will come under the charge of the BCA's Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety to be appointed by the Minister for National Development. The Bill will confer specific powers to the Commissioner to discharge his duties.

Risk and safety profile

Clause 2 in Part 1 of the Bill defines rides on the basis of their risk and safety profile. Rides which have a high-risk and safety profile will be classified as "Major Amusement Rides" to distinguish them from ordinary amusement rides. The risk and safety profile will be determined by factors such as the maximum height and acceleration that a patron experiences during the ride.

Clause 2 also defines a Qualified Person (QP) as a person who is registered as a specialist professional engineer in the discipline of amusement ride engineering under the Professional Engineers Act. Conformity Assessors (CAs) are defined as third party inspection bodies with technical expertise to assess rides. As I mentioned earlier, they provide a comprehensive assessment on amusement rides' compliance to safety standards and codes. CAs may comprise a firm or a team of professionals with the relevant technical expertise. For major rides with higher risk profile, the Bill requires a QP to appoint and consider the opinion and advice of a CA when discharging his duties under the Act. Rides that are not classified as major rides would just require certification from a QP.

Statutory duties and liabilities

To ensure proper accountability for the safety of an amusement ride, the Bill also

places certain duties and liabilities on the "Person Responsible" for the ride. Clause 2 defines the "Person Responsible" for an amusement ride as the person who holds the Operating Permit in respect of the amusement ride or, if there is no one holding such a permit for the time being, the person who owns or otherwise has the charge, management or control of the ride.

Another important stakeholder that we have introduced under the Act is the "Ride Manager". This is the person who is appointed by the operator to oversee, manage and supervise the daily operation and routine maintenance of the ride.

*Cols. 2599-2602

Permits

Sir, I shall now touch on the permits for rides. There will be three permits to be issued during various stages of a ride's life cycle to regulate the installation, modification and operation.

Parts II and IV of the Bill cover the installation of new amusement rides and the major modification of amusement rides. Clauses 5 and 23 prohibit the installation or major modification of a ride without a valid Installation or Modification Permit respectively. Clauses 6 and 24 require the appointment of a QP to review and certify the installation and modification design plans and calculations; safety assessments and tests based on prescribed requirements in the technical codes; and the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Defence for the design and plans of the fire and rescue management system of the ride. These clauses also give the Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety powers to take enforcement measures to cease installation or modification works that are not authorised by the relevant permits. Clauses 7 and 25 require the holders of the permits to ensure that no installation or modification works are carried out

except under the supervision of the QP. Finally, clauses 12 and 30 set out the duties of the QP relating to the inspection and certification of rides after installation or modification.

Part III of the Bill covers the operation of amusement rides. This part introduces provisions to ensure that rides have been inspected and are certified safe for operation by a QP and, for major rides with the advice of the CA, upon completion of installation or modification. Clause 13 prohibits the operation of an amusement ride without a valid Operating Permit. It also places the fundamental duty on the "Person Responsible" to ensure that rides are in a state of good repair and safe working condition and requires that a "Ride Manager" be appointed to oversee, manage and supervise the daily routine operation and maintenance when rides are in operation. It also requires that the SCDF issue a certificate of compliance relating to the approval and certification of the fire and rescue management for rides before the Operating Permit is granted. The Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety is also given powers to take enforcement measures to cease the operation of amusement rides if operators do not comply with the terms of the Operating Permit.

Role of the SCDF

The SCDF will continue to oversee the fire safety and emergency rescue requirements for rides. Part VI of the Bill and clause 36 contain provisions on the procedures for operators to obtain SCDF's certificate of compliance.

Relocation of rides

Part V of the Bill contains provisions regulating the relocation of rides. For rides that can be relocated, the installation requirements would be the same as

permanent rides for the first installation. However, when the rides are relocated, we have decided to exercise some flexibility and require inspections and certifications during relocation works by a QP for major rides and a "Ride Manager" for other rides.

Sir, I wish to reassure Members that the safety of the rides will still be of key concern, and the holder of the Operating Permit will have to give the Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety notice in writing of the intention to relocate the amusement ride. The Commissioner may impose conditions or give directions relating to the relocation, and if he thinks that the relocated premises are unsafe or unsuitable, he may prohibit the relocation of the ride. The relocation works must also be carried out in accordance with the design and specifications and the proposed installation method, as set out in the original Installation Permit issued for the ride.

Sir, we have adopted this pro-business approach, which balances safety and practicality, because we are mindful of the costs involved for some operators to engage a CA or QP, as the case may be, each time their rides are dismantled and reassembled for relocation within Singapore.

Other provisions – enforcement, offences and prosecution

Parts VIII and IX of the Bill contain provisions relating to enforcement, offences and prosecution. Clause 50 provides the Commissioner with powers to enter and inspect premises to ascertain whether there has been any breach of the Act. It also gives him powers to carry out investigations into adverse incident that has occurred. Clause 53 provides the Commissioner with powers to order the cessation of operation and all works, and

close or require dismantling of rides that are deemed to be in dangerous condition.

The Bill also provides for penalties for breaches of the Act. For example, under clauses 5, 13 and 23, it will be an offence for any person to install, modify or operate any ride without a valid permit.

Transitional provisions

Sir, let me now elaborate on the transitional arrangements as outlined in Part XI of the Bill. For existing rides that currently do not have a valid public entertainment licence, the operators will be given a six-month grace period, while continuing operation, to obtain an Operating Permit.

For existing rides with a valid public entertainment licence, we will recognise the validity of their licences and allow them to continue to operate without an Operating Permit until the expiry date of their licences. However, all existing rides, whether licensed by SPF or not, will have to comply with some key requirements after the six-month grace period beginning on the commencement of the Bill. These include obtaining SCDF's certificate of compliance, public liability insurance and appointing a suitably qualified Ride Manager.

While these existing rides may continue to operate without an Operating Permit under the Act during the grace period, the other statutory requirements cited in the Bill such as the reporting of adverse incidents and minor modifications in respect of the ride; the duty to continue to maintain the ride in a safe condition; the application for Modification Permits, penalties for offences, etc, will apply to these rides from the implementation date.

Sir, BCA has studied the regulatory practices in overseas jurisdictions in Hong Kong and the three US states of California, Florida and New Jersey. BCA

has also held several consultation sessions with stakeholders like ride operators and has conducted training sessions for the Professional Engineers who will certify the safety of the rides.

With a more comprehensive regulatory framework for amusement rides safety in place, there will be a structured regime to ensure proper certification of rides to prescribed codes and standards, allocate responsibilities and impose penalties to govern the safety of amusement rides. This will further enhance public safety in the daily operations and throughout the life cycle of amusement rides.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.23 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, amusement parks are tourism magnets and a social platform for families, friends and holidaymakers. The successes of local amusement parks like Universal Studios Singapore and even the rides like Singapore Flyer and Sentosa Cable Car are inspiring. At the same time, we also see springing up in our heartlands many miniature forms of parks and amusement rides from time to time. This is especially so during festive periods and even during National Day celebrations.

Amusement parks are family-friendly forms of entertainment, yet they are also probable breeding grounds for serious accidents, given the potentially dangerous nature of certain rides and the involvement of young children. As amusement park rides become more commonplace in Singapore, the likelihood of related accidents will increase.

It is timely that standardised regulation measures be implemented to protect the safety of our loved ones, park employees and tourists. I fully support the

implementation of the Amusement Rides Safety Bill.

I am heartened to note that the Bill will call for more accountability from the stakeholders. No doubt this will encourage stakeholders to take on a proactive role in ensuring the safety of their amusement parks. However, to do so, they must in the first place be equipped with the understanding of what makes an amusement park safe. More often than not, due to ignorance or an overwhelming need to spice up their rides at the expense of safety.

Amusement park patrons expect the most exhilarating and wildest rides where they can let their hair down and leave all their troubles behind on a ride. A certain amount of risk or fear factor is what makes a ride appealing and memorable.

To pander to consumers' needs and to compete with rivals, stakeholders and designers may challenge the norms and strive to invent out-of-the-world attractions that offer more thrill and appeal in terms of physical appearance and user experience.

As an engineer, I am well aware that despite all our efforts to overcome limitations, there are safety limits that must be complied with. There are boundaries that we must not cross if we do not wish to compromise practicality and safety. Considering that stakeholders have the final say in the attractions and facilities built for the park, they must be held responsible ultimately. They must be well versed on amusement park safety so that they may be aware of what they can or cannot implement in an amusement park. He may employ professionals to help him but he should be ultimately responsible for the safety.

The rest of the partners like specialist Professional Engineers and the Conformity Assessors no doubt have their respective roles to play. All these partners taking on

the jobs must be well trained, well versed and carry out their duty diligently. Hopefully, these people will join our pool of local expertise on park safety which we can tap on as more amusement parks come our way or we may even be able to export our expertise overseas.

I believe that the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is already playing a big part in assessing the safety of park attractions. However, besides regulating the rides, BCA can do more by nurturing the expertise of the people involved in building and running the amusement park, from stakeholders to specialist Professional Engineers to Ride Managers. Can the Minister share with the House what has been done so far to increase expertise knowledge and professionalism on park management?

Amusement parks are money-spinning ventures and can generate huge amounts of revenue and boost tourism with each day of opening. Hence, we also need to implement a smooth, red tape-free procedure that allows for efficient inspection of rides and release of operation permits without compromising the safety of amusement park goers, without unnecessarily delaying the business operation. I hereby put forth a request for an explanation on the standard procedure taken to assess an amusement park and its rides before it receives an operation permit and the time taken for approval upon submission.

To regulate safety standards in all amusement park rides in Singapore, I strongly believe that a committee should be established and designated to standardise park management protocols in Singapore. Issues that they will tackle include ride designs, operations and maintenance, reviewing of park performances as well as conducting quality control assessments and rides testing. A

similar committee in America had previously been created by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to regulate safety standards for amusements parks. Considering that there are many amusement parks in America, each with their own management and different protocols, it was certainly a necessity. As we foresee the construction of more parks and rides in the near future, it is time to implement a similar concept to reduce future conflicts.

I would like to ask if the Bill also makes it compulsory for all amusement parks and ride operators to report accidents and ride malfunctions to the authorities. This will increase the accountability of amusement parks, pressuring them to be more vigilant with their inspections and employment of safety measures.

By monitoring the frequency of ride malfunctions and operating errors, the relevant authorities may also be able to better anticipate the problems and formulate long-term solutions quickly. From derailing roller coasters to ride collisions, amusement parks may be paradise in one second and hell in the next. It is absolutely essential that we adopt more preventive measures before tragedies happen. After all, exemplary park management could well be the future of our tourism industry.

3.31 pm

Sir, first and foremost, I applaud the Ministry for carrying out this timely review on the regulatory regime. Over the years, amusement rides have now become more adventurous, more complex and much bigger in scale. As the past Chairman of the River Hongbao organising committee, I saw for myself how thrilling the rides can be and how such fun rides can add to the carnival atmosphere as well as act as a crowd puller. It seems

the sky is the limit for these amusement rides as they just get higher and faster. Just watching these rides in itself is a thrill, not to mention to ride on them.

Sir, I support the new regulatory approach which is more structured and comprehensive, involving the right expertise to tackle the increasing sophistication of the amusement rides. The new framework adds a lot more clarity on the regulatory requirements as well as the responsibilities of the related parties. I am heartened to note that public safety is the key motivation for the Bill and would always be the overriding consideration.

Central to this new approach is the appointment of BCA as the lead agency taking over the role from Singapore Police Force. As the amusement rides are more of an engineering safety issue than a law and order issue, we should rightly not burden the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with such technical regulatory functions so that they can better focus on enhancing security. However, I would like to find out from Senior Minister of State how may the Building Construction Authority (BCA) intends to gear up for this new role. We know that BCA is a competent regulator for buildings and construction. Would the authority have the required technical expertise and know-how to effectively regulate rides and stay abreast of the industry developments? We are seeing more world-renowned amusement rides in Singapore at our theme parks. Some of the rides may even be the first-ever to be introduced worldwide. Obviously, the vendors and the manufacturers would spare no efforts to increase the thrill factor to attract more patrons.

For the temporary rides, many of the ride equipment are imported or leased from overseas locations as far as Europe. Some of these complex relocatable rides come on short notices and stay on short

tenures during the festive seasons, for example, Lunar New Year. There could be major modifications done on the rides to customise to local conditions. While BCA would be in a much better position than the SPF to do the job, would they have the domain knowledge and resources to effectively regulate the industry – which is getting more sophisticated – and to enhance public safety?

Still on expertise, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State if there are currently enough trained Conformity Assessors (CAs) and Qualified Persons (QPs) in the industry so as not to cause bottlenecks in the industry. Are the QPs trained enough to look into rides that may be water-borne or air-borne like hot air balloons? I was told in some countries, some rides would even involve some pyrotechnics and fire. Also, I would like to know whether the new framework is likely to significantly increase costs, especially to the major rides.

In December 2008, the breakdown of Singapore Flyer, one of our iconic tourist attractions, left passengers stranded for six hours. In March 2010, the famous Battlestar Galactica roller coaster at Universal Studio Singapore was halted one week after opening when a seat fell off during the routine testing after a metal bar holding it to the chassis of the roller coaster gave way. These incidents have rung the alarm bells as they could impact Singapore's reputation as a tourist destination and, more importantly, risk the lives of the patrons and public. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to share whether if the certification and the maintenance regime on the permanent major rides is rigorous enough. Also, what are the frequencies of audits or inspections by BCA or the CAs?

Sir, the ultimate responsibility and accountability of the public safety must fall on the management of the amusement ride operators or person responsible as

defined in clause 2 of the Act. I also support the creation of the ride manager role under the Act for further accountability. It would further strengthen safety consciousness among the employees of the operators. Clause 19 imposes duty on the holder of an operating permit and ride manager to notify the Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety of any contraventions of the regulation where they know or ought to reasonably know even if it does not lead to an incident. I think this is a requirement for self escalation of any violation is good and would instil a more safety conscious culture among the permit holders. The operator and the ride manager need to be constantly reminded of this duty.

The Act also mentioned in clause 16 that the ride manger to be suitably qualified and to be a trained person. It would be better if the qualifications required can be more specific, for example, requiring a certain level of technical proficiency. I would also like to ask if the person responsible or the ride manager is a foreign national, would there be a need for a local guarantor or some form of reference just to ascertain the suitability of the responsible person or the ride manager, and also if they are responsible individuals.

Sir, as in all regulations, we can have the best rules and regulations but if they are not strictly enforced and complied with, there would be no significant difference in enhancing safety. I would like to ask Senior Minister of State what are the enforcement measures that the authorities have taken in the past on the operators and what are the common violations? Under the new framework, how would BCA and the other agencies intend to strengthen enforcement and compliance of the new regulations?

Sir, with that I support the Bill.

3.37 pm

Sir, on 23rd December, I went on one of these permanent rides in Singapore, which I have to confess as a medical specialist who deals with trauma, I have always been sceptical about. I got into the seat and suddenly, someone said "hands up" and a metal bar came across my thighs. That was the only device to strap me down and off we went forward into a dark tunnel. Before I knew it, we were moving backwards at a very rapid speed, and I feared for my neck. Feeling some strain already, and from the contraction and extension movement that was going on, I feared even further. My mind wondered, thinking of the consequences of a whiplash injury. Then, before my eyes could accommodate, bright lights were shining and eerie noises and voices came on. For the rest of the ride, I kept myself crouched as I felt this was the best position to protect my neck. I came off the ride with cold sweat, giddiness and an unsteady gait for at least a minute before gaining full composure.

I checked with my friends whom I was there with and at least 30% of them felt the same symptoms. From my very brief experience, I certainly feel it is important for thrill rides to meet safety standards and requirements. It is also appropriate for the authorities to assume oversight over these rides and ensure all aspects of the rides are optimised. Sir, we are debating this new Bill after two recent high profile incidents mentioned by my colleagues earlier.

Injuries and accidents which happen can be caused by, first, mechanical causes, secondly, electrical causes and thirdly, human errors. Besides these, there are also issues such as lightning strikes as we are dealing with a relatively tall structure here, ejections and, of course, suicides, occasionally.

I would like to suggest that the operators place a strict emphasis on preparedness and have an algorithm in place so that all staff know exactly what to do in the event of an untoward incident or other emergencies. These need to be regularly practised through drills and exercises.

With the new Bill, Sir, operators will have to get relevant permits and approval. Public entertainment licence is also to be obtained in between installing and operating the rides. This is stipulated to be done yearly. Will there be yearly inspections then, done on this renewal? I hope that it can be effected. This will help us put our practice in alignment with the United States as stipulated in their National Amusement Park Rides Safety Act which appoints a task force to inspect rides regularly and present educational campaigns to promote safety as well. This Bill also requires the appointment of at least one qualified ride manager to supervise operations. What will be the training to prepare him/her for the job? Will skills required of a first responder, first aid and CPR as well as Automated External defibrillator operations be included? Will BCA also be reviewing the insurance policies for ride managers and will there be an incident reporting register that will be set up?

Will BCA have special criteria for children and children rides, as young children are indeed at highest risk for ride-related injuries? This is besides the coin-operated rides mentioned by the Senior Minister of State earlier. I did not see the specifics pertaining to this in the Bill and we do know that there are indeed separate rides and thrill rides for children and kids such as the ones at Resorts World Sentosa.

In line with the classification of the rides according to risks and safety criteria, determined by speed, height displacement

and acceleration when BCA issues the technical expertise criteria, I would like to suggest customisation for specific rides, as the different rides have the potential for different types of injuries.

Sir, pertaining to the issue of re-installation, it is mentioned that "when the rides are relocated, they would be subject to less stringent regime of inspection during re-installation by a QP and a ride manager for major and other rides respectively". My question is why "less stringent"? In the process of relocation and re-installation, many things can happen indeed. Parts can be moved, dislodged, broken, become dysfunctional or even faulty. Thus, the public should be given the appropriate assurance on this matter of re-inspection.

The pro-business approach mentioned is fine but we must indeed be mindful of the cost involved in engaging a QP versus the cost of a human life lost or affected by lifelong disability.

In conclusion, Sir, these rides must be taken seriously. We must respect the forces and follow all the recommended safety rules and ensure extra precautions are taken especially when dealing with children and vulnerable rides.

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 3.42 pm until 4.00 pm

.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support

of this important Bill, which seeks to enhance public safety in the amusement ride industry.

This Bill is also timely given the recent publicity on disruptions on the Singapore Flyer, Sentosa Cable Cars, and the Battlestar Galactica at Universal Studios. One key aspect of the proposed Bill addresses the need to involve specialist technical expertise in the new regulatory framework. This is an essential specification as we position Singapore as a top leisure destination and amusement rides become more sophisticated and challenging.

In particular, I note the significant role of the Qualified Person, who is a registered specialist professional engineer, in the review and certification process. This Bill also encourages self-regulation and self-policing of operators.

Sir, my only query on the Bill is on the role of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). Given the focus on self-regulation, will the BCA conduct on-site inspections of amusement rides? In other words, under this Bill, will the BCA police operators directly or through the involvement of the Qualified Person (QP)? To ensure integrity in the regulatory process, the QP must be an independent party. But if the QP is engaged by the operators directly, how can we ensure that the QP will be truly neutral in its assessment?

4.04 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank all Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

Let me first clarify that the Bill focuses on the technical safety of amusement rides within carnivals or amusement parks. There are existing legislation to regulate the amusement parks. For

instance, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) will continue to oversee law and order in the parks as per any other public area. SPF will also continue to regulate public entertainment activities within the parks, which fall under the ambit of the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA). The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) will regulate the contingency and rescue requirements for the whole park.

Er Lee asked for an explanation of the procedures to assess rides before they receive an Operating Permit and the time taken for approval upon submission. BCA will put in place a mechanism whereby the ride operator and Qualified Person (QP) may consult BCA on the regulatory and submission requirements before applying for permits. This will help speed up processing as the proper documentation requirements are already met. BCA will take between two weeks and one month to approve the application, depending on the complexity of the ride.

The ride operator must concurrently apply to the Singapore Civil Defence Force for a Certificate of Compliance for the Fire and Rescue Management System for the ride. BCA will endeavour to process the applications as expeditiously as possible, but not at the expense of the safety of the ride. Obviously, if the ride is a very complex one, the earlier the discussion is started with BCA, the faster it would be towards the end.

Mr Liang asked whether the new framework would lead to a significant increase in cost, especially for major rides.

Sir, the fees for the various permits will depend on the category of ride. BCA will release details on the fees at a later date when the Regulations are finalised. However, BCA will endeavour to keep the fees reasonable and affordable.

Some Members enquired about BCA's on-site inspection of amusement rides.

Under the new regulatory regime, BCA will conduct onsite inspections before the issurance of Operating Permits for rides, and the subsequent annual renewals. During the operation of the amusement rides, BCA will also conduct ad hoc audit checks on-site as well as checks on the maintenance and operating records.

Mr Liang asked about the certification and the maintenance regime for major rides. Sir, the requirements for the maintenance regime are the same for all rides, be they major or otherwise. The appointed Ride Manager must ensure that proper maintenance is carried out according to the stipulated requirements. For major rides due to the higher risk profile, we will require the QP to consider the opinion and advice of the CA when reviewing the ride design, and when he inspects and certifies the ride.

Several Members have also spoken about building up expertise in amusement ride safety. This is indeed an important area, as we set up the new regulatory regime.

We will ensure that the various stakeholders, like the QP, CA, Ride Manager have the required qualifications and expertise to do their jobs properly.

First, the QP. The QP is a specialist Professional Engineer who will be registered by the Professional Engineers Board (PEB), in the discipline of Amusement Rides Engineering. He will have to pass an oral examination and an interview with the PEB. He must be a Professional Engineer (Mechanical) with stipulated years of practical experience in amusement rides engineering or related fields.

To prepare our PEs for registration as a specialist PEs, BCA has arranged for experts from the US and Europe to provide technical training in amusement ride engineering. More than 20 PEs

participated in the technical training session held in October 2010.

The requirement for the QP to appoint and to consider the advice of the CA for major rides will also nurture and build up local specialist expertise in amusement rides. The intent is to enable our local PEs to gain sufficient experience and expertise as they work closely with the established CAs. Over time, there will be sufficient specialist PEs who can lead a team to take on the multi-disciplinary roles of a CA.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan has asked how we could ensure that the QP would be neutral in his assessment, given that he is engaged directly by the ride operator.

Sir, under the Bill, the QP assumes statutory responsibility. This means that the QP is accountable to carry out duties to review, inspect and certify rides, as well as to ensure that rides meet prescribed standards. In addition, clause 39 of the Bill requires the independence of the QP from any professional and financial interests in the amusement ride.

This approach is similar to the construction industry, which has established procedures relying on the professionalism and integrity of the QP. For example, the developer has to appoint a QP who is a registered professional engineer in the branch of civil or structural engineering to carry out the structural design and to prepare and submit structural plans for approval. The Professional Engineers Act also regulates the qualifications and conduct of Professional Engineers. As with the QPs in the construction industry, the QPs whom we will rely on to certify the safety of amusement rides, will also be expected to upload the same standards of professionalism, ethics and discipline.

Next, the Ride Managers will be appointed by the Person Responsible to

oversee and manage the operation and maintenance aspects of the rides. While these Rides Managers need not necessarily be directly performing their duties, they should maintain management oversight on the daily operation and maintenance of the ride.

We will stipulate a set of requirements for individuals to qualify as Ride Managers in our Regulations. For a start, the Ride Manager should possess a qualification in the technical field plus some years of relevant experience or, equivalent combinations of qualifications and experience, to be assessed by the Commissioner for Amusement Rides Safety under this Bill. This will ensure that the Ride Manager is equipped with sufficient technical background and expertise to manage the ride.

Mr Liang asked if the guarantor is required when the Person Responsible or Ride Manager are foreign nationals. Under the Bill, the Person Responsible and the Ride Manager, be they locals or foreign nationals, are required to discharge various statutory duties. Failure to do so properly will be an offence, and there is hence no need for a guarantor.

As for BCA, it has set up a new department to take on this regulatory function, re-deploying existing staff with suitable experience and recruiting a new team of engineers with relevant expertise and qualifications. I would just like to remind the Members that we are not starting from scratch. We have been involved in the regulations and in giving inputs to Police over the past many years. So I think we do have some expertise within BCA. But right now, we are concentrating where to re-deploy them, and we are building up their technical expertise as they proceed with their statutory functions. To bring the team up

to speed and to build up expertise in amusement rides engineering, BCA has been attending various overseas training courses, seminars and expositions in the US as well as local technical training courses conducted by academics and experienced technical instructors.

Mr Liang asked whether there are enough trained QPs and CAs so that there will be no bottleneck in regulatory process.

There are currently about seven Professional Engineers in Singapore who certify rides to meet Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU)'s licensing requirements. In comparison, there are 18 Registered Professionals for the 64 permanent rides in Hong Kong. Of these 18, nine of them are active. So I think this gives Members sort of a sense of the scale of the kind of people and expertise that we require here. BCA is working closely with PEB to register a larger pool of Specialised PEs with the necessary expertise. This group includes PEs with experience in related fields, such as lifting equipment, pressure vessels, railway transport and marine engineering. BCA and PEB have estimated that there are at least 20 PEBs who may qualify for selection.

As for the CAs, they possess years of practical experience in assessing various aspects of amusement rides. Currently, the industry taps on two CAs to inspect rides under the SPF licensing regime. Over time, more sophisticated rides will develop. The industry is building up its expertise and we encourage the industry to procure the right expertise and source for more CAs to assume this role. We are actually asking the industry to go out and source for the right CAs, and BCA will assess them on their individual expertise and experience. So we are open to accepting more CAs to operate in the local industry.

Er Lee suggested that a Committee be established to standardise parks management protocols in Singapore, similar to the US' American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Under the Bill, our Regulations will generally prescribe that the rides in Singapore have to meet the standards under the ASTM F-24 Committee, as well as the European/UK equivalent, BS EN-13814.

These international standards are a result of years of collective experience and expertise of established global industry experts in amusement rides in the various fields ranging from design, operation, maintenance and testing. BCA will also review these standards periodically. Sir, given the relatively small size of our amusement rides industry, I do not think that we need to set up a similar standard-setting committee in Singapore.

Er Lee has suggested that the Bill should make compulsory the reporting of accidents and ride malfunctions to the authorities. Sir, I can confirm that this will, indeed, be the requirement.

Mr Liang asked about the enforcement measures taken in the past against operators and how the new framework intends to strengthen enforcement and compliance. Under the exisiting licensing regime, the Police uses a Demerit Points System to penalise breaches in licensing conditions. The Demerit Points System has graduated penalties as the licensing chalks up more demerit points, ranging from imposition of bank guarantee to cancellation of licence. Where the ride is found to be unsafe, the licensing officer can suspend or cancel a licence immediately. The new regulatory framework will prescribe a more detailed and structured system of fines and statutory penalties, covering a wide range of contraventions throughout the life cycle of the ride, from installation, operation, modification, to maintenance, repair and relocation. There will also be a tiered level of penalties, depending on the severity of

the breach of duties for the various statutory parties. The Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety has powers to revoke the Operating Permit when the ride is deemed to be unsafe.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef asked about emergency management, the handling of personal injury and insurance. The SCDF will be responsible for the fire safety and rescue management system for rides. It will approve the evacuation and incident management procedures for rides. They will also go through fire safety and evacuation exercises with the ride operators. Before the Operating Permit is issued by BCA, the ride operator has to fulfil SCDF's requirements and obtain the Certificate of Compliance issued by SCDF.

There will be requirements in the Regulations for a properly-trained first aider to respond to any emergencies that could arise in the operation of the ride. On insurance, all existing operators have public liability insurance coverage of varying amounts. The Regulations will prescribe a mandatory minimum amount of insurance coverage to safeguard public safety.

Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef also asked if there will be special criteria for children's rides. She raised concerns on the less stringent regime for relocation of rides.

Sir, we have adopted a risk-based approach to regulate all amusement rides. Under the Bill, the risk assessment will be carried out based on, among other things, the age profile of the target patrons. In other words, if the ride is designed for a certain height and certain weight, then we have to assess what are the kinds of mechanical parts, and structural design that have been put in place. So, it is actually an age-appropriate assessment. All rides will be required to be designed, operated and maintained according to prescribed international safety codes and standards.

On the less stringent regime for relocation of rides, I wish to reiterate that there is no compromise on the safety of ride, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. The relocation work must be carried out in accordance with the design and specifications and the proposed installation method as set out in the original Installation Permit issued for the ride. The Commissioner of Amusement Rides Safety will also have powers to cease the operation of any relocated ride that is deemed unsafe.

Sir, I believe I have addressed the Members' concerns and queries. Let me conclude by thanking Members for their support for the Bill. With the more comprehensive regulatory framework for amusement rides safety in place, we can further enhance public safety in the daily operations and throughout the life cycle of amusement rides.

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. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 pm

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

Fruit machines in private clubs have hitherto been taxed at 30% of deemed

turnover. The deemed turnover is determined by the number of coins in the cash collection boxes of the fruit machines. This taxation basis dates back to the 1950s when it was not possible to accurately measure actual turnover of fruit machines.

In his 2006 Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance announced a change in the taxation basis and tax rate for fruit machines. Specifically, he announced a private lottery duty at 12% of actual gross turnover of fruit machines. The technology of fruit machines has evolved, and thus we are able to make this shift in taxation basis from deemed turnover to actual gross turnover. The 12% rate was set so as to be revenue-neutral to Government. However, the implementation of this new tax treatment was subsequently deferred, as further review was needed, given feedback from the clubs.

Since the opening of the casinos in the integrated resorts, the gaming landscape has changed and clubs have seen a decrease in fruit machine revenue. The clubs have asked that the Government reduce their tax burden including taxing them based on gross gaming revenue just like that for the casinos. Unlike gross turnover, gross gaming revenue refers to the earnings net of winnings which the clubs pay out to patrons of their fruit machines. Such a basis, Sir, would allow the clubs greater flexibility to adjust the payout ratios.

The casinos are taxed on their gross gaming revenue, which is the basis of taxation adopted for casinos by major jurisdictions. Given that the Integrated Resorts' casinos are targeted mainly at overseas visitors, the taxation basis and rates were set to ensure that they can be internationally competitive.

In contrast, most other gaming revenues in Singapore, such as 4D and

Toto, are taxed based on actual gross turnover. This is so as not to unwittingly incentivise operators to raise payouts and consequently increase overall gaming demand. International competitiveness is not a consideration for fruit machines operated by the clubs. The playing of fruit machines in the clubs is primarily a recreational activity for its members. We will tax the fruit machines in clubs based on actual gross turnover.

Having said that, we will lower the private lottery duty for fruit machines to 9.5% of actual gross turnover, instead of the 12% planned earlier. This reduced tax rate of 9.5% takes into account the data and feedback from all the clubs and the change in Singapore’s gaming landscape. This will cause the Government to forgo $25 million worth or about 8% of the private lotteries tax collection. The majority of the clubs will pay less tax than what they are currently paying. However, I should state here that it is not the role of the Government to offset the loss of market share that they may face with the opening of the casinos. The clubs will need to adapt to the change in the gaming landscape and devise appropriate strategies to generate future revenues.

Sir, this Bill repeals the Private Lotteries Act and enacts a new Private Lotteries Act to provide for the control and levy of tax on private lotteries.

Let me now highlight the main features of the Bill. First, the change in tax basis and rate for fruit machines in the clubs. Clause 15(1) of the Bill provides for the private lottery duty for these fruit machines to be 9.5% of actual gross turnover. There is no change to the other private lottery duties. Clause 15(2) allows the Minister for Finance to vary the rates of private lottery duty by way of subsidiary legislation.

Second, this Bill formalises the transfer of the regulation of private lotteries from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). With this transfer, MHA will oversee the regulation of all gambling activities. Clause 4(1) allows the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint a Permit Officer to regulate private lotteries. Clauses 8 and 9 set out the powers of the Permit Officer. Clause 32(2) provides that the Minister for Home Affairs may make regulations for the manner in which private lotteries are to be conducted. MHA will work closely with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) for the regulations and conditions which relate to social safeguards.

Third, we will increase penalties commensurate with the offences and allow the composition of offences. Clauses 20 and 21 provide for an increase in penalties for non-compliance and submission of incorrect accounts to the Commissioner of Betting Duties, as well as promoting a private lottery without a valid permit. Clause 29 provides for the composition of offences, similar to that applicable under the Income Tax Act. The other salient provisions in the Bill serve to improve tax administration or provide clarifications to the law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

4.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill contains amendments to the Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act necessary for the establishment of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, and an examination to qualify foreign lawyers to practise limited areas of Singapore law. The Bill also contains amendments to streamline and improve the current framework for admission to the Singapore Bar. There are miscellaneous and technical amendments to enhance various procedures, clarify the meaning and application of various provisions, and repeal outdated provisions. Singapore Institute of Legal Education Clause 4 introduces a new Part II to the Act, to dissolve the Board of Legal Education and to establish the successor Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE). The SILE will come under the governance of the Singapore Academy of Law. Its Board of Directors will comprise representatives of key stakeholders in the legal fraternity including the Attorney-General, the President of the Law Society and the Deans of the NUS and SMU law schools. The SILE will assume the functions currently performed by the Board of Legal Education. In addition, the SILE will also exercise the following functions: First, our legal services sector is growing quite rapidly. There is a need to ensure that training of lawyers in Singapore is of a high standard. SILE will

take on the role of overseeing and ensuring that such high standards are maintained. Second, the SILE will determine the requirements for, as well as co-ordinate and exercise supervision over new mandatory continuing professional development obligations that will be introduced for the legal profession sometime in 2012. Third, the SILE will conduct a new foreign practitioner examination to allow foreign lawyers who pass this examination to practise limited areas of Singapore law. Let me explain the rationale for introducing this new qualification. Foreign practitioner examination and c ertificate The Legal Profession Act was amended in 2008 to allow Qualifying Foreign Law Practices (QFLPs) and Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) to practise in "permitted areas" of Singapore law, which refer to all areas of legal practice other than ring-fenced domestic areas such as litigation, constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, conveyancing and family law. This Bill contains the amendments to establish the framework for a proposed "Foreign Practitioner Examination" (FPE). The FPE allows foreign lawyers who pass the examination to practise in "permitted areas" of Singapore law if they work in QFLPs, JLVs or Singapore Law Practices. If they are working in a Foreign Law Practice (FLP), their practice of Singapore law will be restricted to those areas allowed for FLPs, ie, to render Singapore law advice in the context of international commercial arbitration work. Foreign practitioners who are called to the Bar of any foreign jurisdiction and who are able to meet eligibility criteria

which will be set down in the Rules, can apply to take the examination, which will be administered by the SILE. Those who pass the examination can then register with the Attorney-General to obtain a "Foreign Practitioner Certificate" (FPC). The FPC will be renewable on a yearly basis like the Singapore Practising Certificate. As FPC holders are primarily foreign lawyers, the Attorney-General will undertake the role of primary regulator. In respect of their practice of "permitted areas" of Singapore law, FPC holders will be subject to the same disciplinary regime applicable to Singapore Practising Certificate holders working in foreign law firms. This means that the Attorney-General will share concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over them with the Supreme Court and the Law Society. To ensure that FPC holders integrate with the local legal fraternity, FPC holders will be foreign practitioner members of the Law Society. They will also be members of the Singapore Academy of Law. Mandatory continuing professional development requirements, when introduced, will apply to FPC holders, with suitable modifications. Streamlining and improving the legislative and procedural framework for admission to the Singapore Bar The Bill also contains amendments which streamline and improve the legislative and procedural framework for admission to the Singapore Bar; and enhance the practice training framework. Improvements to admission requirements and procedures Admission requirements to the Singapore Bar are now found both within the main Act and various Rules. Due to policies introduced at various points over these 17 years or so, the main Act and

subsidiary legislation contain many transitional and historical provisions. We have decided to re-look at these provisions and put them in sequence, and remove some provisions which are no longer necessary. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIA governing admission to the Singapore Bar. As far as possible, the detailed requirements contained in the current Act and various Rules have been amalgamated and will be moved into two distinct sets of Rules, to make the legislation more user-friendly: (i) The first set of Rules will lay out the criteria for a person to be "qualified" to seek admission to the Singapore Bar. In this regard, historical and transitional provisions that have run their course will be phased out. (ii) The second set of Rules will lay out the procedural requirements with which a "qualified person" must comply, in order to be admitted to the Singapore Bar. In this regard, one key improvement that will be made relates to the notice period required for a person’s call to the Singapore Bar. At present, any person who applies for admission to the Singapore Bar must post a notice of his application on the Supreme Court notice board for a continuous period of six months. During this notice period, members of the public will be entitled to raise objections as to the suitability of that person to be admitted to the Bar. There is no real need for this six-month notice period. My Ministry in consultation with the Supreme Court, Attorney-General’s Chambers and Law Society has reviewed the admission procedure to improve and streamline it. For example, in England and Wales, the United States (New York State), Australia (New South Wales) and Hong Kong, there is no requirement for a six-month posting of the notice of application.

We will reduce the six-month notice period to a 30-day period, during which information relating to the applicant’s admission will be posted on the Supreme Court website to afford members of the public an opportunity to raise objections. In addition, the admission procedure will be revised to require an applicant to make the necessary declarations regarding his suitability for admission to the Singapore Bar at the very outset when he files his admission application. Currently, he does so only after the six-month notice period has expired. This streamlined process will also give relevant stakeholders involved in the call process, namely, the Law Society, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the SILE, more time to conduct their assessments of each application, than they currently have. With the enhancements and changes, the overall minimum time required for a person to be admitted will be shortened from the current six months to around two months. Practice training Next, under the current framework, a practice trainee undergoing his practice training contract may gain practical experience by being part-called to the Bar. This will allow him to appear before the Courts in limited types of hearings. A practice trainee may be entitled to be part-called only if he has served a minimum of four months of his six-month practice training period. Taking into account feedback from lawyers, the minimum period will be reduced to allow a practice trainee to apply to be part-called after he has served three months of his practice training period. In addition, once part-called, instead of the present limited types of hearing, a practice trainee may, under the

supervision of his supervising solicitor, appear in Court for all hearings. These amendments will enhance the practice training experience for trainees. They can now be part-called earlier and handle a broader scope of work. The Bill also contains various miscellaneous and technical amendments. The key amendments are: First, to clarify that the provision of legal services by in-house counsel in their own organisations does not contravene section 33 of the Act, which criminalises certain acts if done by an "unauthorised person". The reference to an "unauthorised person" includes a person who does not have in force a practising certificate. In-house counsel had raised concerns that there was uncertainty whether their activities as in-house counsel would be considered illegal since they do not hold practising certificates. This is not the policy intent. Second, provision is made for Rules to be prescribed to clarify the circumstances under which certain categories of legally-trained individuals can provide pro bono legal services. This would create greater certainty for pro bono work. Third, amendments are made to permit an officer of a company, a limited liability partnership or an unincorporated association, to act on the entity’s behalf, without a solicitor, in certain Court proceedings in accordance with requirements that will be set out in the Rules of Court. Sir, the establishment of the SILE, the introduction of the foreign practitioner examination scheme and the other changes I have mentioned are part and parcel of ongoing efforts to ensure that the framework supporting Singapore’s legal profession and legal services continues to develop in tandem with dynamic changes that have been taking

place both in the local as well as international landscape. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.39 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Bill.

Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as a practising member of the legal profession in Singapore.

The amendments proposed in this Bill are but one part of a process of liberalisation of the legal profession in Singapore. This process has been going on for some time and includes changes permitting foreign law firms to enter into joint ventures with local law firms, permitting foreign firms to practise both foreign and local law in certain specified areas of the law as the Minister has highlighted and allowing more graduates from overseas universities to practise in Singapore.

In general, I support this liberalisation and optimisation process. It has added a different dimension to legal practice in Singapore. It has opened up many opportunities for our local lawyers, who I am happy to say are keenly sought after by many of the international law firms. It has also forced local law firms to up their game so as to remain competitive in a global market. In the result, many local law firms have even expanded by opening offices abroad.

It is heartening therefore to see this process of liberalisation and optimisation of the legal profession continued in this Bill. The establishment of a Singapore Institute of Legal Education to replace the Board of Legal Education is one such step. The Institute will, amongst other things,

prescribe not only the rules governing the admission of advocates and solicitors to the Singapore Bar, but will also govern the continuing professional development of practising advocates and solicitors, both foreign and local.

To this end, may I ask the Minister if he could provide some indication of the form he envisages the continuing professional development of advocates and solicitors will take? Whether it will go the way of our fellow professionals, the doctors, who have to accumulate a certain number of points each year to continue in practice? And whether the Minister will consider including in continuing professional development a certain minimum number of hours of pro bono legal work?

Further, I note that the period that a trainee lawyer is required to serve in training prior to being part-called to the Bar will be reduced from four months to three months and the matters which a part-called trainee may deal with in Court have now been extended to include all hearings before a Judge or Registrar of the Supreme or Subordinate Courts. This I feel will greatly benefit trainees who are preparing to become litigation lawyers. The previous requirement of having to complete four of the six months of training did not make a part-call worthwhile as the time between part-call and a full call to the Bar was only slightly more than a month. Exposure to first-hand open Court hearings will also allow trainees to gain experience and, more importantly, confidence in Court sooner rather than later.

One of the main areas that the Bill seeks to amend is section 130 of the Legal Profession Act. This section deals with the jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of foreign and local practitioners. Under the existing provisions, all disciplinary matters concerning foreign

lawyers practising either foreign law or Singapore law and local lawyers practising foreign law come under the auspices of the Attorney-General. In respect of local lawyers practising Singapore law in a Joint Law Venture or foreign law practice, the Attorney-General may either deal with the disciplinary matter himself or refer the matter to the Law Society. Lawyers practising Singapore law in a local firm are dealt with only by the Law Society.

In the amendments that are sought to be made in this Bill, there appears to be a rationalisation of the disciplinary process based on the type of law that is being practised by the advocate and solicitor, ie, either foreign law or Singapore law. Under the proposed amendments, all foreign lawyers practising Singapore law and local lawyers practising Singapore law in a Joint Law Venture or foreign law practice will be dealt with by the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General can refer the matter to the Law Society. Foreign lawyers or local lawyers practising foreign law, however, remain under the sole charge of the Attorney-General.

May I ask the Minister if he would kindly clarify the following issues?

Why the change in policy to allow the Attorney-General to either deal with disciplinary matters himself or refer the matter to the Law Society, where Singapore law is being practised?

Why the Attorney-General retains exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters concerning lawyers practising foreign law?

Will having the Attorney-General and the Law Society dealing with disciplinary matters concerning lawyers practising Singapore law lead to a divergence in the way similar disciplinary

matters are dealt with and therefore to uncertainty in the process?

What is the reason for giving the Attorney-General discretion to either deal with the matter himself or refer it to the Law Society?

The disciplinary process of the Law Society is clearly set out in the Act. This includes hearings before an Inquiry Committee, a Disciplinary Committee and finally a Court of Three Judges. No such process is spelt out for disciplinary matters that are dealt with by the Attorney-General. Would it not be more transparent and fair for the disciplinary process of the Attorney-General to be spelt out in the Act as well?

With that, I support the Bill.

4.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me also declare my interest as a practising advocate and solicitor and I speak in support of the Legal Profession Amendment Bill.

I applaud the setting up of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and, specifically, the introduction of continuing professional development of lawyers. In all good intent, I verily believe that the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course aims to maintain, improve and broaden the knowledge and skills and to further develop the personal qualities and competence required of our legal professionals to move with the times. The CPD will help the legal profession to entrench a commitment to being professional, keeping up to date and relevant, and continuously seeking to push back the frontiers of knowledge to maintain a competitive edge.

This idea of CPD for the legal profession is not new. In England and

Wales, all solicitors and legal executives who are in legal practice or employment, or who work 32 hours or more per week, are required to complete a minimum of 16 hours of CPD per year. In Scotland, all solicitors who are in full-time employment and wish to retain their Practising Certificates are required to undertake a minimum of 20 hours of CPD per year. In Queensland, Australia, each legal practitioner is required to undertake 10 hours of CPD each year.

In my view, for our proposed CPD to be engaging, informative and progressive, it should preferably be of about 12 hours’ duration to be taken over two weekends of three hours per session. The CPD should be designed to embrace "best practice" and with easily digestible knowledge. It should not be excessively demanding. It should stimulate a desire to learn and develop our practitioners’ competencies and encourage active participation. To this end, I hope that the new institute, which has been vested with new and immense powers to determine CPD requirements, to review the implementation of its programmes and curricula and to coordinate and supervise, would bear in mind the realities on the ground for successful introduction, implementation and possible mandating of CPD for the legal profession.

In particular, I am drawing attention to the already hectic and exacting demands on our legal practitioners. As we try to attract more people to join the legal profession and to retain them in the legal profession for as long as we could, we must bear in mind that such new CPD requirements, when introduced, should not be too onerous on our legal professionals. I feel that it is important to always bear in mind that the implementation of the CPD should be incremental and that consultation and feedback from existing active practitioners should be solicited. Notwithstanding this, there should be greater clarity of what

category of legal professionals will be impacted by this new CPD requirement, as there are legal professionals working in-house as legal counsellors or advisers or teaching in institutions of higher learning and others. It is also necessary to make known if there will be a form of examination at the end of the CPD course, and how the failure to achieve a pass would impact the legal professionals. Many practitioners that I have spoken to feel that the CPD should end without any test or examination as not passing the test or examination would add more stress and lead to unnecessary speculation of their competence and undermine them, thus affecting their morale.

Notwithstanding this, the CPD should cover relevant areas such as: Professional Skills, Practice Legal Ethics, Practice Management and Business Skills, and Substantive Law and Procedure.

Lastly, and most importantly, our practitioners should be availed an adequate buffet choice of content and style of delivery. Courses can range from traditional sit-down lecture or seminar format to exploiting the new media and e-learning through "live" webcast, online self-study, and "offline" courses which include books, videos and audio podcasts. There should also be the occasional dinners or tea sessions for practical sharing which I believe no amount of theory or thesis can replace. All these would add to holistic and meaningful learning and let our legal practitioners and professionals willingly embrace CPD as an immensely important component in lifelong learning, considering our new operating landscape.

With this, I support the Bill.

4.50 pm

Sir, I thank Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Michael Palmer for their

support for the mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements.

It is envisaged that lawyers who hold practising certificates and new foreign practitioner certificate holders will be subject to these mandatory CPD requirements. Non-Practising Certificate (PC) holders such as in-house counsel and academics will not be subject to the requirements but will be strongly encouraged to participate in CPD activities.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) is also looking at the details of the scheme, taking into account best practices in other jurisdictions, feedback from law firms as well as practitioners. No doubt, they will also find Ms Lee’s and Mr Palmer’s comments useful. Mr Palmer’s suggestion of a mandatory minimum of pro bono hours as part of CPD is an interesting one. We have many avenues for lawyers to contribute pro bono now, and their work in this area is important to the community.

The SILE will have the task of calibrating the various aspects of the CPD scheme to take into consideration the practical realities faced by the profession. In that context, as I have said, I am sure they will take into account the comments that have been made.

I now turn to Mr Palmer’s comments on the regulatory framework for Foreign Practitioner Certificate (FPC) holders. As mentioned earlier, FPC holders are foreign lawyers. Traditionally, the Attorney-General has been their regulator. However, as FPC holders will be granted the privilege to practise Singapore law in permitted areas, there is a need to extend the disciplinary regime applicable to

Singapore Practising Certificate holders to them to the extent that is required to regulate their practice of these areas of Singapore law.

The framework, therefore, envisages that while the Attorney-General will have primary oversight of FPC holders, he will refer matters where relevant and which relate to the practice of Singapore law to the discipline of the Law Society. This framework is not new. It is modelled after the existing disciplinary and regulatory framework we have in place for PC holders working in foreign entities which we introduced in 2009 together with the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice scheme. We recognise that liberalisation has brought many changes into the legal services sector as we know it. I have asked the Attorney-General to chair a committee to look into the regulatory framework in place for the legal services sector in a comprehensive way. These disciplinary mechanisms will be within the purview of the Attorney-General’s committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Shanmugam].

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

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 18th February 2011." – [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Five o'clock pm to Friday, 18th February 2011.

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

asked the Minister for Manpower if he can provide data on (a) the proportion of employers aside from the Civil Service that offer paternity leave and unrecorded childcare leave as part of employee benefits; and (b) the proportion of unrecorded childcare leave that is taken by fathers.

Even though paternity leave is not specifically legislated, MOM’s survey showed that about 48% of private sector establishments with at least 25 employees provided paternity leave last year.

In addition, all working fathers of Singaporean children enjoy six days of paid childcare leave for children aged up to seven years old and six days of unpaid infant care leave for children aged up to two years old as provided for under the Children Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA). On the proportion of paid childcare leave taken by fathers, in 2009, there were more than 25,000 claims made in respect of Government-paid childcare leave taken by fathers, just slightly below the 27,000 claims for mothers. Last year, about two in 10 (about 19%) private sector establishments also provided childcare sick leave beyond the legal requirements.

Anecdotally, companies may also provide flexible work arrangements or allow working parents to take time-off on an informal basis for them to attend to the needs of their children. However, as such work arrangements are non-statutory, and usually arranged under mutual agreement between the employer and employee, we do not have data on the take-up by working fathers.

asked the Minister for Manpower when the law on re-hiring of retired employees comes into force in 2012 (a) how many Singapore citizen/PR employees are likely to be affected; (b) of these, how many are likely to be in smaller SMEs with less than 20 employees each; and (c) how strongly will the law be enforced on smaller SMEs who may have genuine difficulty in re-hiring retired workers.

In 2010, there were around 20,000 resident employees aged 60. This is the likely number of employees to be affected by the new re-employment requirements as they attain the statutory minimum retirement age of 62 in 2012 when the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) comes into force. We do not have figures on the number of local employees in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with less than 20 employees who will be affected by the legislation in 2012. However, about one quarter of the manufacturing and services workers who make up the bulk of our workforce are employed in SMEs1 of less than 20 people.

The re-employment law applies similarly to large and small companies. As re-employment provides flexibility to meet the needs of both employers and employees, we expect that the majority of employers including SMEs will be able to re-employ their employees when the re-employment law comes into force. Based on a survey done by my Ministry in 2009, nearly two-thirds (64%) of the companies surveyed already allowed their employees to work past age 62. Of those companies that had employees reaching the age of 62, a vast majority (92%) of their employees were allowed to work beyond 62. However, the survey also shows that larger companies2 are more prepared for re-employment than the SMEs. Seventy-nine percent of the larger companies had already allowed their employees to work beyond age 62, as compared to 62% for the small companies

3. The key challenge faced by SMEs in implementing re-employment is the lack of resources to put in place HR practices and processes for re-employment. For SMEs who require help, we encourage them to tap on the range of resources and programmes that the tripartite partners have put in place to help employers implement re-employment. For example, the ADVANTAGE! Scheme provides a financial grant of up to $400,000 to support companies in implementing re-employment. The Scheme includes a Capability Development Grant of up to $10,000 per company which is targeted to help the SMEs develop proper HR systems to implement re-employment. Employers can also attend the PREPARE Programme offered by ASME, or the 4R ("Recruit, Retain, Re-employ and Re-career") programme offered by SNEF, to equip themselves with the skills and knowledge to implement re-employment strategies. The Government also provides training opportunities and incentives to companies to upgrade the skills and improve the productivity of older workers, including those employed by smaller SMEs. For example, we introduced the Workfare Training Support scheme (WTS) to reward workers who sustain their training efforts. The WTS also provides higher training grants to employers and low-wage workers including absentee payroll. WDA, together with HDB and the Singapore Institute of Retail Studies (SIRS), has launched the Heartland Retail Workforce Upskilling Programme for retail shops in HDB estates which generally hire small numbers of employees. This program provides coaching to SMEs in HDB estates on how to boost their productivity and rolls out bite-sized training programmes on-site to make training more accessible to workers. Employers, including SMEs, may seek advice and assistance from my Ministry or the tripartite partners, SNEF and NTUC, so that they will be ready when the re-employment law comes into effect in a year’s time.

1. Based on SPRING Singapore’s current definition, SMEs refer to enterprises with net fixed assets not more than $15 million for those in the manufacturing sector, and employment size not more than 200 workers for those in the services sector. 2. This refers to establishments with at least 200 employees. 3. This refers to establishments with 25-199 employees.

asked the Senior Minister (a) apart from MoneySENSE publications, what other forms of public education are available to credit card holders, especially the young and newly employed; (b) over the last 10 years, what is the number of credit card holders who have been declared bankrupt due to their inability to pay their dues; and (c) what form of vigilance does the MAS exercise to ensure that the number of credit card defaulters is minimised.

asked the Senior Minister (a) how our credit card rollover debt compare against those of developed countries; (b) if there is any age group or population segment which incurs significantly higher rollover debt; and (c) how will it be ensured that credit is not too easily extended by way of credit cards such that personal debt becomes a serious problem.

The rollover ratio1 was 15.5% in 2010, after dipping to a historical low of 14.5% in 2008. This is less than the five-year average of 17% between 2004 and 2008 and below the 20%-25% range recorded during the peak period between 1999 and 2003. Although international data are not directly comparable, our rollover balances as a percentage of total balances appear lower than those of Australia and the UK. Nonetheless, credit card default rates2, which are leading indicators of bankruptcy numbers3, have remained low. Default rates fell from 0.23% to 0.19% between 2004 and 2010.

Data from Credit Bureau Singapore show that the share of "revolvers"4 has remained broadly stable. However, the share of "frequent revolvers" 5 has risen slightly in recent months. Young adults aged 21-29 have contributed to this increase.As of November 2010, they represent 39% of new credit cardholders6 who are frequent revolvers. Young adults also account for a rising share of credit card defaulters, increasing from 9.4% or 123 defaulters in January 2008 to 13.4% or 233 defaulters in November 2010. This bears close monitoring.

MoneySENSE has been working with the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) to conduct a series of talks on understanding different types of loans, including credit card loans, and avoiding the debt trap. These talks have been delivered to students at tertiary institutions and young working adults at their workplaces. Key messages on the responsible use of credit facilities are also disseminated through radio programmes and events such as the annual National Economics and Finance Management Quiz, organised by the National University of Singapore Economics Society for students from junior colleges, polytechnics, integrated programme schools and centralised institutes.

Importantly, borrowers have a role to play in ensuring that they use credit responsibly, and within their means. The national financial education programme MoneySENSE continues to work with partners such as ABS and the media to educate consumers on the

importance of thrift and responsible use of credit facilities. ABS, with the support of MoneySENSE, has developed a consumer guide which has key information on what cardholders should know about credit cards, including information on interest, late payment charges as well as the implications if a cardholder pays only the minimum sum and rolls over the balance. When banks issue credit cards, they send cardholders information based on this guide.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has in place several measures to mitigate the risks of over-borrowing by individuals. MAS has set the minimum annual income requirement for credit cards at $30,000 to ensure that credit cards are only issued to individuals who have sufficient financial means to handle them. The maximum credit limit, including any other unsecured credit facilities that a financial institution can give to such individuals is limited to four times his monthly income.

Financial institutions must conduct comprehensive credit bureau checks before granting individuals credit cards. Through these checks, a card issuer can be informed of the number of credit lines that the applicant already has with other financial institutions and if the applicant has not been able to repay these facilities. This supplements the rigorous credit assessments that MAS expects financial institutions to conduct before they grant credit to customers.

1. The rollover ratio refers to credit card balances outstanding for 30 days or longer as a percentage of total credit card balances. 2. Default rates refer to the number of defaulters as a percentage of the total number of cardholders. Defaulters are consumers with a card status that has been written off as bad debt. Some of these defaulters may eventually be declared bankrupt. 3. According to data from IPTO, about 6,768 cases (20% of bankruptcy cases) over the period 2000 to 2010 have declared the cause of their insolvency as overspending of some kind or other, including overspending on credit cards, on personal lines of credit, and on hire-purchase. 4. “Revolvers” refer to those who have not paid their outstanding credit balances in full. 5. “Frequent revolvers” refer to those who have not paid their outstanding balances in full for at least three consecutive months. 6. New credit cardholders refer to those who have been granted a credit card for the very first time in that year.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how much Singapore spends each year on Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI).

In 2009, Singapore Government's total international assistance was about S$168 million. The bulk of our assistance to developing countries is through technical aid and human resource capacity building programmes. We have also provided humanitarian reliefs during disasters and major crises. In addition, Singapore makes voluntary contributions to international and regional organisations such as the United Nations and its subsidiaries, the World Bank, the Commonwealth Secretariat and ASEAN Secretariat which go towards development programmes.

Singapore does not use a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI), which is a yardstick used by the OECD countries, to decide on the quantum of our international assistance budget. As our resources are finite and the demands for international assistance are endless, we take a realistic, practical and long-term view in providing development assistance to other countries. We seek to help others where our assistance can be effective, in areas where we have acquired the knowledge and experience, and where we can make a difference. A good example of this approach is the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) managed by MFA which is an important component of our assistance to developing countries. Since its establishment in 1992, we have provided scholarships and training to over 71,000 participants from 169 developing countries spanning the Asia Pacific, Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean. We provide training and share our experiences in areas such as economic and trade development, environment and urban planning, water management, public housing

and transportation, port management, civil aviation, public governance, education and healthcare. Through the sharing of knowledge and experiences, developing countries could adopt or adapt some of what we have done to their own specific conditions. We give priority to the region around us, including ASEAN.

As a general principle, we prefer our development assistance to concentrate on human resource capacity building, not monetary donations.

However, when there are major disasters or dire humanitarian needs, the Singapore Government does provide quick monetary assistance to affected countries. For example, the Government contributed S$70 million in post-tsunami assistance following the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami and US$5 million to the Cyclone Nargis relief in Myanmar and US$200,000 to the Sichuan Earthquake in 2008. Beyond what the Singapore Government has provided, our NGOs like the Singapore International Foundation (SIF), Singapore Red Cross, Mercy Relief and many Singaporeans played vital roles in helping these countries during disasters and humanitarian crises through their generous donation of time, effort and money.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many applications from individuals for licences to be estate agents or registration as sales persons under the Estate Agents Act have been rejected to date; and (b) what are the reasons for the rejections and the numbers for each category of rejection.

As at 31st January 2011, CEA has granted licences to 1,386 estate agents and registered 31,169 salespersons. Six hundred and eleven applications for salesperson registrations were rejected. Of these, 392 were rejected because the applicants had neither taken CEA-endorsed examinations nor completed at least three property transactions over the last two years before 22nd October 2010. These applicants can apply to register with CEA when they meet the necessary requirements.

The remaining 219 applications for salesperson registrations were rejected because they did not fulfil CEA’s "fit and proper" criteria, eg, they had previous convictions for serious offences such as fraud, illegal money-lending, drug-trafficking or outrage of modesty. These criteria are in place to protect consumer interest. In evaluating whether the applicants can be allowed to work as salespersons, CEA will take into consideration the severity of the offences and when they were committed.

asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the level of fine particulate matter in Singapore exceeds the standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and, if so, what is being done to ensure that WHO standards are met; (b) how harmful are the fuel emissions from the refineries on Jurong Island and what is their impact on our environment; (c) whether the operation of Tuas Power's coal-fired power station will aggravate the air quality; and (d) what are the Ministry's plans for monitoring the emissions released by the coal-fired power station once it begins operations.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has set interim and long-term targets for PM2.5 in its Air Quality Guidelines to protect public from the adverse health effects of fine particles. Three interim targets of 35 µg/m3, 25 µg/m3 and 15 µg/m3 were set to guide countries as they work towards achieving the long-term air quality target of 10 µg/m3.

Singapore’s PM2.5 level in 2010 of 17µg/m3 meets the first two interim targets, and compares well with other major cities like Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, London, Paris, Vienna, Zurich and Sydney which are currently also not able to meet the WHO long-term target.

One of the key targets set by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) is to reduce the PM2.5 levels in our ambient air to 12 µg/m3 by 2020. We will periodically review our target based on international benchmarks and our national circumstances.

As with many countries, industries and motor vehicles are the major sources of PM2.5 in Singapore, which account for 30% and 50% of the local sources respectively.

In 2006, we tightened the emission standards for new diesel vehicles from Euro II to Euro IV. We will consider tighter emission standards such as the Euro V emission standard when it is timely and cost effective to do so.

My Ministry has also been working closely with relevant Government agencies and industry partners to mitigate air pollutants of concern from the emissions of refineries on Jurong Island. To control SO2 emissions, the quality of fuels used by the industries has been tightened over the years – sulphur content in diesel was lowered to 0.005% (by weight) in December 2005 and sulphur content in fuel oil was lowered to 1% in December 2000. In addition, major emitters are required to cap their total emissions of SO2. Industries on Jurong Island are also encouraged to use cleaner fuels such as natural gas (NG) for their energy needs, as NG has negligible sulphur content.

As for the Member’s query on coal-fired power stations, these tend to emit more pollutants than a natural gas-fired plant. Hence, NEA has required the proposed coal-fired power station on Jurong Island to use higher quality coal that is low in ash and sulphur content. In addition, NEA has imposed stringent pollution control systems on the power plant to minimise pollutant emissions. The power plant is also required to install a continuous emission monitoring system that will provide real time data to NEA on the emissions from its chimneys.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider opening some polyclinics on Sundays to cater to the needs of working people who are unable to bring their children or elderly parents to the polyclinics during weekdays and which can also help to reduce the pressure and backlogs on Mondays.

Primary healthcare is well provided in Singapore, with easy access, of high standard and affordable. Our Polyclinics serve 22% of all primary care attendances. The other 78% are spread out over 2,400 General Practitioner (GP) clinics across the island. Most GP clinics are within housing estates and many operate extended hours including Sundays and public holidays.

More than 600 GP clinics have partnered my Ministry under the Primary Care Partnership Scheme to provide subsidised care for needy patients. Tapping on this wide network of private primary care providers is more efficient than extending the polyclinics beyond their current operating hours.

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals that wish to act on these AMDs.

More than 13,900 people have signed the Advance Medical Directives (AMDs). Over the years, 31 people have registered their revocations with the AMD Registry.

A person who has made an AMD may reconsider his decision and revoke his AMD. There may be situations where the revocation may need to be done quickly, eg, before an urgent operation. Hence, the process of revocation is relatively simpler than making an AMD.

An AMD can be revoked at any time in the presence of at least one witness. The person can do so by filling in the standard form for revocation of an AMD. Alternatively, the person or his witness could write a letter to the Registrar of AMDs, stating the particulars of the person revoking the AMD and of the witness, and the time, date and place of revocation. If the person revoking the AMD is unable to write, the AMD can be revoked orally.

Under the AMD Act, there is a duty under section 7(2) for the revocation to be registered, and there is also a duty under section 7(3) and (4) for anyone with knowledge of the revocation to report this fact to the Registrar of AMDs.

The Act provides for additional checks before effecting an AMD. Under section 10(2) if the attending doctor has reasonable ground to believe that a revocation has been sent to the Registry or that the person has communicated to any medical practitioner his intention to revoke the directive, then the doctor will not proceed with the AMD.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there has been a significant increase in the number of users of off-peak cars who have been caught without valid e-Day Licences during the restricted hours since its implementation on 23rd November 2009; and (b) whether LTA has taken adequate measures to inform owners of off-peak cars of the e-Day Licence system.

The Off-Peak Car (OPC) scheme offers new and existing car owners the option to save on car registration and road taxes in return for restricted hours of usage. Car owners who register a brand new OPC will enjoy an upfront tax rebate of up to $17,000 as well as annual road tax discounts. Normal cars converted to OPCs also enjoy equivalent rebates. In exchange for these substantial tax concessions, OPCs cannot be used during restricted hours unless the OPC users purchase a $20 day licence.

The Electronic Day (e-Day) Licence system for Off-Peak Cars (OPCs) was implemented on 23rd November 2009 to replace the paper licence scheme. Under the e-Day Licence system, OPC users have the added convenience of purchasing their e-Day Licences through a range of new channels such as online purchase via www.onemotoring.com.sg, AXS kiosks, and mobile-SMS services between 6.00 am and midnight daily. These are in addition to Singapore Post outlets and Automobile Association of Singapore offices where paper licences were previously purchased. Under the new system, OPC users also have the flexibility to purchase their e-Day Licences after using the OPC as long as they do so before 2359 hours the next day. These changes are significant and beneficial to OPC users as they no longer have to pre-purchase the paper licences and display them in their vehicles during the restricted hours.

Prior to the launch of the system, there were press releases to announce the details of the new system. Letters and guidebooks were sent to all OPC owners. Information on the scheme is also available on LTA’s website www.onemotoring.com.sg.

With the e-Day Licence system in place, OPC drivers, most of whom are law-abiding, would no longer have their journeys disrupted because of OPC enforcement checks when they use their OPCs during restricted hours. Instead, OPCs sighted on the roads during restricted hours will be recorded and subsequently verified against the backend records to establish if a valid e-Day Licence had been purchased.

Given the substantial financial savings that OPC owners enjoy, there is a need to guard against abuse of the scheme by the errant minority. The enforcement regime under the e-Day Licence scheme has been more effective in detecting OPC violations. Since the implementation, the number of detected OPC offences had increased from about 1,300 a year in 2008 and 2009, to about 12,000 offences in 2010.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will update the House on efforts of the Cycling Facilitation Committee set up in 2009 to establish a common code of practice for safe cycling and its public education and enforcement efforts against reckless cycling behaviour; and (b) when will the Ministry implement any of its recommendations.

One of the key objectives of the Cycling Facilitation Committee (CFC) is to establish a common, community-led approach to address and better coordinate public education and enforcement efforts on cycling. The CFC recognises that the combined efforts of various Government agencies and local communities to implement these measures are the primary driver to shape and promote safe cycling behaviour.

Since its formation, CFC has been piloting a number of initiatives to create greater awareness on safe cycling. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has worked with local communities and other Government agencies to distribute brochures on safe cycling to the residents during the recent launches of the initial phases of cycling paths in Tampines and Taman Jurong. Such public education efforts will continue with the progressive launch of cycling paths in the cycling towns.

CFC also found that Safe Cycling Clinics and Volunteer Cycle Warden Schemes are amongst the more successful community engagement efforts to educate cyclists on the common practices for safe cycling. Since September 2009, the Safe Cycling Task Force (SCTF) and Traffic Police (TP) have conducted 27 cycling clinics for a total of 9,500 participants within Tampines Town at community events, schools and foreign worker dormitories. There are plans to have these Safe Cycling Clinics replicated in the other cycling towns. Tampines has also put in place a Volunteer Cycle Warden Scheme, which involves the grassroots and resident volunteers to police any unsafe cycling behaviour at "hotspots" such as junctions and bus shelters. Similar engagement efforts to educate cyclists have been carried out successfully in Aljunied, Eunos and Paya Lebar with the support of the local communities and LTA. From the experiences of these ongoing public education initiatives, CFC is in the midst of developing a set of guidelines on proper cycling behaviour on dedicated cycling paths.

Apart from these efforts, TP has been giving customised talks in schools and at community-level events to provide tips on safe cycling. At these talks, TP shares case studies of traffic accidents involving cyclists and the benefits of using a pre-riding checklist for cyclists. In addition, road safety exhibitions which provide safety tips for cyclists have been held at HDB neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces.

With support from various stakeholders, CFC will continue to be committed to the cause of shaping and promoting good cycling behaviour through our public education and enforcement efforts.

asked the Minister for Manpower what are some of the barriers faced by small and medium-sized enterprises with regard to (i) raising the skill levels of low-income workers; and (ii) hiring Singaporeans.

Training barriers commonly cited by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) include financial constraints and difficulties in releasing workers due to small staff strength. Nonetheless, MOM’s survey of private sector establishments showed that 61% of SMEs, defined as establishments with less than 200 employees, do send their workers for structured training. This is comparable to the figure of 65% among all private sector establishments surveyed. Among SMEs who sent their workers for training, many reported positive impact of training, such as higher work productivity and customer satisfaction.

Continuing Education and Training (CET) is subsidised for all Singaporeans. To make training even more affordable for low-wage workers (LWWs), we launched the Workfare Training Support Scheme (WTS) in 2010. The WTS provides higher training grants to employers and LWWs, including absentee payroll. WDA also partnered HDB and the Singapore Institute of Retail Studies (SIRS) to roll out an on-site bite-sized training programme for retail SMEs in HDB estates to make training more accessible to SMEs with small numbers of staff. In this programme, training is conducted within the locality of the shops at convenient times (such as before store opening).

Some SMEs may not be aware of avenues available to them to improve worker productivity and skills. Recognising this, WDA and SPRING Singapore jointly initiated the SME Productivity Action Roadmap (SME-PRO) last year: a three-step approach to assist SMEs in productivity improvement. There are also five Enterprise Development Centres (EDCs) set up jointly by SPRING Singapore and key business chambers and associations to provide business advisory services to SMEs.

On the barriers faced by SMEs in hiring Singaporeans, SMEs on the whole could face greater difficulties in attracting and retaining quality staff compared to larger companies due to weaker employer branding, lower ability to pay and reward as generously, and fewer opportunities for job rotation.

In 2010, SPRING rolled out two programmes to encourage young Singaporeans to consider SMEs as an attractive career choice. The Management Associate Partnership is an 18-month career development programme that equips management associates with core competencies to run SMEs’ operations and be part of the SME’s future growth stories; the Enterprise Internship Programme seeks to expose local university and polytechnic students to the dynamic and rewarding working environment in high-growth SMEs through short-term internships. In addition, SMEs may also tap on Government assistance programmes such as the HR Capability Programme under SPRING Singapore to enhance their HR capabilities and practices.

Being small, SMEs also have their advantages, such as greater ease in creating a close-knit organisation, wider range of responsibility for their managers, more flexible HR practices, etc. We encourage our SMEs to leverage on their strengths and adopt progressive employment practices to win their share of talent to support their growth.

asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in view of reports of offers to sell personal and contact information of key officers in various Government Ministries (a) how many companies are engaged in this business of data-mining; (b) what are the steps taken to develop the data protection model that can best address privacy concerns, commercial requirements and national interest; and (c) how many companies or individuals have been booked for unsolicited spam mails in 2009 and 2010 under the Spam Control Act.

The question posed by the Member relates to connected issues on data mining, spam and data protection.

Data mining is the process of extracting and identifying patterns from data. Though it is more commonly used in marketing for customer relationship management, data mining is also widely used by businesses, organisations and individuals as a part of research, trend analysis and other legitimate profiling purposes.

Given the pervasive usage of data mining as a business tool, data mining activities are not classified as a standalone category in the Singapore Standard Industrial Classification (SSIC). There are therefore no reliable statistics on the number of businesses engaged in such activities.

The Member also asked how many companies or individuals have been charged for sending unsolicited electronic messages in 2009 and 2010 under the Spam Control Act.

The Spam Control Act currently employs a civil-based regime for enforcement. This means that any aggrieved party can sue the sender in Court for an injunction, statutory damages, or actual monetary damages suffered. Due to the civil nature of the remedies, enforcement under the Spam Control Act does not involve a Government Ministry or statutory body.

A preliminary check with the Supreme and Subordinate Courts have revealed that, since the Act came into effect on 15th June 2007, no one has yet brought a civil suit to the Courts in relation to spam.

The House was previously informed that a study was underway to review the need for a data protection regime in Singapore and to develop a model that can best address consumers’ concerns, business requirements and national interests. The review has been completed. The Government has concluded that it would be in Singapore’s overall interests to put in place a data protection regime in order to protect individuals’ personal data against unauthorised use and disclosure for profit.

The Government will be introducing a data protection law that will provide a baseline standard for data protection in Singapore. The proposed law is intended to curb excessive and unnecessary collection of individuals’ personal data by businesses, and include requirements such as obtaining the consent of individuals to disclose their personal information. It will also enhance Singapore’s overall competitiveness and strengthen our position as a trusted hub for businesses and a choice location for global data management and processing services.

Given that data protection is a multi-faceted issue that affects many stakeholders, we will need to undertake further consultation and work closely with the relevant stakeholders in the public, private and people sectors to address their concerns. In this regard, I have tasked the Infocomm Development Authority to coordinate this effort. The proposed legislation is expected to be introduced for consideration by Parliament in early 2012. We envisage that a Data Protection Council will be set up subsequently to oversee the implementation of the legislation.