Hansard, 2011-11-21

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 by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

I have to inform hon. Members that I have on 24 October 2011 communicated to the President the Address of Thanks agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on 21 October 2011.

1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport in view of the expiry of licences for operators of London cabs by March 2012 (a) how would the Ministry help those who are wheelchair-bound to get better mobility on taxis; (b) whether LTA would work out a suitable arrangement with SMRT to continue operating the London cabs until a suitable long-term solution is found for wheelchair bound commuters; and (c) whether LTA would give special dispensation to transport operators to incentivise them to apply for licences to run London cabs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Ms Lee for her question. Let me assure the Member that the Government understands the concerns of wheelchair users in having access to transport services which meet their needs. As announced by the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports on 10 November 2011, LTA will support MCYS to identify feasible solutions through working with the Enabling Masterplan Steering Committee and related stakeholders. Sir, this is an umbrella review of inter-related policies and will take some time. In the meantime, LTA has agreed to work with SMRT to extend the statutory lifespan of all the 15 units of the London Taxis for an additional year up to March 2013.

Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister of State. What if by March 2013 there is no solution? What alternatives will be given? The next question is: before SMRT announced that it would terminate the services of the London taxis, were there any discussions with LTA? Is the SMRT's decision based on commercial reasons, that is, based on the bottom line and in answer to the shareholders, or were there any other reasons?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the question of what other alternatives would be made available, it is a little too early to say right now. The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports had indicated that the needs assessment alone, that is to do a comprehensive job, would take two to three months. Thereafter, it would be in both MCYS' and LTA's interests to try and meet the needs as best as they possibly can. On the other question of what was behind the SMRT's decision-making process, SMRT itself had come out to explain that the take-up rate for the London taxis was not as high as they had anticipated. Notwithstanding the fact that there were a number of the cab drivers who were willing to continue, in fact, there are quite a number of the London taxis that are not leased out by SMRT. Among the 15 units of London taxis which are currently registered, there is actually a number of units that are not hired. In other words, the take-up rate is not as high.

2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Law (a) if he would provide the latest update on the number of licensed moneylenders who have contravened the Moneylenders Act for misleading advertising and marketing materials; (b) what plans would be put in place to ensure that advertising and marketing materials of moneylenders in the print media adhere to the Act; and (c) whether his Ministry would consider amending the Act to further strengthen controls on moneylending.

3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Law (a) whether there is a quota imposed on the number of licences issued to moneylenders; and (b) what is the framework governing the applications and practices of licensed moneylenders.

Sir, with your leave, I will take Question Nos 2 and 3 together, please.

Yes.

Sir, Ms Tin asks if there is a quota on the number of moneylending licences, and what is the framework governing the applications and practices of licensed moneylenders.

The Registry has not imposed a quota on moneylending licences. What the Registry has done is impose rigorous requirements on licence applicants and licensees. For example, as part of the application process, the Registry conducts robust checks on the licence applicant and all other persons involved in his business to ensure that they are fit and proper persons. The Registry also requires all moneylending business outlets to be managed by a qualified manager.

On 1 November 2011, a set of new rules was implemented to tighten the governance of licensed moneylenders. These require, amongst others, moneylenders to seek the Registry's approval for the engagement and employment of any person to assist in their business. The new rules also further safeguard the interests of borrowers by, for example, disallowing moneylenders from disclosing any information about their borrowers to third parties without obtaining the prior written consent of the borrower, and prohibiting moneylenders from making any upfront deduction of interest payments from the principal loan.

Sir, let me now address the questions concerning advertising by moneylenders raised by Mr Yam. We have allowed advertising so as to allow borrowers to more easily compare the terms between different moneylenders and choose the best one for their needs. Under the Moneylenders Act, all such advertisements must be accurate and not be false or misleading.

We are concerned that excessive advertising could encourage excessive and unnecessary borrowing. Thus, the Registry has implemented new rules, also on 1 November 2011, to regulate more strictly the advertising and marketing activities of moneylenders. Under these rules, moneylenders are allowed to advertise only through specific channels – business directories, on their business website, and at their business premises. They are no longer allowed to advertise through other channels, in particular newspapers and through SMSes.

Since the implementation of the new rules, the Registry has been monitoring advertisements in various channels, including the newspapers and the Internet, as well as investigating complaints. As of 14 November 2011, 32 licensed moneylenders were found to have committed breaches of the new advertising rules. All the 32 moneylenders had been warned and have since complied with the Registry's instructions to rectify the breaches. If they repeat the breaches, the Registry will take stern enforcement action, which may result in the revocation of their licence, and for even more serious breaches, prosecution in court. Where advertisements were found to be by unlicensed moneylenders, they have been referred to the Police for investigation.

As mentioned in this House before, we will keep a close watch on the moneylending industry. We are reviewing other aspects of the industry and will take further steps to tighten regulation and protect borrowers, as may be necessary.

One supplementary question, Sir. I would first like to thank the Minister for the update on the change to the guidelines since 1 November 2011 and the actions taken by the Registry since then. With the outreach of the moneylenders now extending beyond the traditional older generation of borrowers towards a far larger and younger pool of borrowers, would the Registry under the Ministry of Law also consider including guidelines or compulsory education for borrowers on their commitments in the future?

Sir, the Ministry of Law, in another context, in the context of bankruptcy, has started a series of processes to educate Singaporeans on better management of their own finances. We have not really thought in terms of outreach for young people on how they should handle their finances. We will certainly consider that, but it is likely to be an extensive exercise and we need to be careful about going down that road.

4 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many lessees of HDB rental flats had been affected by rental hikes in the last two years; (b) what was the basis of the rental adjustment and the percentage of increase; and (c) whether HDB would consider reversing this increase for those households living in poverty in view of the increasing cost of living.

Sir, HDB rentals are adjusted at the time of tenancy renewal, if the income of the tenants has changed. This is useful to those who suffer an income reduction. This policy ensures that rental subsidy goes more to those who earn less. On the other hand, this encourages tenants whose financial circumstances have improved to eventually move on to home ownership, giving up their rental flats for needier families.

In the last two years, 1,100 tenants had their rents reduced, while 5,100 had rents adjusted upwards. The percentage increase in rental rate will depend on the extent of the increase in household income. The principle of charging higher rent for higher income is sound. However, where there are individual cases of financial hardship as a result of the rental adjustment, we can review them and re-adjust if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, for those HDB rental lessees who have attained a certain higher income, instead of raising their HDB rental further, would the Minister consider selling two-room HDB flats to these lower-income tenants who can then use CPF monies to pay for their home, rather than paying more in cash for increasing rentals that eat into their daily needs? Does the Minister not agree that such a measure is consistent with the established long-term tenor of the Government's policy on home-ownership for Singaporeans?

Indeed, our intent is to encourage ownership rather than rental. We would prefer to be seller rather than landlord. Those who are capable, we should try to encourage them in that direction. So, in principle, yes, I agree with the Member. The specifics, we will have to look into them, because sometimes there may be circumstances which forbid them from getting a further HDB loan, without which they may not be able to conclude the purchase. We will have to take a look at the individual cases. But like the Member, I will always be sympathetic.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there were many instances whereby the lessees had difficulties paying the new rentals, and what the HDB had done or is doing to assist them or in engaging them to pay the revised rental rates.

Sir, the answer is, yes, there are cases where tenants have had difficulties, and it will show up in the form of arrears. We try to look into each arrear with care, and those repeated arrear or chronic arrear cases, HDB will assign case managers to try to find a way out for the families.

Sir, the Minister said earlier that HDB had in the last two years increased HDB rentals to about 5,100 lessees. May I ask the Minister whether in our present climate of rising cost of living and stagnant wages for the lowest income group, are we not putting too much pressure on them and putting them in struggle of their daily living?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not one who likes to put pressure. I do not like pressure myself and, like the Member, I am always sympathetic. But as I explained in the reply, where there have been salary adjustments, then tenants go up to a different rental tier. I think it is fair that if you are earning more, then your subsidy will be less than those who are earning less. But, as I said, there will always be some family situations where despite the increase in salary, they may not be able to cope. We will always be sympathetic.

5 Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for National Development if he would consider reviewing the income eligibility criteria for rental housing in view of the increased median income and higher costs of living in Singapore.

Sir, the current income ceiling for HDB rental units is set at $1,500. This adequately covers the lowest 20% income households. In practice, HDB exercises flexibility so that those earning above $1,500 can still get public rental flats, if they are unable to purchase a flat, have no family support or other housing options. Our focus, however, should be on helping as many as possible to become home owners. And this is a point that Dr Lily Neo mentioned just now too. This is made possible even for low-income Singaporeans because of the additional help the Government gives to them.

If I may illustrate, the average price of a two-room flat in a recent BTO launch in my Sembawang constituency was about $107,000. A family earning $1,500 a month will be eligible for a Government Housing Grant of $60,000. His monthly mortgage instalment will be about $190. This can be paid entirely through their CPF contributions without any cash outlay. Indeed, the median income of those who apply for two-room flats in recent BTO launches was $1,400. This is below the income ceiling for public rental housing.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. According to the Department of Statistics' 2010 report on key household income trends in 2010, the median income had increased from about $3,638 in 2000 to about $5,000 in 2010, that is, over the past 10 years. I would like to ask the Minister when was the income ceiling of $1,500 set for rental housing? Was it many, many years ago? Considering the fact that the median household income has increased, plus inflation, would it not be timely to review the income criterion at this point in time?

While the median income has moved, the bottom 20 percentile has not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for those clarifications. At the beginning, if I heard him correctly, the Minister suggested that the rental amount – the limit of $1,500 – there was a range that the HDB would consider above on a case-by-case basis. Can I just enquire from the Minister what is the nature of that range above $1,500 where the HDB will exercise some flexibility, if there is a range?

As I said, it is very hard to prescribe a formula because the circumstances of families do differ. You may have huge or small families. The circumstances can vary a lot. Even if you have small families, you may have other circumstances, like medical or chronic illness which exert different expenses on the family. These are the sorts of details that we need when we look at individual cases. And the fact is that it is not uncommon to have households earning more than $1,500 and living in our rental flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just a point of clarification for the Minister. He has said that there is no formula for the discretion to allow those earning a bit more than $1,500 to still rent HDB flats. But would the Minister consider a formula whereby even those who are earning above that amount can get a rental flat but have to pay a higher tier rental? Because the reality seems to be that there are many people who are not able to afford the BTO flats because of different circumstances: they may not be first-time buyers, they may have sold their previous flat. And so the gap between the public rentals and the open-market rentals is really great right now. Would the Minister consider something where there is a tier in between such that someone can pay a certain amount of rent that is not, say, $800 a month, but maybe about $200 or $300?

Sorry, I missed the last sentence. What is that $800 and $200 again?

I was just giving some figures as to whether or not there can be an interim tier between what people pay right now for public rental versus what they pay for the open-market rental, to make it more affordable for them.

The Member quoted some examples where families may be earning a higher income than $1,500, but might not be able to buy a BTO flat despite the affordability of BTO flats, because they have bought a couple of flats before. And precisely it was because of those circumstances that we made exceptions to allow them to rent. But I think the strategic intent must be that, wherever feasible, we should try to get them onto the road back to home-ownership rather than permanent rental. My objective will always be for permanent ownership rather than permanent tenancy because, tenancy, as Dr Lily Neo put it just now, is consumption rather than some sort of investment in property. Whether we can have higher rental for those earning above $1,500, that is, paying rental above what is currently prescribed, is something we can take a look at, as we make exceptions. I belong to that school of thought too. Currently, the rental is capped at, I think, less than $10 a day. But for some families who exceed the income ceiling of $1,500 and could not go on to home-ownership yet, there may be a higher rental tier to help them in between. This is something we are looking at.

6 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education if the Ministry could allow National Servicemen to use the NS Incentive Award that is credited into their Post Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to finance their degree courses at private institutions in Singapore other than at Singapore Management University and SIM University as long as their courses are permitted by the Council for Private Education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Zainal for his question and suggestion. Currently, monies from the Post Secondary Education Account (PSEA) can be used to pay the fees of full-time and part-time Government-subsidised courses at publicly-funded institutions, where there is greater assurance of the quality and education outcomes. These include degree programmes at our four Autonomous Universities (NUS, NTU, SMU and the new SUTD), the Singapore Institute of Technology and UniSIM, as well as diploma programmes at our five polytechnics; NITEC and Higher NITEC programmes at ITE; and MOE-subsidised programmes at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and the LASALLE School of the Arts.

Nevertheless, we note that there has been public feedback to extend some form of financing support, including the use of PSEA funds, to students who choose to pursue degrees in private education institutions. As Members are aware, I currently chair a Committee on University Expansion Pathways, and the Committee is looking not just at increasing the number of places for university students but also the affordability and financing of university education. So, this suggestion is something that the Committee would look at in the course of our deliberations.

7 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the six reported cases of bodies taken out of reservoirs, notably four in the last four months (a) what other measures to prevent occurrences of such incidents will the PUB adopt other than the usual beefing up of security and putting up of warning signs around the reservoirs; and (b) whether the Ministry will set up a committee to look into the impact on the water quality and the psychological effects of these incidents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by expressing our condolences to the families of all those who have passed away in the vicinity of our reservoirs. There are fundamentally two key issues that we need to address. First, why do we open our reservoirs to the public and, secondly, the safety of our water supply.

Let me deal with the first point. Since 2004, PUB has opened up most of our reservoirs for recreational activities which include kayaking, canoeing, dragon-boating and spot fishing. This has enabled many people to enjoy access to our water bodies and also encourage stronger community ownership of our reservoirs. The purpose of this is to ensure people come closer to water, and feel a stake in maintaining the cleanliness of our reservoirs. Furthermore, this is a beautiful, natural resource and I think it should be made available to the citizens of our country.

The opening of the reservoirs was done with careful consideration for public safety. If any Member has visited, you would find that there are safety measures such as warning signs, life buoys, safety barriers and clear demarcation of the areas within the reservoirs which are available for public use. All the activities on the water have to be conducted by organised and formal groups. All such operators are required to comply with very stringent safety procedures which are imposed by PUB. These procedures would include safety briefings to all participants and ensuring that every participant in the water has a personal floatation device. PUB conducts regular audits on all these operators to ensure strict compliance with these required safety procedures. In addition, PUB officers also conduct regular patrols to ensure that reservoir facilities are used in a safe manner. PUB has also worked with Police to step up their patrols in reservoirs and particularly in Bedok Reservoir. We have also adopted a suggestion from the public, and we are putting up more signs at the Bedok reservoir grounds which will provide information on support helpline for those who are depressed.

In recent months, a number of bodies have been found in our reservoirs. Of the cases so far, only one has gone through a formal Coroner's Inquiry and in that particular case, the Coroner recorded an open verdict which means there was not sufficient evidence to determine the specific cause of death. For the other cases, formal investigations are still ongoing. The Coroner's Inquiry has not been held yet and, therefore, we should not speculate on the specific circumstances of each particular case at this point in time. Having said that, PUB's internal investigations into the circumstances into all these cases so far have not attributed any of these deaths to water activities within the reservoir itself.

Even with the measures that have been put in place, we still require people to exercise personal care and take responsibility for their own safety in our reservoirs. We therefore seek the cooperation of all members of the public to exercise their rights to use the reservoirs facilities and waters carefully. And also to help us by alerting the PUB or the Police if they notice anyone behaving suspiciously or in an unsafe manner in the vicinity of our reservoirs.

Mrs Chiam has asked about the impact of these incidents on our water quality, and this indeed is a serious issue, and is the second point that I want to elaborate on. Fortunately for us, all these incidents have occurred in reservoirs containing raw water, that is, untreated water. Before water reaches the taps and our glasses, it has to undergo several steps of filtration and chemical disinfection in order to ensure that it is safe to drink. PUB continually monitors water quality in all our reservoirs and in our treatment plants to ensure that water is safe for consumption. Reservoir water is chemically treated, filtered, and disinfected in our waterworks to a high standard, well within World Health Organization's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. This treatment process eliminates the bacteria which may be found from decaying organic material found naturally in the reservoirs' ecosystems. The treated water is tested daily for many chemical and biological parameters. PUB also engages an External Audit Panel, comprising local and international experts, to independently assess the toxicology, water quality and chemistry of our water. We would like therefore to assure the public that the recent incidents, although tragic, have not compromised the safety of drinking water for the public.

Sir, I thank the Minister for answering the question. May I ask: did the Government intensify its water purification after five bodies were discovered at Bedok Reservoir? This is a serious matter, even if one ant drops into my water, I would not want to drink it. Did the Government intensify the purification of the water? Or was it just the normal process? Secondly, would the Government form a task force comprising experts and people who have overcome suicides to brainstorm for ideas and find quick solutions to stop this disturbing issue from happening again?

Sir, I thank the Member for those two questions. First, on the question of whether we intensified any activity: we certainly intensified all our measures to prevent these sorts of untoward accidents. So, we reviewed all the safety parameters, we increased patrolling, we increased lightings, we put up more signs. Specifically, on water safety, there was no need to change the operating procedure to filter, treat and check the water. We stepped up our monitoring and we ensured that everybody in the water treatment plants that are dealing with raw water from Bedok Reservoir, have complied strictly with all our procedures. But the standard operating procedure to ensure that the water is clean did not need to be changed.

On the task force for suicide: I am glad the Member brought that up because in fact, this illustrates that this is a problem that goes beyond our reservoirs. In fact, it illustrates that there is this phenomenon of copycat suicides. And since I came from MCYS in the past, I can say that we know there have been other preferred modes of suicide which have been influenced by media coverage and the way it is portrayed to the public. So, even as we discuss a very serious topic here, we do not want to unduly raise publicity and seed ideas in people who may be depressed.

But the Member is quite right; the root of the issue is people who are depressed and who are having difficulty coping with life. We need a multi-pronged approach for this. We need, first, to let people know that help is available, that there are people – relatives, the community and the larger society – who are ready to reach out to help. One phone call, just speak to anyone. Secondly, the Member is also right that there are multiple factors that determine stress levels, the depression levels, or the propensity to suicide. We have studied this. I can say, categorically, that we do not have the highest suicide rate in the world. In fact, given our ethnic composition and our location in Asia, we are actually doing quite well. Anyway, the point here is that this is really a question that should be directed to MCYS, rather than for MEWR.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the media play a part in copycat suicides, I would like to ask the Minister if he would be working with his counterpart in MICA to work with the media on this aspect.

One of the general rules in politics is never blame the media. To be honest with the Member, the media, in fact, have been very responsible in their reporting. The Member would notice that after the initial few cases, the media have toned down the highlighting of these incidents.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are any constraints that prevent MRT trains from running at two-minute intervals throughout the periods of 7.00 am to 9.30 am and 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm on weekdays; and (b) whether LTA would consider requiring MRT operators to run trains at two-minute intervals throughout these periods in order to reduce overcrowding on trains during morning and evening rush hours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Giam for his question. Let me first address the question of when to run trains at two-minute intervals. Sir, loading levels today are not evenly distributed across the entire network during peak periods. During the morning peak period, loading levels along the North-South and East-West Line range from 1,350 to 1,420 passengers per train at the heaviest stretches from Bishan to Novena stations, and from Jurong East to Dover stations and this occurs between 7.45 am and 8.45 am. In contrast, average loading at these stretches is about 1,000 to 1,200 passengers per train for the half-hour period before and after this period. Hence, rather than run trains at two-minute intervals for the extended periods as suggested by the Member, current MRT service headways, or intervals between trains, are set to deliver capacity to meet the loading demand, subject to what is achievable under the respective systems.

Let me now turn to the question of constraints. With the completion of the Jurong East Modification Project (JEMP) in May 2011, the infrastructure provisions are sufficient for trains to run at minimum headways of two minutes along the North-South and East-West Lines (NSEWL). The current train fleet only allows one stretch of the network – namely Yishun to Marina Bay along the North-South Line – to operate at two-minute headways for about 45 minutes during the morning peak. Headways at other parts of the network are still slightly longer than two minutes during the morning peak.

To further shorten headways and improve comfort levels for commuters, more trains will be added to the operating train fleet, in tandem with ongoing depot expansion works over the next few years. In addition to the five new trains put into service in May earlier this year, another 17 trains will be added by early next year. This will allow trains to run at two-minute intervals for a longer period across the NSEWL. Another 13 NSEWL trains will also arrive by around 2014 to 2015, and together, these additional 35 trains will enhance the capacity of the NSEWL by about 25%. More trains will also be delivered from 2016 to take advantage of the shorter headways made possible from the re-signalling of the NSEWL.

Besides the NSEWL, new trains are being purchased for the North-East Line (NEL) and the Circle Line (CCL) as well. They will be delivered in about four to five years' time, and are expected to increase the NEL's capacity by up to 50% and the CCL's capacity by about 40%.

Sir, Members may ask why these additional trains cannot be delivered earlier so that commuters can enjoy service improvements sooner. I understand your anxiety and share the same desire for quicker improvements. Unlike buying a car, however, trains cannot be purchased off the rack. Manufacturers do not carry inventories of train cars as trains have to be custom-built to fit the design of the line and platforms. To jump the queue for train purchases is also not possible as manufacturers have to fulfil their contractual commitments to other buyers. In addition, when we plan for additional train purchases, we must at the same time plan for increased depot space and stabling yards to house the trains when they are not in use. In land-scarce Singapore, this poses significant challenges. Notwithstanding these challenges, let me assure Members that we are fully committed to expanding the train fleet in order to improve frequencies of train arrivals.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her reply. It looks like commuters would have to put up with the current crowds for quite a long time from here onwards until the signalling system is upgraded and until the new trains arrive. So, it seems that there is a certain lead time that is required to in order to implement all these changes. So, my question is: was there any planning ahead in order to accommodate this lead time to accommodate the larger crowds. There are priorities in terms of increasing the modal share of public transport in Singapore. And, at the rate that things are going, with the about 7.8% increase in ridership from last year until this year on the North South line and almost 10% increase on the North East line, the rate of increase is going to keep growing. And by the time the new signalling system comes on and the new trains come in, it would be just as crowded as it is right now. So, does the Ministry have any other plans in order to reduce the overcrowding now and to make the ride more comfortable in order to encourage more people to take public transport?

Mr Giam is very right to point out that there is a significant lead time required to put more trains into deployment. If I could just share with him that in fact, the five trains that have already been delivered this year and the 17 that are coming towards the end of the year, these 22 trains were, in fact, first mooted way back in 2007. So, to address his question of whether there is advanced planning, the answer is, yes, it has to be the case simply because of the long lead time required to deliver the trains. Projecting demand and ridership ahead of time is always going to be a tricky business. It is going to be very difficult to get it 100% right every time and if Members were to recall, at the beginning of 2009, for example, we were looking at a very difficult year ahead and projections of even 100,000 job losses. I remember that because I was in the labour movement at that time. And if the economy had turned out as was originally projected in the beginning of 2009, then the job losses as well as the slower growth would have impacted ridership and certainly would have changed the texture of things.

But as it turned out, by the third quarter of 2009, the economy had already shown signs of picking up and so what happened at that time was that the LTA worked together with the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) to look at bringing forward the delivery of those 22 trains that we were talking about. Originally, they were meant to be delivered by 2012, and this was brought forward to 2011 in tandem with the earlier completion of the Jurong East modification project.

To Mr Giam's question on whether there are ways in which we can try to relieve the loadings that we observe during the peak periods now: indeed, that has been exactly what we have been doing. In fact, it started much earlier than that. Since 2008, both operators have added more than 2,000 weekly train trips and in 2011 alone, both operators added about 800 weekly train trips. So, these have added significantly to the train capacity.

And at the same time, the PTOs have also introduced in-train and station platform announcements and deployed service ambassadors to facilitate the boarding and alighting of commuters at crowded stretches. Sometimes, we have trains waiting to get into the platform because of the movement of people that is delaying the trains exiting the platform. So, that is something that has been done too. What else can be done to address this capacity gap in the short run? We are monitoring the situation as closely as we can and, as the trains arrive, we would look at how to inject them into the system to reduce the loadings.

I would like to ask the Minister of State, would there be any chance that the opening of the Downtown Line in the next few years as well as opening up of the Circle Line in the next few years will also help in terms of offloading some of these congested lines? The second thing is that, I also noticed that there is an increasing trend of some employers asking their workers to use the public transport as opposed to private transport. Is there any chance of us trying to make employers or encouraging them to use private transport for some of these foreign workers on our public lines that could also offload some loadings? And also, my other concern would affect a lot of car users as well. We are trying to discourage private transport into towns but at the same time, the public transport may not be able to handle that load, given our hub and spoke model. Is there something we could do, given that potential crunch on both sides?

Mr Zaqy's question on the Downtown Line: indeed, when the Downtown Line is fully operational, we expect it to significantly reduce the loadings because of the capacity expansion. As to working with employers, that is something that is being looked into. In terms of diverting it to private transport, it depends on what kind of private transport we are talking about. There are already, in the system, a number of these buses that have been hired directly by businesses to ferry their employees from one location to the next. These occur at peak hours across the whole island and there is significant number of these buses. But if we are talking about private transport, as in encouraging people to use cars, then I think the concern would be very much on the loading that we are putting on our roads, so that is something we want to be very careful about.

Sir, this is a follow-up question for the Minister of State arising from Mr Zaqy's earlier question. Would it be possible, during the peak hours to have parallel buses running alongside the major MRT tracks? I am also interested to know how many train manufacturers are there that we can seek to manufacture such trains? Thirdly, other than increasing supply, can we also look into demand shaping? In other words, how to further incentivise commuters to travel during pre-peak hours? Today there is a 30-cent discount. Can that be increased?

Mr Foo has asked very pertinent questions. Firstly, parallel bus services. In fact, they have been introduced at stretches where the loading levels on the trains are very heavy. The observation that we have made is that many commuters, however, still prefer to take the trains, even if they have to miss one or two in order to get on to it. I think it is a rather rational behaviour because even if you miss one or two trains, that adds, maybe five to six minutes, to your total train journey, whereas if you were to take the bus, it could end up potentially longer, depending on road conditions. So, the observation that we have made is that parallel bus services, even those that have been introduced, have taken on some new passengers but not a whole lot more. To his other question on train manufacturers, that is certainly something that we would look at. But perhaps if I could just touch on his question on demand shaping, which is a very important one. Since the enhanced discount for pre-peak travel was introduced, the numbers are not completely in yet. Anecdotally, the shifting of behaviour has not been as great and it looks like more needs to be done to encourage people to travel earlier. The feedback that has been given is that commuters often value their sleep more than what they have to pay. So, the LTA is studying this very carefully and should be making known some of its demand management ideas soon. We will share further at the right time.

Mr Giam, last question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify – because it seems like this process of buying the trains – every time there is an order for a train, the whole process seems to start all over again. Moving forward, would the Ministry consider having an option to purchase more trains with the same specifications, maybe a few years down the road instead of re-starting the process all over again. Secondly, regarding the measures to improve the crowding issue, would LTA plan to build more stations that allow the trains to turn around so that the trains can run along the busy stretches at a faster rate and, lastly, with all these delays, that is, arrival of the trains and the increase of the passengers, does the Minister of State see a situation where we will be like Tokyo, where we have these oshiyas (the pushers) who push people onto the trains in Singapore?

I can confirm this with the LTA but I believe that, in fact, we do have options. But just to add that options do not come free of charge, they come at a price too. As to whether we would become like Japan needing those o shiyas, I was recently in Japan at the train stations, getting a sense of what the loading levels are like. If we were to take the loading levels that are experienced in the Tokyo system and compare it to ours, I think theirs is a little bit higher. Having said that, it is fair to say that climatic conditions are different and also, Japan has a homogeneous society. So, realistically, we do not necessarily need to compare ourselves on such specific measures. Our aim is really to bring in capacity as soon as we can, and fortunately in Singapore, because of the way we have managed our finances in a very prudent manner, financial constraint is not what is holding us back from adding the capacity. So, I would say that, as Mr Zaqy pointed out earlier, once the Downtown Line is delivered, there will be significant capacity expansion, and during those times, I think we can expect that the loading levels would become more manageable.

9 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the level of adoption of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and other productivity-related initiatives by the SMEs; and (b) how can the Ministry improve on its outreach to help SMEs fully leverage on Government schemes to help them transform and improve productivity to cope with the increase in levies for foreign workers and stricter criteria for S-Pass applications.

10 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he would provide a progress report on the effectiveness of the enhanced National Productivity Fund and the Productivity and Innovation Credit since their inception; (b) how many employers have drawn from them; (c) to what extent has productivity in these companies improved as a direct result; and (d) whether the effects translate to better wages and working conditions for workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take the next two questions together?

Yes, please.

The Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme was introduced in Budget 2010 and significant enhancements to the scheme were made in this year's Budget. We expect businesses to make their first PIC claims when they file their annual income tax returns by November this year. Based on the tax returns that have been filed with IRAS so far this year, about 9,800 companies or 20% of the companies that have filed their returns already had claimed PIC benefits.

So, it is a little too early to say what the take up will be for the PIC scheme. But I can say that IRAS has been putting tremendous effort into promoting the PIC scheme, and especially to SMEs. Just to give Members a feel of the scale, IRAS has sent brochures explaining the scheme to all companies, more than once, and conducted 130 seminars for some 19,000 participants. It is also working very closely with the Enterprise Development Centres and the various Chambers and trade associations to have one-on-one consultations with companies.

As for the National Productivity Fund (NPF), about $600 million has been committed for productivity initiatives over the first five years, starting from 2010. The National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) has identified 12 fairly broad priority sectors to focus its efforts. These comprise a significant chunk of the economy − about 40% of our GDP and 50% of the workforce. We are, in fact, in the process of extending our reach beyond these 12 sectors to more sectors of the economy. For the 12 sectors, productivity roadmaps have worked out for each of them and most of them have already been endorsed by the NPCEC.

Besides these sectoral initiatives with roadmaps for each of them, the NPCEC has also supported a number of "horizontal" initiatives that cut across sectors. One example is the iSPRINT scheme, which incentivises SMEs to adopt information and communications solutions. So far, in fact, about 2,000 companies have benefited from this scheme since it was started last year. These are cross-cutting initiatives that, hopefully, will raise productivity across sectors.

Some examples of how the National Productivity Fund has benefited companies and workers include the following:

First, the construction sector, which traditionally is a labour-intensive industry − about 900 companies have already received help to adopt new technologies, build up capabilities and train workers. For most of the other projects which are in progress, productivity improvements of at least 20% are expected upon completion of the project. Some companies, in fact, have larger improvements of up to 70%.

Second, the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP), which I think many Members are familiar with, aims to improve the skills and wages of some 25,000 low-wage workers. Twenty-six million dollars has been committed to some 450 projects so far, covering 21,000 local low-wage workers. Two-thirds of the workers involved in these projects are expected to see their wages rise by at least 10% when the projects are completed. This 10% wage increment is over and on top of the regular increments that companies would be expected to give their workers. The training that these workers receive from the projects will also help them to perform higher value-added jobs in future.

Raising awareness and improving the access of SMEs to the productivity schemes − both the tax schemes and the grant schemes − is a continuous effort for all the Government agencies concerned.

Besides the efforts to promote the PIC scheme which I mentioned earlier, SPRING works closely with the Trade Associations and Chambers, the Enterprise Development Centres (EDCs) as well as industry experts and consultants to reach out to SMEs and encourage them to take full advantage of the schemes available. The Trade Associations and Chambers can, in fact, play a larger role in promoting productivity, including devising ways in which their members can collaborate to enhance productivity across the industry. The Government will lend them full support.

Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministry for providing the necessary support to the industries to maximise the PIC scheme. Many of the small companies do not have the kind of business skills or proper HR or finance functions to fully leverage on our schemes. Would the Ministry consider providing funds to build greater capacity for the EDCs and trade associations who could provide proposals on how they could better reach out to some of these companies?

The second question is to ask whether the Ministry would consider reviewing the way we structure some of the productivity schemes in which, sometimes, we ask the companies to spend first and then give them rebates later. Because for smaller companies, cash flow is often an issue. I think that could be a barrier for some companies in considering some of the various schemes.

On Mr Zaqy's first question: yes, we will consider that. Indeed, some of the trade associations, like the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, are considering ways in which they can help their smaller companies with HR and finance functions, working with cloud computing, for instance, and some other ways. And we are quite prepared to provide support for these initiatives.

On the Member's second point regarding cash flow problems of companies and the companies having to spend first and claim later in fact, we are well aware of that. The cash component of the PIC, which is upfront money and it is designed for that purpose, we are trying to see how the cash component itself can be disbursed as quickly as possible. But if companies know in advance that they are going to get the cash component, they can plan on that basis, and they need is some working capital to tide them over. This is something which we are quite prepared to see how we can improve the disbursement.

Sir, the Government has stated its goal of raising the salaries of workers by 30% in 10 years and the key strategy is to improve productivity. Can I ask the Minister how the Government ensures that the various productivity initiatives translate to better salaries and better working conditions for workers, especially for those at the low end whose salaries have stagnated for more than a decade? Does the Government ensure that the companies, which receive the Government's subsidies for these productivity schemes, implement a productivity gain sharing scheme to link productivity performance to rewards for workers and not just add to their own bottomline?

I think the Member has quite rightly emphasised the core of our strategy, which is to raise productivity. Together with that, our strategy has to be to ensure healthy economic growth so that the labour market remains tight and unemployment is low, because that is always to the advantage of workers. It improves the bargaining powers of workers when the labour market is tight.

So, these are the fundamental macro strategies – raise productivity across the board and ensure full employment over the next five to 10 years. There will be, of course, downturns from time to time but, on average, we try to keep the labour market as tight as possible. Those two measures in themselves will not be enough, and that is why we have specific initiatives like the Inclusive Growth Programme where we work with companies and industries to, firstly, upskill workers in very specific ways and work with the companies to ensure that the benefits do flow down to workers. So, the example that I gave earlier on the funding that we are providing for the Inclusive Growth Programme comes with some measurable outcomes that the companies are committed to. I gave Members the example of how we expect the workers to get at least 10% wage increment on top of the normal wage increments. With the upskilling, with the improved technology, we expect wage improvements. It does not come automatically. It also comes through coordinated action like the example I gave – Inclusive Growth Programme. There are some other initiatives which we are also working on in the same vein.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Recently, I met an SME from the food manufacturing industry. He was very happy with the Inclusive Growth Programme and his feedback to me was that his members were also very keen to take up that programme. His question – and I think it is a good question − is whether the Ministry would consider productivity initiatives by companies such as his company be considered as a criterion for foreign manpower allocation in future. So, companies that embark on productivity initiatives get additional points or advantage when they apply for foreign manpower. Secondly, he also enquired if other Government schemes could also include productivity initiatives such that if you have other schemes from SPRING Singapore or EDB, they could also add in a criterion that companies should embark on or demonstrate efforts to increase productivity before they are eligible for other Government schemes.

First of all, if a company does succeed in improving productivity and reducing its manpower requirements, it will allow itself more scope even within our existing quotas for foreign and local workers. It allows itself a little more scope to get foreign workers by virtue of having reduced its manpower requirements. But there is a problem in trying to hardwire productivity improvements to our schemes. What is the baseline? Would you discriminate in favour of a company that was previously inefficient and then did something to become efficient against a company which has already done something to become efficient? So, it is extremely difficult to get into that act of discriminating. Companies that have done a good job of investing all along in raising productivity, reducing the manpower requirements, should not be disfavoured in our rules on foreign labour allocation.

As for the last part of his question, we are looking into this generally when it comes to Government outsourcing, whether we can ensure higher standards on the part of the companies that are obtaining Government outsourcing contracts that involve fair employment conditions, what they are going to invest in productivity, and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the construction industry. For the construction industry, I understand that $200 million is allocated, and this coverage is quite high. But if there is demand, will there be additional funding?

That will be a happy problem and there will be happy answer.

11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he would provide an update on how the Government will help create an environment to care for Singapore's growing elderly population; and (b) whether the Ministry would consider more home-based healthcare services or retirement villages as options for our elderly to age and be cared for gracefully.

Mr Speaker, the key role of the Ministerial Committee on Ageing is, indeed, to facilitate ageing-in-place, that is, to enable seniors to age gracefully and be cared for at home where they live for as long as possible.

In Singapore, the majority of our population lives in HDB estates. As such, as the HDB population ages, we already have "naturally occurring retirement communities" in our public housing estates.

The key challenge is therefore how to retrofit and integrate care services into our mature HDB housing estates to help seniors age in place. We aim to achieve this in a number of ways. First, we will make our flats and towns more senior friendly, such that seniors can lead independent, active and meaningful lives. The Marine Parade pilot project is a first step in this direction, where we are testing out intra-flat retrofits and improving town infrastructure to make it easier and safer for seniors to move around. The outcomes of our test bed at Marine Parade will help us devise strategies to scale just programmes to the rest of Singapore.

Second, we hope to diversify and enhance the range of care options, especially home help, home medical and home nursing services, such that seniors can be cared for at home even when they are frail or when they fall sick. As we enhance the range of home care services, we will also review our subsidy framework to keep home care affordable. We will also look into ways to enhance centre-based services, such as day rehabilitation facilities and locate them conveniently in the community for better accessibility. Notwithstanding, we recognise that there will still be seniors who may require more intensive care at least for certain periods of time. Therefore, we will also continue to enhance institutional care such as nursing homes, especially for those who need such services.

Third, we want to support those who care for seniors in the homes. We hope to step up efforts to empower caregivers with the proper skills and make respite care, emergency services and counselling support services more accessible.

Our society will age significantly over the next 10 to 15 years, and we need to start to invest in infrastructure and services now to support ageing in place as the need for aged care will grow in the future. The Ministerial Committee on Ageing aims to release a masterplan sometime next year, which will detail initiatives to facilitate ageing-in-place. The Committee will work with various stakeholders to achieve our vision of making this a city for all ages and one which empowers seniors to age in place. We need to work with the private sector and voluntary welfare organisations to scale up our services and to professionalise aged care. We need to work with grassroots organisations and VWOs to outreach and support seniors, especially those who may live alone and have no children to support them. Above all, we need to work with all Singaporeans to support, care for and be gracious to seniors living among us.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, given the manner in which the population demographics is going to change in favour of the number of seniors in Singapore over the next 10 to 15 years, would the Minister consider recruiting a lot more geriatricians for our hospitals and the specialist practices that come with the geriatricians? Secondly, the Minister mentioned respite care and help to support those who are giving care at home. Those are very local home-based support services. While I welcome them, would the Minister also consider community-based support that the elderly can go and receive therapy from each other in form of social interaction within communities?

Sir, the short answer to both questions is, yes. From the hospital's point of view, we will have to recruit more geriatricians as well as nurses and allied health professionals who provide physiotherapy as well as other related therapies. The medical support staff that will support our ageing population is an area that we will look at. Within the Ministerial Committee on Ageing, for example, there is a sub-committee specifically looking at manpower needs and manpower development to support our various infrastructure development that will be coming on-stream.

The second query on community-based support: yes, indeed, we are looking at how we can create more facilities within the community so that our seniors can go to for therapy, for treatment as well as for health screening. One of the initiatives which we recently announced was the setting up of community health centres where we provide therapy as well as health screening for our senior citizens, not just senior citizens but the population in general. Senior citizens will have better access to them because they are in the community and not necessarily in the hospitals. These facilities will help seniors who are cared for at home because in the day time they can go to these facilities for services or support.

In addition to homecare, as I mentioned in my reply, we will also continue to look at how we can expand the capacity for nursing homes because over time, we will also require more bed capacity for seniors who cannot be cared for at home and need to rely on institutional care. We are looking at different care options for our senior citizens so that we will have a variety of options that will suit the needs of different profiles of senior citizens.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply and I am also heartened that there is a continuous strive towards achieving "ageing in place". But apart from putting in place a conducive environment, infrastructure and programmes to support the care for our elderly, the caregivers' ability to care remains important. We know that family support is probably one of the most preferred channels of care giving that we can give our parents. So with that, would the Government or the Ministry consider mandating or making annual leave provisions to Singaporeans to let them take care of elderly parents when they are ill and, perhaps, would the Government take the lead in such an effort?

I think Ms Tin has put forward a very important idea of caring for the caregivers because these caregivers who are spending their time and effort, making sacrifices to look after their seniors, their elderly, their frail at home, it is important for us to ensure that they also receive the necessary support from the Government and from the community. That is why the overall masterplan for the Ministerial Committee on Ageing will also include how we can help and support these caregivers, providing some respite in terms of the services that are provided to them or in looking at whether we can provide them with more leave so that they can have more time to look after their elderly and frail at home. These are issues that will be discussed at the Ministerial Committee on Ageing.

Mr Speaker, one question for the Minister with regard to the programmes. While the schemes are available and there will be improvements to the programmes, what is going to be done in terms of raising the awareness of what is available, especially for home-based care? I think there is very low awareness of home-based care from palliative to some of the ongoing care. That is an important aspect. The other aspect is: what measures will be taken to streamline the processing of available subsidies and schemes because some families struggle with understanding how to access these programmes?

I agree that there is a lot more that can be done and ought to be done in terms of our outreach and in raising awareness among the public, especially those that need help for health care, especially among the older Singaporeans who have limited sources of information. In this regard the community organisations will play a very important role. Ministry of Health is working with CDCs as well as the community organisations to reach out to the residents who may need help. We are also working with the GPs on the ground to engage their patients who may need help and if you remember recently we announced the rolling out of enhanced primary care partnerships scheme (PCPS). Through the PCPS scheme we provide portable subsidies to these patients. We work through the GPs who are attending to these patients to ask them to apply on behalf of their patients so that they can benefit from some of the help schemes. Hopefully, by doing so we would then be able to reach out to more senior citizens.

We are also taking the opportunity at the hospitals: whenever they come to our hospitals or institutions for checkups or for medical treatment, we would also raise awareness about what schemes are available to them if they need help. We need to mobilise all our stakeholders, not just our Government hospitals but also private sector GPs and doctors as well as the community groups to help raise awareness. We are also looking at how we can streamline some of these processes. We do understand that many of these elderly are not very good in filling up forms so we will try to simplify the application process as much as possible. We will also work with our community, organisations and GPs to see how we can help them through some of these processes, help them navigate in our system so that they will be able to receive the help that they need.

12 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry would consider (i) a tax on junk foods that contain excessive amounts of sugar and/or saturated fat; and (ii) using the revenue raised for health promotion activities or to subsidise the cost of basic foodstuffs for needy Singaporeans.

The Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health) : My Ministry has explored introducing taxes on food high in sugar and saturated fat as part of a strategy for addressing the rising problem of obesity in Singapore.

Countries like the USA, Denmark, France and Canada have introduced taxes on sugared beverages whilst Denmark became the first country to introduce a tax on food high in saturated fat just this October. However, we are cautious about introducing similar taxes in Singapore. It is early days yet. First, there is not yet any international consensus on the effectiveness of taxation as an obesity control measure. There is not much clear evidence to show that such taxes decrease the rates of obesity. Second, there may be unintended consequences. Such taxes will raise food prices which disproportionately affect Singaporeans with lower income who spend a greater proportion of their income on food. My Ministry will continue to study the impact of such taxes in other countries. We will also monitor the levels of saturated fat and sugar in our food supply and consumption pattern through regular surveys.

For now we will use other ways to achieve the aim of promoting healthy eating among Singaporeans. The Heath Promotion Board (HPB) is stepping up its effort to do so. Foods that are lower in sugar and saturated fat content are available under the healthier choice symbol, HCS programme. HPB is working with AVA on regulation of trans fat in Singapore. In addition HPB works with food manufacturers and hawker centres to make healthier foods affordable to consumers. HPB is also collaborating with the industry to research and develop healthier foods to its newly established Centre of Excellence for Nutrition.

I would like to assure Dr Chia that we have sufficient funding for health promotion programmes, both at the national level as well as locally. There are also various assistance schemes to help low-income families, such as the ComCare Fund administered by the CDCs.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. A point of clarification. The point I was trying to bring up was a specific tax on junk foods that was tabled by WHO a few years back. I fully do appreciate the problems with administering a tax on sugar or fat which some countries have done, and where the results have perhaps not quite lived up to expectations. And the other point is probably because the reason why there has been no data on this is because no country has specifically put a tax on junk foods per se as of today. So, it is just my hope that Singapore might take the lead in this respect.

Dr Chia, is that a question or –

It was a point of clarification.

Very well. We shall move on, then. Mr Zainudin Nordin.

13 Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for Law (a) if he would provide a status update on the Government's acquisition of the 29 houses at Marymount Terrace; and (b) whether the compensation package would take into consideration the challenges faced by the families and the overall landscape of the property market since the date the properties were gazetted for acquisition so that the residents will not be worse off after the acquisition of their properties.

14 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for Law if he would provide a status update on the Government's acquisition of the six houses along Jalan Kuak.

Sir, with your leave, could I take Question Nos 13 and 14 together?

Yes, please.

In the cases which Mr Zainudin and Mr Hri Kumar referred to, Government had to acquire 29 terrace houses at Marymount Terrace and six terrace houses at Jalan Kuak to facilitate the construction of the North-South Expressway. LTA had carried out detailed studies on the alignment of the expressway to minimise the acquisition of private land. Unfortunately, we could not avoid acquiring some private property. Land acquisition is not undertaken lightly.

We recognise the distress and the negative consequences to the residents whose homes are acquired. To assist the residents, from the time the Gazette notifications were issued, SLA officers have been visiting the affected residents at their homes to understand their circumstances and hear their requests. MPs, I think Mr Zainudin and Mr Hri Kumar and others have also met the residents on several occasions. My Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law Sim Ann as well as I have also met many of the affected residents to understand their concerns. Throughout, the purpose of these meetings and our approach has been to see how best the Government can help each one of them. But, of course, it is not possible to give in or to accept one fundamental request that some of them have which is not to proceed with the acquisition.

Mr Zainudin and Mr Hri Kumar asked for a status update of the acquisitions in respect of the houses along Marymount Terrace and Jalan Kuak. In July 2011, after the professional valuers engaged by SLA finalised the valuation for these acquired properties, SLA informed the owners of the quantum of compensation. Some of the owners have accepted the award. Others have filed an appeal to the Land Acquisition Appeals Board.

Mr Zainudin asked whether the compensation package takes into consideration the challenges faced by the affected families so that the residents will not be worse off after the acquisition of their properties. We are doing our best to help the affected owners. First and foremost, this means paying them a fair compensation for their properties. Under the Land Acquisition Act, which we amended in 2007, Government's statutory compensation is now based on the market value of the properties.

Several residents who were affected by the recent acquisitions have accepted the valuation arrived at by our valuers. Others believe that the valuation for their properties should be higher. They have exercised their statutory right of appeal and in their cases, the Appeals Board will decide on the quantum of compensation.

In addition, to assist the residents, we have done the following:

We increased the advance payment which we give to affected owners before they hand over the property. They will get 40% of the statutory compensation upfront. This is to help them in the process of buying another property;

We have also obtained approval internally for owners to be exempted from the recently implemented 60% Loan-to-Value requirement, if they need to take a loan for the replacement property;

After residents have transferred physical possession of the properties to the State, and collected the full statutory compensation, meaning 100%, if they wish to continue staying on in the properties for a period of time before their replacement property is ready, they will be able to do so; the period for which they can stay on depends on when works on the acquired property will start and they will be able to stay on at the properties at subsidised rental rates for two years;

Even with the benefit of all of these measures, some owners may still face specific hardships due to their own individual circumstances. My Ministry's approach is to look at individual cases to see what further assistance we can give and we have done so in the past.

I thank Mr Zainudin, Mr Hri Kumar and other Members who have been working closely with us on the recent land acquisitions for their help.

15 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) how many complaints of discrimination faced by job-seekers were received each year from 2006 to 2010; (b) what were the main reasons cited by the complainants; and (c) what is the breakdown by numbers for each of these reasons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the question. In Singapore, discriminatory employment practices are addressed by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). TAFEP was set up in 2006 by the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) with the support of the Ministry of Manpower. Recognising that the key to dealing with discrimination issues is to change employers' mindsets, TAFEP takes a promotional and educational approach to encourage fair employment practices.

With increasing awareness of TAFEP's role, 50 discrimination complaints from job seekers were received in 2008, 72 in 2009 and 119 in 2010. During these years, the main complaints reported by job seekers were those relating to language/race and age. The other complaints were related to gender, family status, religion and others. Towards the end of 2010, TAFEP started to see more complaints centred on Singaporeans' concern over employment opportunities and career development in relation to the recruitment of foreign manpower and talent.

So far, employers approached by TAFEP where it believes that there may be a basis to a complaint, have heeded TAFEP's advice and made adjustments to their employment practices, for example in recruitment. Any job seeker who encounters employment discrimination may approach TAFEP for advice and assistance.

16 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Health (a) if he would clarify whether Government subsidies are provided for all Accident and Emergency (A&E) patients at public hospitals regardless of their nationality; (b) if so, what are the reasons behind this practice; and (c) what is the number of foreign patients treated at A&E departments at all public hospitals from 2006 to 2010 respectively and what is the amount of Government subsidies given.

Mr Speaker, non-residents generally do not receive any subsidies for in-patient and out-patient care in our public hospitals and polyclinics. In contrast, Singaporeans receive up to 80% subsidy for in-patient hospital care, up to 50% subsidy for specialists' out-patient services and up to 75% subsidy for polyclinic services. However, A&E departments serve patients who have critical, life-threatening medical conditions or have suffered accidents that require emergency attention. It is a safety net to save lives and therefore we have to keep charges simple and affordable. We need to ensure that patients will get the vital emergency treatment they need.

A&E services are therefore subsidised at 50% at a flat attendance fees imposed regardless of nationalities. In the last five years, the A&E departments in our public hospitals served about 780,000 patients a year. Singaporeans make up the vast majority. Foreigners treated at our A&E departments averaged 140,000 a year over this period or about 18% of the total patient load. Total Government subvention for foreigners at our public hospitals A&E departments averaged $14 million per year. This represents less than 1% of Ministry of Health's total subvention to public hospitals for subsidised patient services which amounted to $2.2 million.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree with the Ministry that for emergency cases, the priority is to offer treatment and the costs or charges to the patients regardless of nationalities should not be taken into consideration in that sense. However, given that most foreigners who are either working or travelling in Singapore would be covered under a company's medical benefits or travel insurance, would the Ministry consider removing the Government's subsidy for these foreigners or introduce means-testing for these patients at A&E departments?

Mr Speaker, let me clarify that some of these foreigners may not be working because they may be here on long-term visit passes, they may be spouses or family members of Singaporeans. For A&E services because they affect life and death, we want to make sure that administrative processes in the A&E departments are kept as simple as possible, rather than subjecting patients to means-testing, looking at their income and their family background as well as verifying the nationality of each individual. Many of them come for A&E for a very short while because they are critical, once they are fixed up and treated, they are discharged. So the time that they spend in the A&E is very short. We do not really want to impose additional administrative burden on the A&E department having to deal with this group of patients, as they need urgent attention.

While we take into account Mr Baey's sentiment, we would like to still keep our A&E departments streamlined and focused on treating the patients, ensuring that everyone who comes to A&E receives emergency treatment that they will need. I think in terms of subsidies, for Singaporeans, those who really cannot afford it even with the 50% subsidy, we will continue to look at other ways because they are with us longer, they are still in Singapore. Even if they are discharged, we will then discuss how they can pay for the costs of A&E. If they really cannot afford it, Medifund will be able to help them over and above the subsidy that has already given in A&E. So, there is already some form of means testing for additional subsidy but for the basic tier of 50% subsidy I think it is better for us to keep the system simple. Let the staff in A&E department focus on the treatment rather than to distract them with administrative work which could delay the necessary treatment.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 20-21, 23-24, 28, 35, 37, 39-45, 47-52, 54-58 and 62-64 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 17-19, 22, 25-27, 29-34, 36, 38, 46, 53 and 59-61 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 22 November 2011.]

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

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

presented by the Mr K Shanmugam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Telecommunications Act provides the Infocomm Development Authority the power to regulate the Telecommunication Act in Singapore. Amongst others, it empowers IDA to grant licences, issue codes of practice and set standards of performance. The Act seeks to establish a robust regulatory framework that promotes and preserves a vibrant and competitive telecommunication sector.

Sir, the Act was last reviewed in 2005, and it is timely for us to review it again to ensure its relevance to the fast-evolving telecommunication landscape. Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendment to the Act broadly covers six areas. I will go through each of them in greater detail.

First, amendments provide the Minister with the power to issue a Separation Order for the transfer of telecommunication assets or business of a licensee to a separate entity. This serves to eliminate barriers to competition created by the control of bottleneck infrastructure or the possession of significant market power by vertically-integrated telecommunication licensees. In the telecommunication market, a vertically-integrated operator controls the network infrastructure as well as concurrently participates in the wholesale and retail services markets may not have the commercial incentive to open up these services to its competitors. They may even discriminate against them to gain an unfair advantage for itself. Therefore, remedies such as separation are increasingly being considered and used in other jurisdictions such as the European Union and Australia, to ensure equal and open access to key network elements and services.

Sir, I would like to assure businesses that it is not the Government's intention to exercise the power of Separation Order frivolously. As far as possible, the Bill provides clear conditions and limitations under which a Separation Order can even be considered. Moreover, should the Minister issue the order on an ex ante basis, he may only do so as a "last resort" after having considered the effectiveness of other existing and potential regulatory measures and found them insufficient to enhance competition in the industry. In such a case, the Bill allows the possibility of compensation to the affected licensee.

Sir, the second set of amendments empowers the Minister to issue Special Administrative Orders (SAOs). An SAO is an order from the Minister directing the takeover of control of a telecommunication licensee's affairs, business and property by another person, so as to ensure that a key telecommunication network or service continues to be functional, for both public and national interest. Currently, section 58 of the Act only provides powers for the Minister to act in cases of public emergency, public interest or public security. In these cases, the Minister may issue directions to licensees to prohibit or regulate the use of, or to require the use or control of telecommunication systems and equipment.

In cases of insolvency and abandonment of the network by a licensee, the Minister does not have the powers to ensure that the telecommunication network or service run by the licensee in question continues functioning, and any disruption to the network or service could result in severe social and economic repercussions. Thus, Sir, the amended Act would enable the Minister to issue an SAO in such events, to ensure operational continuity of key telecommunication networks and services.

Sir, we are mindful that telecommunication licensees may have some concerns over these powers, and we have thus limited the conditions under which the SAO may be issued. These include times when the Minister needs to step in to safeguard public interest, or to ensure the reliability and continuity of key networks and services provided by the Public Telecommunication Licensees or Critical Support Infrastructure operators.

The third set of amendments revises the maximum administrative financial penalty to 10% of the annual business turnover for licensable services of a licensee, or $1 million, whichever is higher. This is to ensure that the penalty framework continues to act as a sufficient deterrent to secure licensees' compliance to regulatory conditions. The adjustment of the penalty ceiling is in alignment with other domestic laws such as the Electricity Act, the Gas Act and the Competition Act.

Notwithstanding the higher penalty ceiling, the actual quantum of penalty imposed by the IDA will continue to be based on the facts and severity of each case in the event of breaches of regulatory conditions. In addition, Sir, the Bill also proposes to give IDA the power to cancel or suspend either part of or the whole licence, or reduce the period that the licence is to be in force, should a financial penalty not be paid within the specified period. IDA will do this by giving notice in writing to licensees, without payment of any compensation.

Sir, the fourth set of amendments concerns compliance with the Code of Practice for Infocomm Facilities in Buildings, or COPIF in short. The COPIF requires building or land owners and developers to provide space and facilities, so as to facilitate the roll out of telecommunication services by operators.

Today, any non-compliance with the COPIF is immediately an offence, and the contravener is liable for fines and/or imprisonment. However, Sir, the COPIF does not exist to mete judgement on contraveners as an end, but rather, is only a means to an end to ensure that operators have the necessary space and facilities to provide telecommunication services to consumers in buildings. Thus, the amendments seek to empower IDA to first issue written orders to any building or land owner or developer, who contravenes a provision of the COPIF. This will allow IDA to take into consideration the different circumstances faced by building or landowner or developer before making any non-compliance with the COPIF an offence. With this approach, the IDA will have greater ability to secure compliance with the COPIF, which will in turn ensure efficacy in the deployment of telecommunication systems in buildings.

The fifth set of amendment seeks to update the consolidation framework. This is to account for new concepts relating to mergers and acquisitions as well as new business models that have emerged. These concepts such as voting shares and holdings of associates have been incorporated in legislations such as the Companies Act, the Banking Act, the Electricity Act and the Postal Services Act.

On a related note, the current regime provides for penalty to be imposed on an acquiring party which is a Designated Telecommunications Licensee or DTL, should it fail to comply with IDA's direction to divest its voting shares in another DTL. Going forward, the Bill proposes to extend the regime to cover acquiring parties of DTLs which may not be DTLs of themselves.

The sixth broad area of amendments clarifies the rights and privileges of a Public Telecommunications licensee or PTL. The existing legislation allows for a PTL to enter land to install and maintain his telecommunication installation or plant in such land. The modifications serve to provide clarity over the privileges of a PTL with respect to rights to enter land and buildings to deploy telecommunications systems.

With new industry structure as the Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network or NGBN, it is necessary to clarify the privileges accorded to the PTLs, to ensure that PTLS enjoy statutory protection of their telecommunication installations and plants regardless of which layer of the industry they operate in. Thus, the Bill also clarifies the rights of a PTL in the case where telecommunication infrastructure is transferred from one PTL to another.

Sir, other than those I have mentioned in detail, there are other more straightforward amendments proposed in the Bill. These amendments serve to clarify IDA's regulatory purview extends to all telecommunication network and equipment even if they are used for broadcasting purposes. We also clarify IDA's powers in governing the number of allocation framework and the licensing of satellite of orbital slots. The Act would also be amended to cater for the service of documents using new forms of communication in addition to registered post and other means allowed today. This will include facsimile transmission and electronic mail.

Sir, in conclusion, the proposed amendments serve to enhance the powers for MICA and IDA to promote and preserve the competiveness of the telecommunication sector and serves to ensure a continuity of key telecommunication network and services. The amendments also seek to update the regulatory framework in line with industry developments such as new industries and company structures.

These changes, Sir, taken together, fortify the Telecommunications Act to be a more comprehensive and effective regulatory framework, ensuring a vibrant and competitive telecommunication industry that ultimately benefits consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of the amendments to section 69(C) of the Telecommunications Act to further promote competition in the telecommunication service market, namely, in empowering the Minister to a Separation Order for a telecommunication licence.

Amendment to section 69(B), however, extends the power of the Minister to allow him to order remedial actions on a person who acquires assets, business and shares in a telecommunication licence. Accordingly, the Minister will be empowered to do so if he is satisfied that the person is not fit and proper and that it is not in the national interests to allow the person to continue.

Mr Speaker, can the Minister tell us what is it that has led to this amendment granting him these extended powers? What does he consider to be against the national interests when speaking of the telecommunications industry, if he exercises his new powers? Can the Minister also assure the House that the powers granted to him in this amendment of the Telecommunications Act will not be used other than to promote market competition and to tackle clear and present threats to our national security?

Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Member for the queries. I would like to assure her that the amendments are meant not to give more powers to the Minister or the Government but to really allow us to regulate the industry to promote competition. So, I would like to assure the hon. Member and other Members of the House that before we exercise the Separation Order, in particular, we will ensure that we have exhausted all other means possible within our powers. The Separation Order is like the last resort where we have to intervene in order to secure the kind of competition we want in the market.

So, the question that was asked was what led to this amendment. It is really because the industry is evolving very, very fast. In fact, we are not the first to do so to adopt such a power. Other countries are considering the legislation. Closer to home, Australia has already amended the Act to force the companies to do voluntarily. I know it sounds like an oxymoron but the idea is to allow companies to do so on their own within a certain time frame. The EU is also considering such powers.

Given the fact that our market is indeed a very vibrant and open market and with new services, new entrants coming into the market, I think it is important for us to be able to ensure that the playing field is level.

What is against national interests? Well, when you have unfair competition, when we know that only one person or one company is able to monopolise the entire sector which is possible through a vertically integrated structure, we would need to take a look at it very closely as to whether it will allow other companies to come into the system.

So, the Government is committed to ensuring that the business arena is fair and level for all entrance into the market to ensure that there is fair competition because, ultimately, we believe that this will drive prices to affordable level for all Singaporeans.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, this Bill will amend the CPF Act to provide for the implementation of the Special Needs Savings Scheme (SNSS), to provide for voluntary contributions to be made for members by other parties, and for the reversals of certain transfers between CPF accounts, as well as to streamline the administration of CPF matters.

In the Committee of Supply debate in 2010, Minister Balakrishnan, then the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, announced the SNSS as an initiative to help parents look after the financial needs of their disabled children who are unable to support themselves upon their parents' demise.

The idea for the SNSS and the Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) originated from the Parents Workgroup on Enhancing the Financial Security of Persons with Special Needs, led by Ms Denise Phua in 2006. The Parents Workgroup recommendations were endorsed and folded into the current Enabling Masterplan 2007 to 2011, which is a five-year roadmap for the disability sector. Besides Ms Phua, other Members of this House have also spoken of the need for the Government to help parents make provisions to take care of their special needs children after their demise. I would like to place on record our thanks to all who have contributed to this Bill.

Parents of children with special needs can today tap on the SNTC to set up trusts for their children. The SNTC allows parents to formulate a trust arrangement and care plan that will guide the disbursement of funds from the trust to meet the needs of the special needs child after the parents' demise. Parents can set up an SNTC trust account with a minimum of $5,000 using cash, and thereafter they can top up the trust account any time with cash or nominate the trust they set up under SNTC as a beneficiary of their insurance policies or CPF savings.

The SNSS would complement the SNTC by providing an alternative savings option for parents. It will be particularly useful for parents who do not have substantial savings outside of the CPF, and for whom avoiding administrative costs is an important consideration.

SNSS will allow parents to arrange for a stream of income for their children using their CPF savings without having to set up a trust. There is no minimum balance to sign up. There is no administrative charge, as costs are kept low by riding on the CPF infrastructure and keeping the scheme simple. Furthermore, the savings can continue to enjoy CPF interest rates, even after the parent's demise.

Let me now explain the legislative changes that will make SNSS possible. Under existing legislation, when a CPF member passes away, his nominees can only receive the deceased member's CPF monies as a lump sum cash payment or as transfers to his CPF accounts. Clause 12 of the Bill amends section 25 of the Act to allow parents to nominate their special needs child to receive a stream of income under the SNSS instead of a lump sum payment upon their demise.

The SNSS will be open to parents of persons with disabilities who are attending or have attended a Special Education School, or who require assistance in at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL). These are activities such as dressing, feeding, going to the toilet, moving about and so on. When the scheme is in operation, parents may submit their applications to the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL). The amendments to section 25 in clause 12 allow the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to impose eligibility criteria, and also allow unsuccessful SNSS applicants to appeal to the Minister for MCYS.

Once an SNSS application is approved, the CPF Board will administer the scheme for the benefit of the special needs child, or SNSS nominee. This involves creating nominee CPF accounts upon the parent's demise and subsequently disbursing the monies from the nominee accounts.

Upon a parent's demise, nominee Ordinary, Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts will be created and maintained as part of the deceased parent's accounts. The nominee accounts will continue to earn the same interest rates as the original CPF accounts. Extra interest of 1% will also be paid on the first $60,000 of the combined amount in the nominee accounts and the SNSS nominee's own accounts, including up to $20,000 from the nominee's own ordinary account. Clause 11(g) of the Bill inserts a new section 20(1D) to the Act to allow for the creation and transfer of funds into the nominee accounts.

Savings that come under SNSS in the parent's Ordinary, Special and Retirement Accounts, or the OA, SA and RA respectively, will be transferred to the corresponding nominee accounts. In the case of the Medisave Account (MA) balances, there are two options. A parent can opt to have them transferred to the nominee MA and thereafter used to top up the SNSS nominee's own MA each month, up to the Medisave Contribution Ceiling, to meet the nominee's healthcare expenses. Alternatively, he can have them transferred to the nominee SA instead, to bolster savings available for living expenses. Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill set out how funds will be transferred into the nominee accounts, as well as the two options for the treatment of Medisave Account monies.

After the death of the nominating parent, monthly payouts from the nominee OA, SA and RA will commence upon application by the SNSS nominee. Payouts will be made from the lowest interest-earning accounts first. This means that they will be paid out first from the nominee OA, which earns 2.5%, followed by the nominee SA and then the nominee RA, both of which earn 4%.

Parents can then decide the quantum of these monthly payouts when they make their nominations under SNSS. However, should the parent's savings at demise be insufficient to provide a monthly payout for 12 months, the entire balance would be paid out as a lump sum. Clause 11 of the Bill amends section 20 of the Act to set out disbursement arrangements.

Safeguards will be in place to ensure that the SNSS payouts are made to rightful recipients. Payouts will be made directly to SNSS nominees aged 18 and above and to the legal guardians of nominees aged below 18, unless these nominees lack the mental capacity and have donees or deputies appointed under the Mental Capacity Act. In such cases, payouts will be made to the donee or court-appointed deputy. The scheme will be in operation by early 2012 and MCYS will announce how parents can apply soon.

Let me move on to the next amendment relating to voluntary contributions. Currently, the Act allows a member to voluntarily contribute to his own CPF Account. Family members and employers may also make voluntary contributions for their family and employees. However, companies and associations may also wish to make voluntary contributions to a member who is not their employee, for example, a self-employed person, and individuals may want to make voluntary contributions to non-family members. Therefore, clause 5 of the Bill will amend section 13B of the Act to explicitly allow voluntary contributions to be made by any person, including any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporated. This will create more avenues for members to receive voluntary contributions to enhance their retirement and healthcare savings.

Sir, the next area of change concerns selected voluntary inter-account transfers that CPF members may choose to make. This includes the transfer of savings from a member's OA to his SA to earn the higher SA interest rate, and the transfer of savings from a member's OA and/or SA to his MA to meet his medical expenses.

Such transfers are currently irrevocable since they are commitments made by members to enhance their retirement and healthcare adequacy. In return for this commitment, members may benefit from higher interest rates. However, we also recognise that there could be deserving cases that warrant a reversal of the savings transferred. For example, a member who falls into unforeseen financial hardship and difficulties after the transfer, may need the transferred savings to service his housing instalments.

Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill will therefore amend sections 18B and 18C of the Act to remove the irrevocability condition, thereby allowing CPFB to make such exceptions in allowing reversals in such extenuating circumstances.

Sir, I will now explain the amendment that will allow for portability of Home Protection Scheme (HPS) cover. The HPS is a mortgage insurance which pays off the outstanding housing loan should the insured member become incapacitated or pass away, thereby giving a member and his family assurance that they will not lose their home. Unlike most private mortgage insurance, HPS coverage is tied to a specific property. Hence, a member's cover under HPS ceases upon the disposal of that property. If the member subsequently purchases a new property, such as when he upgrades, he would need to get a new HPS cover for that new property.

However, at that point, the member might not be in good health when he purchases a new property. In such a case, his new property would be ineligible for cover under HPS, as CPF Board must be satisfied that the member is in good health. This unnecessarily disadvantages the member, compared to his purchasing a private mortgage insurance. Despite his ill-health, he would still be covered by HPS if he had not purchased a new property.

Clause 20 of the Bill will therefore amend section 31 of the Act to empower the Board to waive the requirement of good health for a member, thereby allowing the Board to insure the member under HPS in respect of his new property where the member was previously insured under HPS for his previous property. In cases where the requirement of good health is waived, we will cap cover at the lower of the remaining sum insured of his previous property, or the extent of his liability for the new property. As is currently the case, cover for members whom CPFB is satisfied are in good health will be capped at 100% of the housing loan. Clause 22 will amend section 39 to enable the Minister to prescribe in Regulations the amount of HPS coverage that a member is eligible for.

Sir, the amendments in this Bill will help parents provide for their special needs children, promote voluntary top-ups, allow for greater flexibility to reverse inter-account transfers where deserving, amongst various other changes, including some which clarify and streamline the administration of the CPF Act. These represent yet another step forward in ensuring that our CPF system remains relevant and effective for our people. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

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 3.39 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Order. Before we resume the debate, I believe Dr Amy Khor would like to make a clarification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although Dr Chia Shi-Lu is not in the House at this point in time, I would like to clarify on the clarification Dr Chia made earlier. I had wanted to do so earlier. This is in regard to his statement about junk food tax: an issue that seems trivial, but I think it would be useful to clarify since ultimately it relates to our health.

My reply earlier does relate to soda and junk food tax, as it is commonly called in other countries. Junk food tax has been implemented in some states in the United States and in Canada on food like pretzels and chips and so on, which I think Dr Chia would agree are considered junk food. There are quite a number of studies made on the relationship between such taxes on junk food and sugared beverages, and the obesity rate. Generally, based on empirical data, it has been found that there is little or minimal relationship between the two.

Debate resumed.

Sir, the CPF scheme was established since 1955. In the early days, this compulsory saving scheme was started to serve the basic needs for retirement of our workers.

Sir, I read in the 2009 Annual Report of the CPF and discovered that when it started back in 1955, it only had 0.18 million members and about $9.1 million in its account. In 2009, it was reported that CPF had more than 3.29 million members and more than $166 billion in its account. What a transformation for Singapore and its workers.

We all know that the CPF has evolved, serving beyond the basic needs of retirement alone. Some of our workers even questioned the need to evolve the CPF scheme to what it is today. As an example, the monies in the Ordinary Account may be withdrawn for a range of purposes, including housing and approved investments. It is estimated that withdrawals for housing and investments alone represent more than 75% of all CPF withdrawals. So for our ageing population and workers, there are questions that were raised on whether the CPF scheme would be adequate for their retirement. As an example, for the OECD countries, the retirement payout for the workers is in the order of 57% of the last pre-retirement income. Thus, it would be interesting for us to know what it would be for our workers in Singapore when they retire some day.

With the evolution of the CPF, Sir, I am very happy to note that the proposed amendment to be made today is, in my view, something which is very humane and a positive direction for our workers. The proposed Special Needs Savings Scheme (SNSS) demonstrates that our Government has taken this proactive step to help families of persons with disabilities. I am also glad that, beyond just allowing for the creation and transfer of such monies, the Board will also continue to pay interest on the amount that is transferred to the accounts of persons with disabilities.

Sir, may I propose a few suggestions, beyond just allowing for this to happen? May I suggest: (1) for the Government perhaps to look at and consider the contributions of the persons or siblings or relatives into his account in a different light, for example, to offer some kind of tax write-off or special tax exemption for the contributors; and (2) to see if there are ways to offer a higher interest rate for the accounts of the persons with disabilities. It will also go a long way to grow the amount of money in the account to help these persons with disabilities.

The other proposal on the question of the reversal of contributions from the various CPF accounts is a positive move. But it would be good for the Ministry to explain why in the very first place these restrictions were put in place; at the same time, for the Ministry to study whether in the long run the movement between the accounts might have a detrimental effect on the retirement savings of our individual workers.

Sir, beyond just the CPF account evolving into helping our workers to cope with the future challenges, it would be worthwhile for us to think again about the basic needs and the requirement for our workers when they retire. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I acknowledge the intent behind the Bill, there are two areas which I wish to seek further clarity.

First, the Special Needs Savings Scheme introduced by this Bill allows parents to nominate their children with special needs to draw a monthly cash payout, receive Medisave transfers or a combination of both after the parent has passed on. The statutory provisions, as they are drafted, give wide discretion to the CPF Board and MCYS to decide the amount and method of making the payouts to the nominee. Three parties – the parent, the Board and MCYS – could potentially be involved in the decision on how much to pay the SNSS nominee and how these payments should be made. It should be kept simple: the parent's wishes expressed in the nomination should come first because parents will know the needs, which include financial needs, of their children best. If the parent's nomination is unclear, only then should the MCYS be allowed to exercise its discretion. This will reduce the risk of slip-ups in coordination between the Board and MCYS. What areas of concern does the Board have that make it necessary for the wide discretionary powers?

I also note that under the proposed section 25(1C), the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports will decide whether the child qualifies as a nominee under this scheme. If the Minister does not issue the certificate of eligibility, the applicant can apply back to him for reconsideration under section 25(1E). There is a concern that this avenue of reconsideration may not be effective since, according to the Bill, the reconsideration is being done by the same person who made the decision in the first place, ie, the Minister. I note that the Minister can delegate one or both of these powers to others, as allowed by section 25(1H). How does the Government intend to ensure that the reconsideration is done with fresh eyes and it is not just a formality?

Second, CPF LIFE payouts and Minimum Sum withdrawals are an important source of regular income to retired Singaporeans. However, the proposed changes to sections 27Q and 77(1)(o) allow the Board to pay the CPF LIFE payouts and the Minimum Sum withdrawals by a member who reaches 55 into that member's account. Our retirees need their CPF LIFE payouts and Minimum Sum withdrawals in cash for their living expenses. Could the Minister clarify why does the Board need the power to pay these payouts and withdrawals to the member's CPF account instead of in cash? It is rather strange that a member can finally withdraw and enjoy his hard-earned savings from CPF at 55, only to have the Board put it back into his CPF account. Under what circumstances will the Board exercise these powers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I rise in support of this Bill, especially the introduction of the Special Needs Savings Scheme (SNSS). This scheme marks an important step in the creation of a more inclusive Singaporean society where not just the needs of the able-bodied are taken care of but also that of the more vulnerable in society. Indeed, the concerns of persons with special needs must all the more be pro-actively addressed. The introduction of the SNSS is to be much lauded as it enables parents to ensure that after their death, funds in their CPF accounts can be regularly disbursed to cover the child's needs until exhausted.

Currently, the CPF savings of an individual who dies are distributed to his nominees as a lump-sum payout. The scheme does help parents provide for the financial security of children with special needs by encouraging them to save for their children's long-term needs. This is a timely response to the concerns raised by families with special needs in recent years. Many parents are concerned about pre-deceasing their intellectually-disabled children, yet do not have the means to set up their own private trusts. Although there is at present a modest trust scheme offered by the Special Needs Trust Company, the firm requires a minimum set-up sum of $5,000.

The SNSS is thus a welcome step forward for low-income families who do not have the means to buy insurance for their children. This is especially pertinent, as many persons with special needs, unlike non-disabled citizens, are not covered for basic health insurance coverage. The SNSS is notably a culmination of some of the recommendations of an MCYS-appointed Parents' Workgroup for the enhancement of financial security for people with special needs.

While it is heartening that the Government has accepted the CPF as an avenue of saving for a person with special needs, the scheme must be complemented by other measures to be an effective one. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The parents' concerns for their children with special needs extend beyond financial issues, with many expressing concern for the lack of employment prospects and care-giving options for adult children with special needs.

In line with this, I strongly urge the Government to consider providing more resources and infrastructural support to this segment of the population. For a start, current basic health schemes, such as the MediShield and ElderShield schemes, should be reviewed so that persons with special needs would be able to enjoy the same level of benefits as non-disabled persons. In addition to the CPF as a savings mechanism, a non-profit special needs trust could also be established as another self-help mechanism.

The issue of the lack of preparedness for the financial security of persons with special needs in Singapore must be pro-actively addressed. In particular, the Government should not take lightly the fears and anxieties, many of whom are struggling with their own current financial needs as well. Reports by the relevant workgroups describe a general mood of anxiety and, at times, helplessness, when asked about their biggest concerns for their children after they are no longer able to care for them.

The introduction of the SNSS is, therefore, certainly a step in the right direction. It reflects how we, as Singaporeans, are beginning to consider those with special needs as part of the collage and tapestry of our society, and an integral part, and rightfully so. The question now is what more can be done on the part of the Government to facilitate their integration into society as well as ease the burden on their parents in providing for them financially.

On another note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to express my support for allowing transfers to be made from the Special to Ordinary accounts. The availability of this option would be undoubtedly useful in the event of a vast change in circumstances suffered by the breadwinners, particularly in light of the flexibility offered by the latter account. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the spirit behind the Special Needs Savings Scheme which this Bill seeks to create, in that the Government is not leaving it to trust funds provided by private companies for the care of children with special needs.

However, this scheme does not go far enough. It is a very small step. Though in the right direction, it is not clear how this new scheme is very much different from the existing nomination procedures or the intestate succession laws when a CPF account holder passes away. The Government should not retain a person's CPF money in the inheritor's CPF account in the first place. It should be paid out in cash to the recipients and nominees. Otherwise, as the withdrawal age goes up, the CPF funds will be locked up in the CPF account forever.

Mr Speaker, Sir, here I am compelled to cite one common criticism of the CPF: that the CPF scheme takes up a sizeable portion of the income of people with lower incomes, forcing them to consume less in the short term. For parents with special needs children, this arrangement adds to their heavy financial burden. So, instead of disbursing CPF money to a nominated child with special needs only after the parents' demise, would the Government not consider disbursing these funds earlier, when the parents are still alive? I hope, however, that the Government will not count this as an additional source of income when evaluating public assistance eligibility for rental flats and means testing for healthcare.

For parents with insufficient or no CPF savings at all upon their death, this Special Needs Savings Scheme will be of no benefit to their special needs child. Would the Government not consider using revenue surpluses, such as the casino tax, to top up the CPF accounts of these parents with insufficient CPF savings when they pass away? I understand that the revenue collected last year from betting taxes which the casino is reported under amounted to some $2.1 billion or 4.5% of the total operating revenue collected by the Government last year. Surely, we can spend some of this money towards helping the less fortunate in our society. Mr Speaker, let us not underestimate the financial burden faced by parents in such situations.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. I would like to highlight three points. Two months ago, I met a lady during my house visit. She was 42 years of age, working as a dishwasher at a restaurant. She lived with her 18-year old daughter. Nothing unusual at first, but her daughter is a special needs person. She made a request for me to help look for a simple kind of employment for her daughter who is out of school already, and she said that this would make her feel at ease in case she passes on. This is a real concern for many families with special needs members. Thus, the Special Needs Savings Scheme is indeed long awaited and welcome for such families. The monthly instalment payout will contribute towards maintenance of such persons. I also applaud the fact that now the Medisave Account can be used by these persons as well due to the nominations of the parents, because it is the special needs persons who often need long-term and very regular medical follow-up. At least, this would ease their burden.

My second point: the easier administration of CPF monies when a member's death date cannot be accurately ascertained is another welcome move in this amendment. Here, again, let me share an example. I met a family member of Mdm A at my Meet-the-People Session who had problems getting the actual date of her death, and you may ask, why so? Thus, they could not settle her CPF monies. This was because when she passed on, she was in a rural remote village in China, her hometown that she had gone back to and they did not have any follow-up documentation nor processes in place. What they could do was just bring me some very old-fashioned printed photographs of her funeral procession. Thus, Sir, with this Amendment Bill, hopefully, families like Mdm A will have it easier and a more positive experience.

My third and final point is on allowing transfers of the Ordinary and Special Accounts to the Medisave Account. Many of my middle-aged and retired citizens welcome this new flexibility. In the last five years, I have indeed made many representations for them. This is exactly the kind of move and enhancement Ministries should come with policies in order to adapt to the dynamic situations and changes as well as evolving needs observed in our community. I support the Bill.

Sir, I stand in support of the proposed CPF (Amendment) Bill. As kindly pointed out by the Minister of State, one of the key provisions of the amendments – the Special Needs Savings Scheme (SNSS) – owes its origin to a 2006 Parents' Workgroup on Enhancing the Financial Security of Persons with Special Needs. Thanks to the then MCYS Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, the workgroup which I led, spoke to close to 100 parents and consulted many experts in the field. Several interesting findings surfaced during the time. We found that parents were most worried about two things when they pass on. One, will there be sufficient money for their vulnerable children to live on when the parents die; and, two, will there be someone to care for their children when the parents are no longer alive to look out for them? I remember one parent wanting to make sure her disabled child dies first so that she herself can then die in peace. If the child does not, she sadly shared that she may need to kill him first. That was how desperate some of them were.

As a result of the work plan and other advocacies thereafter, MCYS – and I am grateful for that – adopted and implemented several recommendations to help the disabled over the last few years. Some of the key measures taken were the setting up of a one-stop disability help agency, the Centre for Enabled Living; the setting up of a Special Needs Trust Company to cater to the middle-income families who cannot afford a private trust; and now with the help of MOM, the amendment of the CPF Act to implement a Special Needs Savings Scheme.

The recommendation that led to this Bill was a response to the persistent calls by parents at that time for a safe and accepted Government-linked avenue for savings. The workgroup specifically then recommended the following:

That all parents were allowed to open a CPF account for their child with special needs and to make voluntary contributions towards it;

That tax relief be granted for these voluntary contributions;

That the voluntary contributions attract an interest rate similar to that of the Medisave and the Special Account in order to encourage more savings. At the time of the 2006 recommendations, the Ordinary Account enjoyed an interest rate of 2.5% whilst those in Medisave and Special Accounts received an interest return of 4%; and

That Government and donors can top up these accounts to further enhance the financial security of the adult children.

Those were the recommendations made in 2006. It is hence with deep gratitude that I thank MOM and MCYS in making the SNSS a reality.

Sir, to ensure that the spirit of the original recommendations is retained, I wish to raise several issues for consideration by MOM and MCYS. These can be broadly categorised into 3Es, namely, expand the scope; encourage savings; and effective education of the families.

First, expanding the scope. Sir, the first and biggest concern is related to the coverage of people with disabilities in the amendments. The amendments provided two specific criteria for eligibility.

To be eligible, the person with special needs has to either have attended or is attending a Special Education (SPED) school; or require assistance in at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL), meaning he needs help in washing, bathing, feeding, toileting, transferring, dressing and mobility as assessed by a medical doctor.

Sir, it is important to note that this coverage is quite restrictive and will exclude many others for whom the recommendation was originally proposed. The first eligibility criterion excludes persons with special needs who have not attended any special schools. Sir, there are many of such persons in Singapore who attended or are attending mainstream schools which were willing to accommodate them. Through the charities that I help run, I personally know of students with special needs studying in such esteemed mainstream schools like NUS Maths and Science School and other mainstream schools. These are individuals who may be very strong academically but who may not be financially independent or financially proficient when they become adults. In addition, some people with special needs I know who have, for instance, Down Syndrome or celebral palsy who have never attended a special school all their lives, having been accepted in inclusive mainstream school in Singapore. They should not be excluded from the Scheme.

The second eligibility criterion in the amendment describes mainly disabilities that are fairly physical and severe. Many of us know of people with special needs who are able to wash themselves, clean themselves, move around and feed themselves. Some can even hold down specific types of jobs but they are individuals who too need guidance in money management, employment and need help in making higher order life decisions such as where to live, whom to contact when they are having health issues and even whom to trust.

I therefore seek MOM's explicit clarification that the target beneficiaries of the SNSS will extend beyond those attending or have attended special schools or those who require help in one of the assisted living skills which are primarily physical. I propose that as long as there is professional assessment that the individuals would benefit from such a service, that these people be included. This will take a whole psychological load off the families and disability organisations who find the amendments a tad too restrictive.

Second, encouraging savings. Sir, in view of the fact that the intent of this initiative is to encourage parents and siblings and even other donors to save sufficiently for the financial security of the person with special needs, I urge the Government to consider a few suggestions:

To remove the ceiling for the Minimum Sum topping up, as the people with special needs may require more to live on than the typical CPF member;

To permit the prevailing rate for the Special Account (which is at a higher interest rate) to be extended to the entire sum set aside for the SNSS account;

For the Government to commit to set aside sums from the budget surpluses to top up the SNSS accounts of the nominees who come from the lower-income groups;

Instead of a drawdown scheme, to allow for the sum set aside in the SNSS for the purchase of a lifelong annuity, just like for the able-bodied CPF members; and

To publicise and encourage the public, including philanthropic organisations and foundations to top up these SNSS accounts. I know of many lower-income families, for example, who have both elderly disabled parents and disabled adult children who would benefit from such top-ups.

In contrary to what hon. Member Mrs Lina Chiam shared, the CPF amendments this time precisely allow for Government and other donors to top up these accounts to help such families.

And, third, effective education of the families. Sir, six years on after the Parents' Workgroup has completed its study, I found that the fears of many parents with special needs children still remain. I think these fears will always remain unless serious efforts are taken to reach out and educate them and nudge them to start taking actions to reduce these fears.

There is a strong need for MOM and especially MCYS to go beyond their administrative duties and ensure these new financial planning options are effectively communicated to the families as a package. From ground feedback, many families remain at the fear-and-anger stage and they have not progressed to taking action to improve the certainty of their own special needs children.

I urge MCYS to further resource the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL), the intended one-stop help agency, so that CEL can play a more effective role in being that one-stop centre to which such families can turn to for counselling and action. Aggressive and proactive outreach to these families must occur. Lay out all the financial planning options, what they are and what they are not and let parents make informed choices. Provide incentives for the early adopters. Communication is not completed until it reaches those who need to know. Most of the options today are not communicated in the language of the intended target audiences, many of whom are not proficient in the English Language nor Internet savvy. Communication must be done in the way that is most effective, in terms of outreach.

Let families know that there are now two options that the Government has provided – one, a no-frills CPF savings avenue in the form of SNSS; and, two, the more deluxe Special Needs Trust. It is time for families with children with special needs, young or old, to start learning and, most importantly, take tangible actions to participate in either one or both of these planning options. And also aggressively let potential donors know how they can top up the accounts of the lower income families who can benefit from such a scheme.

There is no need for the Special Needs Trust Company to restrict itself to its current scope, and claim it is superior to the SNSS. Both occupy different spaces. And by the way, both share the same surname – SNTC, SNSS – SN, for special needs. SNSS is a no-frills option for those who cannot even afford to put up a deposit for the modest trusts offered by SNTC. SNSS users will benefit from some of the current services that the Special Needs Trust Company can offer, such as financial planning, legal advice, and care planning templates and tips. I think they should avoid the silos and provide a total solution from the perspective of the family with special needs, advocating the option that best meets the families' circumstances. Anything that is worth doing is worth doing it well.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to thank again, from the bottom of my heart, and commend MCYS and MOM for amending the CPF Act to provide a basic and safe savings avenue for families with special needs children in our country. I conducted a quick SMS poll of close to 20 families over the weekend and almost all of them said they would join the Scheme if it is attractive enough and they are very eager to find out more. I urge the Ministries to turn this positive desire to actual action that will then enhance the financial security of the people with special needs in our country. We need to help move families from fear to action. Only when action is taken, can the fear of the uncertain future of their special needs children be conquered.

Sir, as they always say, the maturity of the nation is reflected in how it takes care of those who are disadvantaged. This Bill is another clear step taken by the Government towards a more mature and progressive nation. Sir, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill should raise the spirit of parents with disabled children and give hope to caregivers of disabled children. Their top concern has always been who and how their children will be cared for when they are gone. While I applaud the Ministry's move to alleviate the constant worry of these parents, I am concerned about how this is likely to be perceived by some Singaporeans.

My first concern about the Special Needs Savings Scheme is how it will be explained to these parents. The primary concern is whether the country will take care of their disabled children when they are gone. I imagine myself in the shoes of parents who have to provide for one or more disabled children and having one key asset, my flat. I will start by asking, "Will there be enough money to provide for the care of my disabled children till they die? Given the current global overcrowding, energy and food shortages, the future will be tougher with higher prices for everything. Is the Government going to be inclusive as promised and take care of its citizens, able-bodied or disabled? Will my disabled children be better off with my nominating them? What alternatives do we have?"

How will the Special Needs Savings Scheme allay the fears of parents with disabled children? Many of them already have the perception that they cannot depend on anyone outside their family to help solve their problem. Parents are resigned to the fact that their other able-bodied children or other family members would not be able to assume this tremendous responsibility when they die. I doubt the provision of a modest payout of $250 can help assure any of them. What would go some length to comfort them would be a scheme that can grow the money in the CPF account or a scheme through which the parents' flat is leased to approved tenants for rental income. However, such a suggestion may mean that HDB would have to extend the lease beyond 99 years or a charity be roped in to manage the lease. The point I am making is that one can hardly expect any parent of a disabled child to jump at the provision of so modest a payout when the actual cost of maintenance is so much more. I have heard comments among ordinary citizens that the Government will not want to shoulder the burden of looking after children with special needs, which is a disquieting reflection of the distrust some feel about the Government. We must therefore address this perception by doing more than just amending the CPF Act.

Let us consider the manner in which the Government can approach parents of special needs children to provide help and support. The hospital or the clinic that diagnoses the condition should be equipped with sufficient resources to provide medical, marital and financial counselling. Parents are often not able to accept the enormity of what they have just learnt. Emotionally, there is a deep disappointment and a strong sense of haplessness, sometimes accompanied by anger, all of which take time and counselling to come to terms with. When they accept the diagnosis, marital counselling is needed to help both spouses understand the changes that have come into their marriage. They also have to work together with the hospital or clinic staff with the expertise to care for their special needs children. It is important that through counselling, parents feel confident that what they do is right for their children. They should be educated about the available resources and networks that the children or they themselves can turn to when they need help to raise their special needs children. They should receive counselling on how to plan financially for their special needs children's education and maintenance, especially if their children have no means of finding employment and are completely dependent on parents and family in their daily living. Transferring money from the parents' CPF account to the special needs child's account can then be an option but more options would need to be provided for, for example, different special needs trusts, if we want to show these parents that the Government will deliver on the promise to take care of all Singaporeans.

The Government cannot control everything and that it should not. Every Singaporean has a part to play in building an inclusive and a caring society. Inclusiveness, tolerance, compassion cannot be legislated. But we can instil in our citizens the important values of care and concern, particularly for the less fortunate. Our country's success should also be measured by how well we take care of our weak and disabled. Let us invite competent charitable and welfare organisations to help manage special needs trusts that can supplement the income from the CPF accounts of parents with special needs children. Let us also emphasise in schools the importance of compassion and acceptance of special needs children through understanding how they are different and unique individuals and how those who are high functioning can be a part of mainstream education. Let us do more to eliminate prejudiced views about people who are different from us and raise our children in a more tolerant environment that emphasises respect for people and our common humanity.

For caregivers who devote their time to care for special needs children but are not their biological parents, we should consider more outreach and support in the form of counselling services and tax relief. It is important that caregivers have the support they need in order to continue the challenging task of providing a stable and affectionate home environment to special needs children. At work, employers can be more thoughtful in giving time off to care for a sick child or discuss with the school, issues highlighted by the teacher in class. The Government can extend help to set up support groups near the homes of caregivers or where they can easily go to for help when they feel they cannot cope. Caregivers of special needs children deserve more support as they are shining examples of loving devotion to the needy. Our children should look at them as role models.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government must assure the people of Singapore that any change that is proposed that can affect their lives is done for their benefit, with their welfare or their children's welfare in mind. Explain and convince the people that every effort is made to deliver on the promise to build an inclusive society based on justice and compassion. However, the people must do their part as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Yaw Shin Leong, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mrs Lina Chiam, Dr Fatimah Lateef, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Ellen Lee for their thoughtful speeches.

I think I speak also for my colleagues from MCYS in saying that we appreciate the constructive comments on SNSS and, more broadly, what can be done to support those with special needs.

Before I respond to the comments on SNSS specifically, I would like to share that we deliberated on a number of these points when we designed the scheme. Some had been received as feedback during our earlier consultations with parents and the community. I think this is an important point to emphasise. This is an effort that has come about from working with the parents who have children with special needs. Many suggestions were taken in to make the scheme as helpful to parents as possible. An important consideration that shaped our efforts was the need to ensure that the scheme would be widely available at no charge so as to ensure good coverage for Singaporeans. Hence, the scheme had to be kept simple and streamlined.

Though we could not include every feature or suggestion, we have included the important ones that matter and we will consider to look at it to refine it as time goes by. Allow me to make a very simple response to our Member, Mrs Lina Chiam's comments about the Bill.

This Bill was created with the inputs from parents with children with special needs. It is meant to help them. And I believe Members have heard Ms Denise Phua's comments. I think this is important even as we set forth to criticise. It goes a long way. It is not just an amendment to the Bill. These are fundamental changes which we are putting in place along with the SNTC that is already in place and together with the programmes and the roadmap that MCYS has put in place to look at this sector. I think it is important to acknowledge.

On the issue of eligibility for SNSS, Ms Denise Phua is concerned about those who are physically fine and do not need assistance with any of the six Activity of Daily Living (ADLs), but who may instead have some mental impairment. Many of such individuals would, in fact, qualify for SNSS under the alternative criteria of SPED school attendance. Similarly, those who are not intellectually disabled, but have other special needs physically, could be covered under the ADL criteria if their physical disabilities are serious enough. But I would like to address the wider point the Member is making: whether the eligibility criteria are sufficiently broad enough. To answer this, let us remain mindful of the intended group the scheme was designed for: persons with disabilities who cannot support themselves. This is the basis of the current eligibility criteria. The ADL criterion covers most of those who cannot live independently due to their disabilities, while the SPED school criterion covers those with more moderate to severe disabilities for individuals unable to attend mainstream schools. In this sense, the eligibility criteria cover the target group fairly well.

Nonetheless, to ensure that eligibility is administered in a flexible and compassionate manner, the appeals channels that I mentioned earlier would allow MCYS to consider and approve on a case-by-case basis, deserving applications that do not quite meet the eligibility criteria. Before we consider any extension of eligibility, let us implement the scheme, encourage a healthy take-up rate, and constantly review it. In the meantime, I hope this clarifies Ms Denise Phua's concern and to assure her that there will be room for flexibility on who can use the SNSS. We do thank the Member for the inputs. Her points raised, for example, on autistic children, are things that we need to continue to look at and to factor in how best to refine the eligibility criteria as we go along.

In terms of design, Ms Denise Phua has suggested that SNSS be set up as a life-long annuity rather than as a draw-down scheme. While I appreciate the peace of mind that the life-long stream of income would bring – and I think others feel that way as well – an annuity may not be always appropriate for this group. Some SNSS nominees have shortened life expectancies while others could live for as long as you and I do. Furthermore, annuities need a large pool to work. It is unclear whether the numbers would be large enough for risk-pooling. But all things considered, it would be challenging to provide an annuity. Having the SNSS as a draw-down scheme would, on balance, be practical and effective for most.

Mr Yaw Shin Leong expressed concern about MCYS' room for discretion. In fact, I would like to assure the Member that parents do determine the amount of monthly payout for their nominated children with disabilities at the point of application, subject to the minimum amount of $250. Mrs Lina Chiam also contended that this is no different from the scheme before. However, there is a difference, for example, in terms of the payout on the demise of the parents, it would have previously been a lump sum, but now we are changing it to allow monthly payments. On Ms Denise Phua's suggestion that SNSS nominees be allowed to participate under CPF LIFE, the answer is that they are currently not prohibited from doing so. Separate from SNSS, parents may set aside funds in the SAs of the special needs children for the purchase of a life annuity. That is possible.

There is no minimum balance required to join CPF LIFE but payouts under CPF LIFE would only commence at draw-down age which is 65 years for those born in 1954 and after. Parents should check whether CPF LIFE meets the requirements of their special needs children.

In terms of sufficiency, which is an important concern, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Ms Denise Phua have suggested offering favourable interest rates to help build up SNSS savings. Ms Denise Phua suggested that the Government top up the nominee accounts of those from the lower income groups. She also spoke about not having a Minimum Sum cap on SNSS savings which allow for larger sums to be set aside under SNSS by parents or charities.

Mr Zainudin has similarly asked if we could allow relatives to contribute to the accounts of the SNSS nominees. If I understand his concerns correctly, they are fundamentally about the ability of the SNSS to help accumulate and stretch savings. I think the current design of SNSS addresses this. One of the reasons why we decided to set up the SNSS within the CPF system was so that nominated monies could enjoy CPF interest rates. As I explained earlier, monies in nominee accounts will earn the same interest as the original account. So monies in the nominee MA, RA and SA will earn 4%. Extra interest of 1% on the first $60,000 is also extended to the combined balances held in the nominee accounts and the nominee's own CPF accounts and these are fairly attractive interest rates.

On the suggestion for the Government to top up SNSS accounts of the needy, certainly we recognise that setting aside sufficient funds to take care of a special needs child after the demise of his parents could be a challenge, and we can explore the idea of grants and top-ups in future but for now, again, let us implement the scheme and let it unfold.

This brings me to a point and some concerns expressed about not having a Minimum Sum cap on SNSS savings. In fact, there is no such cap. The cap on prevailing Minimum Sum applies only to the Retirement Account. Members may also have monies in their OA, SA and MA. There is no limit on the total balances in all accounts and, therefore, no limit on how much can be nominated under the SNSS. Furthermore, both parents can nominate the same child giving the child access to even greater savings. Taking into account interest at 4%, the current Minimum Sum of $131,000 would allow for SNSS payouts at $500 per month for about 52 years.

Ms Ellen Lee expressed her concern about the $250. What we have specified is that is the minimum amount but there is no maximum amount available. A lot would depend on how much the parents are able to accumulate in their CPF accounts.

So, the SNSS does have the capacity to take in sizeable savings but parents will need to plan ahead to build up their CPF balances. Parents, siblings and other relatives can indeed make use of the various top-up schemes to do so.

Mr Zainudin Nordin will be pleased to learn that there are already tax benefits for some of these top-ups. For instance, under the Minimum Sum Topping Up scheme, parents topping up their own accounts which can then be nominated under SNSS, can claim tax relief of up to $7,000 a year. Additionally, top-ups to the accounts of disabled siblings are eligible for tax relief of up to $7,000 a year as well. These top-ups must be in cash.

Ms Ellen Lee has expressed possible parents' concern about the sufficiency for their children in the long term. Mrs Lina Chiam has also expressed concern about low-income families. These are important and valid concerns. Should SNSS funds run out and there are financial difficulties because there is no one else to turn to, our social safety net will have to step in to provide assistance. In such cases, assistance can be sought from ComCare and the Community Development Councils. MCYS is also looking at this important area clearly as part of their road map with regards to the disability sector.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms Dennis Phua and Ms Ellen Lee that it is important to see how we can educate or how we can better disseminate relevant information to special needs families so that they can make better financial plans and, overall, to increase awareness of this. I believe that this is one area my colleagues in MCYS are already focusing on. The Centre for Enabled Living (CEL) currently provides workshops on financial education and estate planning for caregivers to educate them on the different financial security mechanisms for the disabled.

There has been a sense of the importance of the Government taking a much more holistic approach towards supporting individuals with special needs. I agree. Ms Ellen Lee expressed concerns and reservations that she has heard but I think Members will agree with me that Ms Dennis Phua has been the most ardent champion in this area and she has been working intimately with many families concerned and those feedback and concerns are being factored in, not only to this Bill but I think to the way MCYS is approaching the special needs sector as a whole. And we do agree that there is a need for a holistic approach. This Bill is just one part of a larger overall picture.

MCYS has begun work to prepare for the next cycle of the five-year Enabling Masterplan for 2012 to 2016 for the Disability Sector. This Masterplan will take a holistic approach, indeed as raised by Members, to review and support the needs of persons with disabilities and, as Ms Ellen Lee expressed, for their caregivers. We will certainly note that in terms of the need for counselling, in terms of the need for advice and support for caregivers.

Mr de Souza also highlighted the need for further mechanisms to help parents make long-term financial provisions for their special needs children. These are important and good points. The Government has played a key role in gradually building up the range of options available to parents, starting from the SNTC and now the SNSS. Indeed, they are complementary. They are different but between them they fill up a space that caters to the needs of parents of special needs children.

MOH also intends to study how MediShield can be extended to those with congenital conditions. We will continue to pay attention to the needs of special groups and to see what role the Government and the community can play.

Allow me to now briefly turn to the issue of allowing reversals of transfers from OA to the SA. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked why the restrictions were there to begin with. However, he also acknowledged that being too liberal in allowing transfers from the SA to the OA would be detrimental to the member's retirement adequacy.

We are not allowing SA monies to be transferrable to the OA. Rather, when members have voluntarily made transfers from their OA to the SA, our amendment will allow these transfers to be reversed but only on a case by case basis and only allowed in deserving instances, for example, when members are experiencing significant and unforeseen financial difficulties.

On the issue of crediting life payouts to OA account, as brought up by Mr Yaw Shin Leong, in fact, it is not meant to go to the OA account. This adjustment is put in place because we have encountered situations where the bank transfers to the bank accounts of the individuals did not happen because, for whatever reason, the bank accounts lapsed. So as a temporary measure, it is transferred to the OA account until we can re-activate that.

In closing, with this amendment, I think we have reached an important and another milestone in building up our support infrastructure for parents with special needs children. SNSS will complement SNTC to provide a more complete suite of solutions for parents concerned about how they can provide for their special needs children after their demise. SNSS has all the key features, payouts that are streamed out, attractive interest rates and it is free. It will appeal to those who have little savings outside their CPF and those who do not find the customisation available under SNTC necessary for their circumstances. On the other hand, there would be others who require a more elaborate or case-managed service and they could turn to the SNTC for this. Parents who envisage the needs of their children evolving and who want some safeguards over how disbursement arrangements may necessarily need to adapt after their demise would find, perhaps, SNTC more appropriate for them.

To put it simply, one option is free and comes with essential features; the other model is a model with fees that allows for greater customisation. We have designed SNSS and SNTC such that between them, they provide for a fairly complete coverage of the various needs. They complement each other. In this way, parents have options and can pick the options or a combination of options that fits their needs and circumstances better.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his clarifications. I support his suggestion to let the SNSS run. Let it unfold and then review the scheme again. I just want to ask the Minister of State when he thinks the scheme will be reviewed again. How much time does he think will be needed before a review? This is my first question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at least let us unfold the scheme. I think we will work closely with Ms Denise Phua and the parents concerned. And we will –

Maybe 18 months? Is that fair?

Let us allow the scheme to unfold, and we will talk about that subsequently –

The Manpower Minister just nodded his head. Did he say yes? [Laughter]. Maybe we will let it run for 18 months and then review it. I think we just want it to be effective, Sir. That was my first question.

Second, Sir, I also want to ask the Government to seriously resource the Centre for Enabled Living better so that they can perform their one-stop help agency and with sign-posting role much more effectively. I do think they need that support. And, third, I would like to ask the Government to speed up the MediShield reforms to include those with congenital illnesses, because medical expenses do potentially drain a family's financial resources. Besides, basic healthcare is one of the basic provisions that the State should provide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure if I can speak on behalf of MCYS but I am sure they would look at the Member's suggestions, and her concerns about funding for CEL. On the other point about MediShield adjustments, I think that is something that MOH is looking at. We will take into consideration the concerns that the Member has expressed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng, are you seeking a clarification?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. I stand to support the Bill. I want to expand on the Member Denise Phua's point to urge MOM to review the eligibility criteria for SNSS because we said earlier in the House that about 2,500 children were diagnosed with special needs and developmental delay, out of which only 300 of them entered the SPED schools. This means that 2,200 – quite a number – will not be able to support themselves financially. This is not a small number. Thus, we urge MOM to consider expanding the eligibility criteria as soon as possible.

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. – [BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin].

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

Order. The Clerk has received notification that the Work Injury Compensation (Amendment) Bill will be moved forward before the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) is a piece of social legislation that aims to provide low-cost and expeditious resolution of work-related injury claims. MOM currently processes about 12,500 WICA claims each year. Two-thirds of these claims involve minor injuries. In such cases, the employer is liable to pay the injured worker his medical leave wages and medical expenses, upon being notified of the accident. Where the injury is more serious, involving permanent incapacity or death, MOM will ascertain the amount of compensation based on a medical opinion after the injury has stabilised, or upon death.

In 2010, a total of $76.5 million in compensation was awarded for permanent incapacity and death. On top of that, an estimated $20 million was paid out by employers and insurers for medical leave wages and medical expenses for both minor and serious injuries.

Our Ministry last reviewed the then-Workmen's Compensation Act in 2008. The Act was renamed the WICA and its coverage was extended to all workers, compensation limits were increased and processes were streamlined. The amendments contained in this Bill are more technical and intended to improve the operation of the Act. MOM will also be making some amendments to the WICA subsidiary legislation, as part of an overall package of WICA amendments.

The changes proposed in the Bill are based on two key principles. The first principle is to strike a fair balance between compensation for the injured worker and obligations placed on the employer or insurer. The second principle is to ensure that the WICA framework remains expeditious and workers are able to receive compensation promptly.

Balancing the interests of the injured worker and the employer or insurer is critical because WICA is a no-fault regime, similar to other WIC regimes overseas. This means that injured workers will receive compensation as long as the accident occurred out of and in the course of work, regardless of which party was at fault. Therefore, the obligations placed on the employers and insurers in areas such as compensation and liability must necessarily be limited. Injured workers who feel they deserve higher compensation do have the option to file a civil claim, if they can prove negligence of the party they are claiming against. Three of the amendments are based on this principle.

First, MOM will be updating the WICA compensation limits as part of MOM's regular review of WICA compensation. MOM will increase the compensation limits for death and permanent incapacity by about 21% to account for the rise in nominal median wages since the compensation limits were last revised. The revised compensation limits will apply to all workers covered by the Act.

At present, the minimum limits are $47,000 and $60,000 respectively for death and total permanent incapacity, while the maximum limits are $140,000 and $180,000 respectively. With this change, the minimum compensation for death and total permanent incapacity will be increased to $57,000 and $73,000 respectively. The maximum compensation will also be raised to $170,000 and $218,000 respectively.

To illustrate, with the amendments to compensation norms, the family of a deceased 25-year old worker who earned $1,800 a month could receive $170,000, an increase of $30,000 or 21% more than the family would be eligible to receive currently.

WICA also covers medical expenses for work-related injuries. This coverage is capped at $25,000 per accident or for a period of one year from the accident, whichever is reached first. MOM will be increasing the dollar cap on medical expenses from $25,000 to $30,000 to address the increase in industrial accident medical bills since the last review in 2008. The updated dollar cap will cover more than 95% of all WICA claims where hospitalisation is required.

Second, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 3(5) of the Act to restrict compensation in cases involving work-related fights or attempted assaults. MOM currently receives about 20 claims arising from fights a year, of which three quarters are found to be work-related and hence, eligible for compensation. With this amendment, employers will not be liable under WICA to compensate workers who are injured in a fight or attempted physical assault, except in certain scenarios, which I will elaborate later on.

Whilst the numbers are not large, the rationale for this amendment is that while work-related disputes between co-workers may arise from time to time, they should not resort to fights to resolve them, and employers should not have to bear the cost of injury. Singapore is not unique in doing so; there are overseas jurisdictions which restrict compensation for work-related fights.

However, MOM also recognises that workplace fights sometimes occur and there are several scenarios where an employer should remain liable for compensating a worker injured in a work-related fight. For instance, when the injured worker was a victim and did not participate in the fight, or when the worker was injured whilst exercising his right of private-defence, as defined in the Penal Code, or to defend against bodily harm or damage to property. In addition, a security officer who is sanctioned by his employer or principal to break up the fight or prevent the assault will remain eligible for compensation.

The amendment to section 3(5) specifies that workers involved in work-related fights who are injured in these scenarios will continue to receive compensation, while those who are primarily responsible for the aggression do not.

Third, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 4 of the Act to expand the scope of compensable diseases. Currently, diseases are compensable only when they are listed in the Second Schedule, for example, noise-induced deafness, or as a result of a specific accident at work, for example, a nurse getting infected after a needle prick injury. A new deadly flu strain would not be compensable until it is included in the Schedule.

With the amendment, diseases contracted as a result of work-related exposure to chemical or biological agents will automatically be compensable, including new diseases. To make a WICA claim, the worker must still prove that he was more likely than not exposed at work, and not as a result of community spread. The majority of workers would not be able to claim compensation for communicable diseases such as the common flu or chicken pox. However, certain categories of workers, such as healthcare workers, will generally be able to prove that they were exposed because of their work, and will receive compensation for diseases that they contract.

MOM will also be refining the Second Schedule of compensable occupational diseases. The amendments are technical in nature, mainly to update the list of occupational diseases and associated occupations. Examples include replacing the term "industrial dermatitis" with "occupational skin diseases", which has a broader scope, and the inclusion of "diseases caused by excessive heat" as a new occupational disease.

Sir, the second principle is to ensure that the WICA framework remains expeditious. This will enable the injured workers to receive their compensation as promptly as possible after the accident. Dragging out the resolution of claims also causes uncertainty for employers and insurers. Another three amendments are based on this principle.

First, MOM will prohibit work-related exclusion clauses in insurance policies via clauses 5 and 10 of the Bill which amend sections 23 and 45 of the Act, and upcoming amendments to the WIC Insurance Regulations.

While section 23 currently requires employers to have insurance against all liabilities that they may have under the Act, MOM has encountered cases where the WIC insurance policy does not cover critical aspects of the scope of work carried out by the insured company. For example, an insurance policy for a spray-painting company excluding coverage for flammable substances, or an insurance policy for a construction firm excluding coverage for works exceeding one storey in height. Well, this could be due to several reasons: insurers may not have had the opportunity to explain the exclusion clauses fully or employers may have conveniently relied on their agents to secure the lowest quote without fully understanding the coverage.

When a worker gets injured, the insurer will disclaim liability and the employer will have to compensate the injured worker from his own pocket. If employers lack the financial ability to pay compensation, their injured workers may not receive compensation for their injuries. MOM sees about 200 cases a year where insurers dispute liability on the grounds that the work activity that caused the injury was excluded from the insurance policy.

With the amendments to section 23 and the WIC Insurance Regulations, insurers will be liable to compensate injured workers even if such exclusion clauses exist in the policy. Nonetheless, insurers will continue to have the flexibility to recover from the employer any such compensation paid out, if such recovery is allowed for in the insurance policy.

Second, MOM will insert a new section 25E via clause 6 of the Bill, clarifying liability allocation where there is more than one insurance policy in force for the same accident.

Sir, at present, certain industries have the practice of having multiple parties provide insurance coverage for workers. For instance, in construction, the main contractor may purchase a project policy covering all work relating to the project. At the same time, individual sub-contractors may purchase annual policies covering their workers. When there is an accident, the various insurers may dispute liability and claim that the other insurer should cover the accident. MOM sees about 400 such disputes annually. Compensation to these 400 workers is delayed unnecessarily while MOM sorts out which insurer is liable.

So, the new section 25E will resolve this issue by stating that when there are multiple insurance policies covering an accident, the employer's insurer may not object on the grounds that another policy covers the accident. Barring any other objections, this insurer will be made liable to pay compensation. This is consistent with the WICA principle that we hold the employer primarily responsible for work injury compensation.

However, in view of prevailing industry practice in sectors where the main contractor's insurer compensates the injured worker, MOM will allow third parties to pay compensation as long as they convey in writing to MOM the intent to pay compensation on behalf of the employer's insurer, before the notice of assessment is issued.

Finally, clause 4 of the Bill amends section 11 to state that workers who file a common law suit may not subsequently file a WICA claim for that accident more than one year from the accident.

Currently, workers have to file their WICA claims within one year of the accident, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Having a time limit for filing a work injury claim is practised in other jurisdictions such as in Queensland, Australia where claimants have six months to file a claim and a number of US states (for example, Florida, California, Hawaii) where claimants have one year to file their claim. However, claimants who file their initial claim within one year of the accident and subsequently withdraw it, may re-file their claims with MOM at any time after the accident. MOM has processed claims which are re-filed some six years after the accident. This results in uncertainty for employers and insurers, and drags out the resolution of the claim. Claimants may also be tempted to "forum shop" in an attempt to get the maximum compensation for their injuries.

This amendment then provides a fixed timeframe of one year from the accident for claimants to decide if they wish to file either a common law or WICA claim for their injuries. Claimants may switch between common law and WICA within the one-year timeframe, but may not file a WICA claim after that one year if a common law claim was filed. One year should be sufficient time for the injured worker to make an informed decision about his compensation options.

There are some potential claimants who had previously filed a WICA claim for their injuries within one year of the accident, withdrawn that claim for common law, and still have not received compensation for their injuries. To ensure that such workers are not caught out by the amendment, MOM will provide a one-year grace period from the commencement date of this Amendment Bill, for such potential claimants to re-file their WICA claims. After this grace period, these potential claimants may no longer revert to WICA.

Sir, we will also be making some technical amendments to the Act. The first is that clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill amend sections 28 and 29 of the Act, to make clear that enforcement of orders and appeal against orders also apply to orders made by the Commissioner under section 25A. The second is that clause 9 of the Bill amends section 32 of the Act, to clarify that the enforcement of orders against an insurer includes orders made under section 28 of the Act.

Sir, in conclusion, MOM has tried to ensure that this package of WICA amendments is a fair package to all stakeholders involved in the WICA framework. MOM has consulted extensively with various stakeholder groups, such as NTUC, SNEF, General Insurance Association of Singapore, Singapore Contractors Association Limited, Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore and Association of Singapore Marine Industries since December last year, and we thank them for their inputs and suggestions. As far as possible, we have taken onboard the feedback as we refined and finalised the proposed amendments. We would like to thank them for all their contributions.

The amendments will be effected on 1 June 2012, to give industry sufficient lead time to adjust to the changes. MOM will continue to educate employees on their rights under the Act as well as organise briefing sessions to the various stakeholders to help them comply with the revised legislative requirements. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share some thoughts on manpower issues. Sir, our interest must be to ensure that Singapore workers, and in particular Singaporean workers, enjoy good competitive wages and companies here have a highly skilled workforce who can help the company grow in a sustainable way.

I am happy that our approach has been to boost workers' productivity through education and training so that companies can pay higher wages for higher valued-added work. I think this is commendable and sustainable in the long term. In summary, highly skilled and productive workers deserve higher wages because they help their companies make more money. However, Sir, it seems to me that this is only one part of the equation.

The value of a worker and the worth of a person should not only be seen from the contribution or the perspective of what the workers can contribute to the company. I think it should also be seen from the way of how we look at an individual from the humanitarian and moral perspective. Our workers should feel that there are proper and up-to-date legislation, rules and regulation that are in place to protect their interests and also their safety. Sir, we know that work accidents compensation is a field where there is much scope for scholarly research. But, in reality, on the ground, the work injury compensation is also of great importance to all our workers because of the fact that it protects them. Every year, there are accidents and injuries at work. Thus, the relevancy of our WICA is very important.

I would like to thank very much the Ministry of Manpower for proposing this amendment. Firstly, I would like to raise two points. We need to assure our workers that there is enough information given to them so that with proper guidance following their injuries, if it ever happens, they can make an assessment of whether to pursue their claims under the common law or through the WICA framework that is proposed. I can understand that we do not wish to promote "forum shopping" but we should also not close legitimate avenues for redress for these workers, especially if these arose because the worker was not fully aware of his or her options. I would also like the Ministry to think of ways where injured workers – when they are certified fit, both physically and even mentally – will receive independent advice on their claims in a systematic and proper way. In this way, we can assure that we are doing the right thing for our workers who are injured because of their work.

The second point that I would like to raise is that it is good for us to make the process efficient so as to expedite the claims and the settlement process. But we should also be mindful that in doing so, we do not put undue pressure on workers to settle these issues. Often, it is the worker who is at a disadvantage. Perhaps it is because his injury has left him unable to work and he is at a disadvantage and in financial difficulty, with no source of income, and his ability to pursue his claim is diminished by his lack of resources. I hope that the Ministry will consider this aspect and see if further amendments are necessary to ensure that we support the workers beyond just ensuring the process of claims is expedited. Sir, with these few proposals, I support the Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The Work Injury Compensation Act is designed to provide a simpler, quicker and more cost-effective way to settle compensation claims by avoiding protracted proceedings. The importance of this Act cannot be underestimated, especially insofar as it seeks to protect employees, who are the vulnerable parties in compensation disputes.

Under the common law, the injured worker has to initiate legal actions to claim damages from his employer. To succeed, the claimant has to prove that the employer had been negligent and therefore held liable. He will need to gather sufficient evidence to prove his case. These obstacles – the financial means required to take out legal claim, the burden of proof that rests on the claimant – are not easily surmountable, often placing the employee in an unfavourable position in relation to his employer. This is not helped by the fact that the employer-employee relationship may be an unequal one.

In contrast, an employee claiming under the Act is not required to prove that the employer is at fault. He only needs to show that his injury was sustained in the course of work. This greatly reduces the burden on the employee and goes towards ensuring his interests are protected against errant employers. A necessary corollary of the discussion centres on the compensation system itself and, in particular, the prescribed compensation limits under the Act.

As part of ensuring that the WICA framework continues to strike a fair balance between compensation for employees and obligations placed on employers, the system must be constantly reviewed and refreshed to be kept in tandem with the ever-changing employment landscape. In line with the stated rationale behind the Act, it is imperative that compensation norms be updated to keep pace with wage increases and changing circumstances. So I would urge the Ministry of Manpower to keep pace with wage increases and changing circumstances where the compensation mechanism is concerned. This would include regularly reviewing the cap on medical expenses so as to keep in step with rising healthcare costs. The bottomline is that the Government must continue to keep abreast of the quantum of awards given so that the compensation system currently in place can retain the requisite maximum flexibility to do practical justice to the parties concerned.

The goal of achieving a fair compensation quantum – for both the employer as well as the employee involved – can only be achieved if the compensation system continues to be relevant and serve as a sensible and viable alternative to the common law process. To this extent, the Government should remain proactive in considering whether the maximum and minimum limits specified in the Third Schedule of the Act are accurate reflections of current ground realities, and continue to engage the relevant stakeholders such as trade unions and employer federations through public consultation processes. With this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill made several improvements to the existing Act. The Act now covers exposure to chemical or biological agents and improves the insurance protection of the worker. This is commendable. To further safeguard the interests of our workers, I would like to suggest four changes to the Bill.

Let me begin with the proposed amendment of section 11: removal of court action as a reasonable cause for delay in filling WICA claims. This amendment would effectively prevent injured workers from getting any compensation, if they go to court and lose or withdraw for various circumstances beyond their control. This amendment reverses the decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Pang Chen Suan vs Commissioner of Labour. The Court of Appeal made it clear that an injured worker can choose to withdraw his claim under WICA to pursue his claim under common law and still be allowed return to WICA later. If there is no prejudice to the employer and insurer, the worker's choice to sue under common law is considered reasonable cause to make the WICA claim outside the one-year period.

The Ministry of Manpower's consultation paper states that they have "started to see an increase in WICA claims being re-filed more than one year after the accident, with some cases being re-filed even six years after the accident". In fact, MOM's intention is to discourage so-called "forum shopping". Is this increase in re-filing so large that it overwhelms the WICA's intention as a cap on liabilities? Why punish all workers just to prevent a small number of forum shoppers abusing the system? Why not preserve the current status quo of allowing MOM discretionary powers to decide the merits of each case? Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the interests of our workers, the current form of section 11 need not be changed.

I will now touch on the proposed amendment of section 3, which would exclude compensation for injuries sustained in work-related fights. The proposed wording gives exceptions to the exceptions for compensation. This is complicated and puts the onus on employees to prove that they are entitled to compensation. Does this not undermine the intent of WICA to be a no-fault claim? The amendment should really be in line with the other stipulations in section 3 and be stated as an exception to compensation. It should simply state, "if the employee is shown by the proper authorities to have started the assault or destruction of property that resulted in his/her injury then the employer would not be liable", unquote. This shifts the burden of proof from the employee to the proper authorities for exceptions for compensation like the other stipulations in section 3. This will prevent anyone from making use of the law to deny compensation to all workers involved in a fight.

I would like to add that the fact this amendment has been proposed is very worrying. The amendment suggests that workplace fights are not uncommon occurrences today. Is workplace safety and security no longer a given in Singapore? Are our workers now more vulnerable to work-related fights? We hope that the MOM intends to address this problem beyond capping employer liabilities. I notice that the banners of the WSH Nation campaign are lining our streets. And I observe that thousands of our workers have gone online to create their 3D WSH Citizen (I am citizen No. 3005). Each citizen has an audio that says, "I pledge to end all risks at work." The risks should also include work-related fights. Excluding compensation for injuries due to fights will only make workers more anxious of this particular risk. It is not an effective deterrent if it is meant to be one. I ask that the MOM take a more positive approach in tackling this problem.

Moving on to the next change, I support the expansion in coverage for occupational diseases that the amendment of section 4 brings. However, the limitation period for exposure to chemical and biological agents needs to be made equivalent to other occupational diseases. The start of the limitation period should be "no longer employed in the occupation", rather than "ceases to be exposed". The limitation period for exposure to chemical and biological agents should be three years, given that some Second Schedule diseases have three-year limitation periods.

Separately, the MOM is conducting a review on the limitation periods of occupational diseases to better align them with the actual disease development timeframe. What is the progress of the review? This should be a matter of urgency since more workers will be compromised by the current common standard of one-year limitation period with the delay of the review.

My final point is on the increase of WICA compensation limit in the Third Schedule. The MOM had agreed to this in the consultation paper. Could the Minister indicate when the new limits will be gazetted and when will they take effect?

In addition, in 2008, the Ministry of Health has further increased the burden on injured workers when they removed hospital subsidies for industrial accidents. The removal is supposedly in line with the principle that it is the employer's responsibility to ensure the safety and health of their employees at the workplace, yet any WICA compensation limit puts a price cap on this principle and transfers the employer's responsibility to the workers' burden instead.

For foreigners on S-Pass and Work Permit, the employer is fully liable for all medical treatment costs, even above the WICA limit. This is not so for injured Singaporean workers. After claiming from WICA, they are still liable for their own medical expenses above the WICA limit. Injured Singaporean workers with medical expenses above the limit have two choices: one, give up the WICA claim and take the risk of suing the employer under common law; or two, apply through the hospital's medical social workers for further assistance on a case-by-case basis. Why make this policy that results in Singaporean workers being worse off than foreign workers? With the interests of Singaporeans in mind, I propose the removal of the medical claims cap in section 5 of the Third Schedule.

Mr Speaker, to reiterate, I would like to say that the Bill adds much needed protection for workers who have been exposed to chemical and biological agents. However, it still requires tweaks to further the interests of our workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all agree that work injuries are costly. The loss of a worker to injury means a loss of time and productivity to the employer, even if a substitute is found. But for the worker, it is worse. If he or she is injured badly or permanently disabled, it could literally mean the end of their breadwinning ability. On top of that, he or she would be faced with the nightmare of medical bills and cost of rehabilitation. Family members would be affected by the emotional stress and financial burden of long-term care. In such a scenario, the injured worker and family may not have the luxury of time, finances or energy for prolonged legal proceedings or the bureaucratic work to access compensation.

With this in mind, it is important that we make sure that WICA really works to ensure that help can be rendered expeditiously. I note that MOM has proposed to prohibit work-related exclusion clauses, except for those pertaining to asbestos, from the insurance policy meant for injury compensation. This is the right step to take.

An estimated 200 injury claims are disputed annually by insurers on the ground that the work activities that caused the injury were in the exclusion clauses of the insurance policy.

This unduly delays the resolution of claims as employers and their insurers have to take time to resolve the dispute. In some cases, employers end up having to pay from their own pocket. Some even cannot afford to. In these cases, the injured worker suffers delay or non-payment of compensation.

An example of a case encountered with exclusion clause was where an employer in the business of the manufacture and repair of lifts and escalators insured his staff, including technician, engineer, manager, driver and administrator. However, the insurance policy excluded "work involving climbing in lift shafts and claims arising from working at heights exceeding 3 metres". This single clause negates the whole point of insurance, as the core work of lift installation and maintenance is to work in lift shafts and they have to work at heights.

In another case, a business for installing air-conditioning, mechanical and electrical installation in the marine sector on tankers and ships had a work insurance policy that excluded "work on board vessel".

These insurance policies, crafted to exclude the very risks that the workers have to face in their work, are rendered meaningless. I would like to ask the Ministry how it plans to enforce this section to ensure that the injured workers would not be denied their rightful compensations due to any "technicalities" such as these.

I also note that amendment would be made to limit the timeframe for claimants who have made a common law claim but subsequently wish to file under WICA to do so within one year of accident. I would like to ask the Ministry how many cases had been encountered that had been unduly delayed due to such switching to WICA claims. Would such an amendment have expedited injury claims significantly?

My concern is that the claimant may not be able to know exactly if he had a good case or a chance to win the common law claim within the one-year limit. If it drags on, he could potentially end up not being compensated at all. I would therefore like to ask the Ministry how it would ensure that this section is expedited so that the injured worker is not unduly disadvantaged.

Sir, I now wish to say a few words regarding the low-wage workers, including locals and migrant workers, whom I understand make up the majority of WICA claims. In my work as a labour MP and Chairman of the Migrant Workers Centre, I have had the opportunity to listen to many personal experiences related to me by these workers. They face numerous challenges when they suffer injury.

Many of these workers feel they have no choice but to seek legal representation and, more importantly, incur the corresponding legal costs, just so they do not face the intimidating process alone. Even if the compensation is received, the lawyer's fees still have to be paid such that the compensation received actually ends up to be less than is fair.

To prevent this, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider setting up an upstream €˜Mediation or Consultation' panel. This perhaps can be led cooperatively by the tripartite partners who can cater to both local and foreign workers who are low-wage workers. The purpose of this panel would be to advise recently injured workers on the various compensation processes available to them at the outset, and ensure that they are adequately advised on the process that best suits their own interest.

Sir, I applaud the intent of the proposed amendments, especially those that are aimed to expedite and make more clarity. With these changes, much of the uncertainty of our low-wage workers and migrant workers will be removed, and it is my hope that they will have the trust in our system with MOM's facilitation. Sir, I will make a few points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 657 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, WICA is the result of the collaboration of the Tripartite Partners. Unfortunately, many workers, especially the low-income ones, are not aware of the details and merits of this legislation. Therefore, we need to provide them a channel to get effective advice and understand which channel is the best to get compensation when they are injured, whether they need to take legal action or simply receive compensation under WICA. It is necessary for us to provide them such a channel.

Under WICA, employers are liable to compensate their workers and must buy insurance for workers earning below $1,600. However, WICA does not stipulate clearly the minimum amount to be insured. Quite often, when a worker suffers serious injuries, the insurance that his employer has bought for him is not sufficient. Under this circumstance, it is the worker who suffers in the end. MOM should consider how we can better safeguard the workers' interests in this area.

At the same time, we must make sure that the employers do their utmost to protect their workers' interests. Although WICA requires the employers to take responsibilities, the employers may in the end say, "Well, I don't have money and I didn't buy insurance." What can we do then? WICA requires that the employers must buy insurance for workers earning below $1,600. Should we not consider doing the same for workers earning more?

(In English): Sir, financial compensation is just a short-term relief. I would like also to ask MOM to consider further strengthening WICA by adopting the provision that protects workers' right to return to work, just like the one in Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. This Canadian legislation focuses on return to work, and places emphasis on facilitating Labour Market Re-entry, for the workers should be able to actually get back to work after the injury, in addition to the compensation they received. I think this is a right thing to do and I would like MOM to really consider this proposal.

Sir, the last issue I wish to raise is the plight of a large number of migrant WICA claimants that are placed on "Special Pass" to await the outcome of their claim, but not allowed to work to support themselves. While the law makes their employers responsible for their upkeep and maintenance, this is sometimes compounded by a breakdown in relationship between the parties, resulting in the workers having no one to support them. Being prohibited from working and having no one to support them, this dire situation can result in crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Cuff Road Project, a soup-kitchen run by the NGO, Transient Workers Count Too, feeds about 400 hungry workers, most of whom are "Special Pass" holders. At the Migrant Workers Centre, we assist and support some 1,200 workers a year, of which the "Special Pass" holders also make up a significant proportion. I am deeply troubled by these social problems that could arise if the management of the "Special Pass" holders is left unchecked. I therefore urge the Ministry to give special priority in sourcing for a solution for this group of workers.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my support of WICA for its "no-fault" compensation. Our people, our workers, are our most valuable resource and the keystone to our economic success. It is only fair that those injured in the course of performing their tasks are well taken care of. That said, prevention is still better than cure. Employers should still do more to ensure that every worker has a safe place to work in. The labour movement looks forward to working closely with the various stakeholders to take up this mission of making our workplace safer, instead of just having to rely on compensation when accidents happen. In doing so, we can achieve the vision of the Labour Movement, that is, every worker goes home safe and sound at the end of every workday. Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, employees, whether they are Singaporeans or migrant workers, deserve fair compensation when they suffer from work-related accidents or occupational diseases. Therefore, I am encouraged to learn that this amendment will expand the coverage of the Work Injury Compensation Act to include diseases that are the result of an employee's exposure to chemical and biological agents.

Mr Speaker, could I just seek a clarification from the Minister what exactly counts as chemical and biological agents and what does not? Perhaps, the exact implications of the term "chemical and biological agents" will be immediately known to experts in the relevant industries but I am sure the public will benefit from such a clarification. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Sir, this Bill represents an important, low-cost system that benefits both employers and employees. Employees can receive compensation without having to prove fault, and employers' liability can also be capped.

Sir, with the current practice, the timeframe for settlement still varies quite widely, even in cases where they do not have multiple insurers. So if we can tighten this, it would be indeed helpful to all parties concerned.

I also welcome the review done to the Second Schedule of Occupational Diseases, with the better customisation of the time period for respective diseases. This is more comprehensive and makes more sense, especially with certain cancers and diseases related to radiation exposure, cadmium exposure, silicosis and so on, where it is known that the latent phase can indeed be prolonged.

This Amendment Bill, Sir, does not cover or mention about compensation for mental trauma injuries. I bring this up because these claims can very often be difficult to prove the cause and effect of. Decision can be challenging and it would be good to have some clause to address this, to set it straight and clear. There are Bills from other countries that clearly state, and I quote, "Mental injuries are compensable under workers' compensation law if induced by either physical injury or unusual or extraordinary conditions of employment." This is an example from New Zealand.

One more issue, Sir, is related to heart attacks. It should be compensable under this Act only, if it is induced by unexpected strain or over-exertion in the performance of duties of employment. From my experience of dealing with queries and requests from affected patients, I feel this is important to make clear in this Bill, especially this Amendment Bill, as we are fine-tuning it for subsequent times and also for future use.

Another scenario that sometimes arises is compensation for injury that happens whilst the employee is coming to or going home from work. This should be defined in more details, I feel. For example, the injury sustained during coming to or going home from work is compensable, if:

the employer provides the means of transportation for the worker;

the employee performs duties or tasks connected with his employment during the commute; and

the way used is inherently dangerous and it is the exclusive way of ingress or egress to and from work.

With all these suggestions, Sir, I hope we can improve the clarity for this Amendment Bill, and I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Work Injury Compensation (Amendment) Bill. I am happy and laud the revision to the quantum of compensation limits and expansion of its scope. Notwithstanding, I intend to caution and bring attention to particular areas of the amendments which I appeal to the Ministry to handle carefully and pay special attention to in its implementation.

First, the Bill proposes a new exclusion that there will be no compensation for injuries sustained in workplace fights unless the employee was acting in self-defence, in the defence of another, or on the employer's instructions to break up a fight. The proof of self-defence or right of private defence is not as straight-forward as it seems.

I am particularly concerned with this amendment because various things can happen in the heat of the moment, and it can be very difficult to tell who was at fault and culpable. For example, an employee who strikes the first blow could have been gravely provoked. If he is later injured, it would not be fair to deny him compensation. Not all workers are highly educated and informed, know their rights and responsibilities under the law and sit in air-conditioned offices. In some workplace situations and conditions, physical altercations may happen more easily. I therefore submit that the Ministry, in enforcing this new provision, should handle it carefully and to investigate thoroughly before disallowing any claims by an employee.

Second, it relates to employees who file a WICA claim within the one-year time limit, then withdraw it to pursue a common law claim in the civil courts, and subsequently revert to WICA when they find that the common law claim is unlikely to succeed. The new amendments propose that the employee must revert to the WICA claim within one year from the date of the accident.

Looking at this amendment, I recall the Court of Appeal's decision in Pang Cheng Suan v Commissioner for Labour (2008), where the workman was allowed to reinstate the WICA claim after more than one year had elapsed. This was a case under the old Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA), but the same provisions have been retained in WICA after the 2008 amendments. What happened was that the workman was injured when a cylinder exploded. He filed a claim under the then WCA and then withdrew it and started a civil suit. Subsequently, a coroner's inquiry into the accident found that the fault probably lay with the cylinder's manufacturer. This made it very difficult for the workman to succeed at common law, as he had to show that his injury was caused by his employer's negligence. He then reinstated his WCA claim, but more than one year had elapsed. The Commissioner rejected his claim for being out of time. However, the Court of Appeal found in the workman's favour. It pointed out that "Parliament recognised that an injured workman would have foremost in his mind the quantum of compensation or damages he was entitled to recover in deciding whether to take up a common law action or to make a claim under the Act. €¦ [The Act], in a way, was not intended to penalise the workman for choosing to commence a common law action in preference to Workmen's Compensation which was invariably lower than damages." Under section 11(4), a workman could reinstate his claim after more than one year if the failure to do so in time was occasioned by "mistake, absence from Singapore, or other reasonable cause." The Court of Appeal held that "reasonable cause" should be given an expansive meaning and one that gave effect to the objective of the Act in providing compensation to injured workers as a first or last resort. Pang's decision to seek a higher recovery of compensation for his injuries at common law was by itself a reasonable cause under section 11(4) of the Act, especially when the Act itself specifically allowed him to do so, and when his employer and the insurer had suffered no prejudice, and their liability under the Act had crystallised.

I note the Ministry of Manpower's concern whether this decision would open the floodgates, with lawyers advising their clients to just file a WICA claim first, then try their luck in the civil courts, and revert to WICA much later when it looked like the civil case was unlikely to be successful. This would impose an excessive burden on the work for MOM.

However, I wish to ask the Minister whether there was, in fact, an open floodgate of such claims or cases in view of the Court of Appeal's decision in 2008 and to share the findings with this House.

If indeed the "flood" had not happened, even though the decision was issued almost three years ago, this amendment in overturning the Court of Appeal's ruling may appear to be an over-reaction. Moreover, just like Pang's case, it may take some time before the employee knows whether he is likely to succeed in the civil claim. By then, the one-year time limit could well be over. The employee claiming compensation has been injured and this could seriously affect his earnings and future employment prospects. I am particularly concerned especially if the victim is a low-wage worker or sole breadwinner and/or doing manual work and also for his loved ones and family. It would be very unfair if he is left without any compensation at all. For these reasons, I share my concerns with this proposed amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there have been concerns for a long time as to whether the existing coverage of the Second Schedule with regard to the 23 currently listed occupational diseases and injuries are sufficient. I am glad to note that in the latest proposed amendments, there will be an extension of compensation to diseases not covered in the Second Schedule but are directly attributable to exposure to chemical or biological agents in the workplace, arising out of the course of employment. For a start, I am sure many healthcare workers will benefit from this amendment. In the same vein, since the opening of the casinos or integrated resorts, there have been complaints from some employees of prolonged exposure to smoke-filled areas. We are all well aware of the perils of first or second-hand smoke leading to long-term ailments such as cancer, lung disease, respiratory issues, etc. Would such long-term exposure as part of work become a relevant consideration for claims under the Second Schedule?

Sir, my next point is on the exclusion clause relating to the cut-off of one year for claims relating to exposure to chemical or biological agents in their workplaces if the employee's incapacity commences or his death happens more than one year after the employee ceases to be exposed to that chemical or biological agent. Whilst I understand that this is enacted to stem the flow of possible fraudulent or vexatious claims, I would like to find out what are the safeguards in place to ensure that workers who suffered death or permanent incapacity after one year in such cases will not be unfairly penalised. This is in consideration that these workers could well be the sole breadwinners and low-wage workers.

Having a good law is a step forward but the proper execution, communication and implementation is vital. Workers need to be aware of their new rights and where to get assistance when they need it. I urge the Ministry of Manpower to pay particular attention to cascade and educate on the impact of these new amendments to workers and employers, including members of the legal profession who may act on behalf of clients in such cases. Sir, on this note, I welcome the new provisions in expanding the scope and compensation limits of WICA.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Allow me now to respond to some of the comments and questions. But before that, I think it is important to emphasise that our commitment is to ensure that workplace safety and health is paramount. We should continue to work on this, and we will try to ensure that our workers/employees do have a safe work area.

First, on updating the compensation limits, I fully agree with Mr Christopher de Souza that the WICA compensation levels should reflect ground realities and, at the same time, remain acceptable to all the different stakeholders. MOM has, indeed, taken into account various considerations, such as the median income and the age of the claimant in determining the compensation levels, because the aim of the WICA is to ensure compensation for wages forgone as a result of the workplace injury. With the proposed increase in the compensation limits, the revised compensation levels are fair for a no-fault system. I assure the Member that MOM will continue to engage stakeholders and review the compensation limits to keep pace with rising income levels and other circumstances.

On the issue of compensation for work-related fights, I note the concerns of Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yaw Shin Leong that it may be difficult to determine if a worker had acted in self-defence or was aggressive in a fight, and why do we have the adjustment in the first place. We handle about 20 cases a year. It is not a particularly worrying trend but we feel that this is a fair adjustment. Based on MOM's proposal, employees, and I reiterate, injured in a work-related fight will still be eligible for compensation, provided that these injuries were sustained in the act of self-defence; while defending another individual; while acting under the employer's principal instruction or consent to break up the fight or safeguard lives or properties, or maintain law and order; or as a result of an assault to which he did not retaliate. I think these are reasonable criteria upon which we would provide for compensation. MOM's proposal clarifies that only employees who deliberately participate in fights at the workplace, whether due to a dispute over work-related matter or not, and sustain injuries in the process are not eligible for work injury compensation. Since WICA is a no-fault system, we need to ensure that the burden of compensation is fair and reasonable. For example, employers are currently not liable under WICA to compensate employees who are injured as a result of wilful or self-destructive behaviour.

In terms of prohibiting work-related exclusion clauses, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked how MOM would enforce a prohibition of work-related exclusion clauses and ensure that the injured workers are not denied compensation. The regulations will be revised to prohibit all work-related exclusion clauses in the WIC insurance policies, thereby assuring the injured worker of compensation. However, insurers can contractually require that any such compensation paid out can subsequently be required from the employer. Employers should, therefore, review the terms of insurance policies carefully so that they are not caught unawares of such recovery clauses or lapses in coverage.

I would also like to thank Mr Yeo for his suggestion to stipulate a minimum amount of insurance an employer has to purchase to fulfil their obligation under WICA. Whilst MOM has not encountered instances where insurers provide partial indemnity for work injury compensation, we intend to amend the WICA insurance regulations to pre-empt potential inadequacy in insurance coverage. The regulations will be amended to require that the coverage of WIC insurance policy may not be less than the maximum compensation payable under the Act.

Mr Yeo also suggested that MOM extend compulsory insurance coverage to higher-income earners. Our experience shows that generally higher-income earners tend to incur fewer injuries at the workplace due to their nature of work. As such, we do not think that it is necessary to extend the coverage of mandatory insurance. It is better to leave it to employers to decide with their employees how their risks should be covered. I understand that employers are already buying insurance for this group voluntarily, and MOM sees close to 95% of claims involving these higher-income earners being covered by insurance.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef suggested amending WICA to compensate for mental trauma injuries and to compensate heart attacks where they are induced by unexpected strain or over-exertion. Currently, both post-traumatic stress disorders and heart attacks are compensable under WICA, if they result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. MOM will investigate such injuries, taking into account the expert opinion of doctors, to determine if they are compensable.

Mr Patrick Tay also asked about the safeguards in place to ensure that workers who suffer death or permanent incapacity from chemical and biological agents after one year are not unfairly penalised. The reason for the time limit is to cap the liability of employers as it would not be fair to impose unlimited liability on employers, given that WICA is a no-fault regime. This one-year time limit is consistent with existing time limits for occupational diseases listed in the Second Schedule. If the worker was diagnosed after the one-year time limit, the injured worker has the option to seek damages under common law. Low-wage workers may also apply for financial aid from the Workers' Fund administered by MOM. In terms of medical treatment or the limits set in place, WICA seeks to strike a fair balance between compensation for employees and the obligations placed on employers and their insurers. MOM has to set a clear limit on the payment of medical expenses in order to provide certainty for employers and insurers. The new limits for medical expenses will continue to fully cover more than 95% of claims where hospitalisation is required. The one-year cap is also quite adequate as most injuries typically stabilise within a year from the accident. Employees who wish to claim the full medical expenses beyond the cap can choose to do so under common law. Needy cases can also approach the hospital's medical social worker for assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Yeo and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the number of cases which were delayed because of workers switching between common law and WICA, and if the amendment would have expedited injury claims significantly.

As I have explained, MOM has seen a significant increase in the number of claims being re-filed more than one year after the accident, with some claims being re-filed some five to six years after the accident. With this amendment, injured workers will have one year to make a considered decision on their compensation options. We think this is a reasonable period of time because WICA – apart from being a no-fault regime - cannot provide unlimited flexibility to allow injured workers to switch between WICA and common law at any time.

Mr Yeo and Mr Tay also asked how MOM would ensure that workers are not disadvantaged by this amendment, particularly since a common law claim may take more than one year to conclude. Both Members may wish to note that injured workers who are unsuccessful at common law are not without recourse. An injured worker who is unsuccessful at common law, can request that the courts assess the WICA compensation due to him minus costs, and direct the employer to pay compensation. However, it helps if workers are clear about their choices and consequences when they decide to opt for a common law suit rather than WICA. It is important to understand that the landscape includes both WICA as well as recourse under common law.

In this regard, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang have suggested providing workers with independent advice on the compensation options available to them. MOM currently provides assistance to WICA claimants through a variety of means. These include making information on the WICA claims process more accessible, including through flyers in hospitals, and letters to claimants. We also provide claimants with the contact details of their case officers so that they can reach them directly if they need help or clarity on the process. Having said that, I agree with Members that we can and should constantly strive to do better to assist workers. And we have taken note of Members' suggestions and will work with stakeholders on improving the way workers receive advice on compensation claim matters.

Mr Zainudin also cautioned against pressuring workers to settle their claims and Mr Yeo has also pointed out that workers sometimes feel that they have no choice but to seek legal representation to settle their claims. I would like to state that legal representation is not necessary to file a WICA claim. Members can also take comfort and have the assurance that MOM does not pressure workers to settle their compensation claims just to close a case quickly. We do need to pay attention to and be careful of ambulance chases. But, I will reiterate, there is no legal representation required to file such claims.

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef for her suggestion to clarify when a worker can be compensated if he is injured coming to or going home from work. Currently, WICA already explicitly provides compensation for workers injured when they are travelling on employer-provided transport. There is no requirement for the employee to be performing tasks connected with his employment during the commute or for the route to be inherently dangerous, for the injury to be compensable.

I would like to add that foreign domestic workers (FDWs) are not covered under the Act. Foreign domestic workers are employed by households and typically work and live in the same premises. As a result, it will be difficult to determine whether any injury sustained in the premises was due to work-related activities or otherwise. While FDWs are excluded from WICA, they are still protected under the Personal Accident Insurance that every employer is required to purchase for his foreign domestic worker. The Personal Accident Insurance has a wider scope of compensation than WICA. It provides compensation regardless of whether the accident was work-related.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also asked MOM to give special priority to resolve the issue of injured foreign workers staying in Singapore whilst awaiting the outcome of their claims. I am aware of this issue, having visited both the Migrant Workers Centre and TWC2's Cuff Road Project earlier this month. There were some promising ideas raised during my visit to resolve this issue, and MOM will be quite happy to work with Migrant Workers Centre and other NGOs to find practical solutions to this issue.

Finally, Mr Yeo suggested strengthening WICA to provide workers the right to return to work. Apart from legislation, there are also other approaches to promote and facilitate a return-to-work for injured workers. For example, other jurisdictions, such as in California and British Columbia, have implemented voluntary return-to-work programmes. MOM will need to study this issue further to see what approach best suits Singapore's context.

Sir, I believe we have addressed a number of the concerns and queries. I would like to reiterate that MOM has tried to ensure that the package of amendments is fair to all stakeholders. These amendments will improve the operation of the Act and ensure that the injured workers are not delayed in receiving compensation for their injuries. Once again, I would like to thank Members of the House for their support of the Bill and I beg to move.

Do you have a clarification, Mrs Lina Chiam?

Clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could answer the question that I asked. What exactly count as chemical and biological agents?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can provide the details subsequently but I would just like to elaborate that diseases arising from prolonged exposure to physical agents at work – which include radiation, noise, compressed air and so on – are well-established and already listed. We are including a range of these chemical and biological agents for compensation. In terms of details, we can provide the Member with them subsequently.

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. – [BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin].

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

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Adjourned accordingly at 6.10 pm

to a date to be fixed.

20 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport if he will clarify (i) the role of the Government versus the Public Transport Council and public transport operators in determining transport fare concessions for different commuter groups, for example, senior citizens, students; and (ii) the basis for categorising diploma students with undergraduates under the tertiary student concession and not with junior college students under the school smartcard concession which applies to students under 21 years old.

21 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport whether concessionary fares can be extended to the disabled using public transport.

Concessionary travel on basic bus and train services are determined and granted by the public transport operators (PTOs). The cost of concessions is ultimately cross-subsidised by other full-fare paying commuters and the operators have to take this into consideration before extending travel concessions beyond the present arrangement.

The operators currently grant student travel concessions based on their level of academic pursuit and the institution of enrolment. Polytechnic students and university students are considered tertiary students because both polytechnics and universities are institutions of higher learning, unlike junior colleges. The public transport operators currently provide concessions to polytechnic students via the monthly concession pass scheme.

The Public Transport Council is aware of the requests for more concessions and will work with the operators to see how best these requests for more concessions for the disabled and the polytechnic students could be considered in future review of fares for the different commuter groups. For instance, for this year, the senior citizen concession hours have been extended to full-day throughout the week to benefit elderly commuters.

As for the Government's role, our focus continues to be on providing help alongside fare revisions to help the needy adjust. We will continue to provide targeted assistance, such as through the Public Transport vouchers and the ComCare Fund, as well as through various work support schemes. This approach ensures that those who are really in need of assistance will receive it, and also makes the best use of public funds.

23 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in view of the Government's commitment to complete the Lift Upgrading Programme by 2014, what are the plans for HDB flats that have been deemed unsuitable for such upgrading on the grounds of economic and/or technical viability.

24 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the Ministry's plans to assist housing units which have no access to lifts on the same floor in HDB blocks that do not qualify for the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP); (b) how many such blocks and units are not covered under the existing LUP scheme; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider new schemes to cater to such blocks beyond 2014.

The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) is a massive programme costing $5.5 billion. To date, about 5,000 blocks (or 99 per cent of the eligible blocks) have been offered the LUP.

HDB tries its best to extend the LUP to as many blocks as possible. However, despite its best efforts, there will still be some blocks for which the LUP could not be offered due to the high costs involved. Through the use of new technology and innovative solutions, HDB has reduced the number of such ineligible blocks from 1,000 as initially estimated, to about 200 blocks at present.

For such blocks, we recognise that there may be residents who are elderly and physically challenged and require direct lift access. We are still studying how we can help this group of residents. We will announce our plans when they are ready.

28 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education if the Ministry can extend the Edusave Scheme to Singaporean students in private schools.

A Singaporean child can benefit from the Edusave scheme if he or she chooses to enrol as a full-time student in a Ministry of Education-funded school, be it a government school, government-aided school, independent school, junior college (JC), centralised institute (CI), Institute of Technical Education (ITE), specialised school, or special education school.

These schools and institutions cater sufficient places in a diversity of settings for our young to learn core values, skills and knowledge together with other Singaporeans of different races and religions. The options and opportunities are being expanded continuously as Government invests more in education. All Singaporean children therefore have the opportunity to benefit from subsidised education and be eligible to benefit from the Edusave Scheme.

Ultimately, it is important that Singaporean children attend national schools, as this helps to build our national identity, a common spirit, and social cohesion in each successive generation. It is thus our intention to continue to encourage all Singaporean children, as much as possible, to be enrolled in MOE-funded schools.

35 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) what is the impact of the stricter quota for foreign workers and S-Pass requirements on companies in Singapore; (b) which are the sectors that are most affected by the changes and whether our companies, especially the local SMEs, are able to cope with the changes; (c) whether the tightening of foreign labour has translated into more employment opportunities for Singapore citizens; and (d) whether more from the inactive workforce have been sufficiently engaged to bridge the workforce shortage.

The gradual tightening of our foreign worker policies has been effected principally through an increase in levies. We have not adjusted the overall Work Permit Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) or the S-Pass sub-DRC. Companies which need to hire foreign workers for their operations or for expansion are still able to hire foreign workers as long as they have the number of locals in their workforce as required by the respective sectoral DRCs. However, in order to moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, especially low-skilled workers, we have been increasing the Foreign Worker Levies for Work Permit and S-Pass holders progressively since July 2010. As announced previously, the levies are being raised in 6-monthly intervals up to July 2013.

These increases in the Foreign Worker Levies are more significant in the Services and Construction sectors, given the greater scope for productivity improvements in these two sectors. In the Construction sector, productivity levels are only one-third that of Japan; while the productivity level of the Services sector is only about 60% of the global leaders.

We recognise the difficulties many SMEs face in recruiting Singaporeans. At recent dialogue sessions between MOS Tan Chuan-Jin and the Singapore Manufacturers Federation (SMa) and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME), they shared the challenges facing SMEs, such as the increase in business costs partly contributed by the rise in Foreign Worker Levies. Some Members, such as Mr David Ong and Er Lee Bee Wah, also raised similar concerns during the debate on the President's Address last month.

The Government recognises the challenges faced by SMEs and has in fact introduced specific initiatives to help them re-engineer their operations and reduce their reliance on labour. One example is the SME Productivity Roadmap, a joint initiative by WDA and SPRING Singapore. We have also taken into account feedback from the various business associations and made significant enhancements to the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) during Budget 2011 to help SMEs benefit further from the PIC scheme.

SMEs can also approach WDA's career centres located at the Community Development Councils or the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to participate in job-matching schemes, post job vacancies on WDA's online job portal, JobsNet, or participate in work trials and job fairs. SMEs can also tap on the HR Capability Toolkit developed by WDA and SPRING, which helps them systematically manage their HR functions. Subsidised training specially designed for HR professionals under the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework is also available for SMEs that want to upgrade their HR capabilities. MOM is exploring other ways to help SMEs meet their needs.

The changes in our foreign manpower framework are aimed primarily at encouraging greater value-add and business growth with the same or less number of workers - this is what the productivity drive is about. With higher productivity growth, Singaporeans should also enjoy higher wage growth. The levies may not lead to increased employment of Singaporeans in every sector, but Singaporeans will ultimately benefit from higher productivity growth. We will continue to monitor the outcomes carefully.

More of our economically inactive workforce have joined the workforce in recent years. Hence, the resident labour force participation rate has continued to increase. Some companies are more successful than others in tapping the economically inactive. MOM has various schemes (such as Flexi-Works! and WoW!) to encourage companies to adopt flexible work arrangements. With greater flexibility at the workplace, individuals will be able to balance family and work responsibilities more effectively, and more economically-inactive Singaporeans will be able to return to the workforce.

Much of the increase in local labour force participation has come from women and older workers. Since the formation of the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers in 2005, the tripartite partners have been working hard to raise the employment rate of older workers. We have seen positive results, with the employment rate for residents aged 55 – 64 rising to a new high of 59.0% in 2010. The Committee has set a target of 65% employment rate for workers aged 55 – 64 by 2015.

37 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) if he will explain MDA's support for the recent suspension by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore of a fashion chain advertisement along Orchard Road; (b) how this position will be applied to other similar advertisements; and (c) how it balances the differing views of the public on this matter.

I believe Mr Baey Yam Keng is referring to a media statement MDA made recently in response to a media query. Let me clarify that in its media statement, MDA expressed support for the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS)' efforts to regulate the advertising industry. MDA did not comment on ASAS' decision to suspend the fashion chain's advertisement along Orchard Road because the advertising industry is self-regulated.

ASAS administers the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP), which helps to ensure that advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful. SCAP has been endorsed by organisations representing the advertisers, advertising agencies and the media, and it is reviewed periodically by ASAS to keep it in tandem with public values. In the case of the advertisement in question, ASAS determined that it had breached SCAP's guidelines on decency. ASAS then communicated this decision to the parties involved to secure the advertiser's agreement to remove the advertisement.

MDA supports the self-regulation of the advertising industry. MDA would also encourage ASAS to see how it could do more active consultation with community groups to even better reflect the views of the public in its decisions.

39 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Defence what are the steps taken to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate incident relating to the death of an RSAF serviceman after performing a tunnel crawl through an F-5 aircraft engine component during a "welcome ceremony" at Paya Lebar Air Base on 24 April 2009.

After the incident, the Republic of Singapore Air Force has reviewed all the components of the welcoming activities and removed the crawl into the F-5 aircraft's engine intake from these activities since May 2009.

40 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will provide the number of foreigners who have been enrolled in our universities in the last 10 years to date and the breakdown by PRs and international students; and (b) of these, how many have been self-funded and how many have received scholarships.

Number of IS in AUs. For the past 10 years, the Ministry of Education has capped the number of international student (IS) at 20% of the total intake, while Permanent Residents (PRs) form only a small proportion. For example, in AY2011, IS comprised 18% while PRs were 4% of undergraduate intake. The vast majority of university places have gone to Singaporeans.

Number of IS who are self-funded and on scholarships. Almost all PRs and IS are in receipt of MOE's Tuition Grant (TG) scheme, which provides for a lower tuition fee in return for a service obligation to work in Singapore for three years after graduation. PRs and IS holding a tuition grant pay higher fees than Singaporeans – 25% and 70% higher respectively. These PR/IS complement Singaporeans in contributing to the local economy.

MOE also supports the efforts of the corporate sector to offer scholarships to quality IS who are admitted to our AUs. These are restricted to IS in Science and Engineering courses, which have been relatively less sought after by the Singaporean students. In addition, IS from the ASEAN countries are offered scholarships by MOE to promote mutual understanding and goodwill in the region. Currently, some 35% of IS are recipients of some form of scholarship.

41 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will review the plight and immigration status of foreign wives who have Singaporean husbands who have either died or divorced them and are thus left in a lurch with their young Singapore citizen children.

Marriage to a Singapore citizen does not mean that a foreign spouse will get Permanent Residence (PR) or Singapore Citizenship (SC). We look at several factors in deciding the grant of PR or Singapore citizenship to foreign spouses. These include the financial ability of the SC spouse to support the foreign spouse, duration of marriage and length of stay in Singapore. Foreign spouses who are not granted PR will generally be granted a Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) for them to remain in Singapore. The foreign spouse is allowed to seek employment while on the LTVP. My Ministry is currently studying how we can further help Singaporean families with foreign spouses.

For foreign wives who are widowed or divorced and have sole custody of young Singaporean children, ICA would generally facilitate their continued stay in Singapore through a renewable LTVP. This would enable them to care for and raise their Singaporean children here.

Help is extended to those who face financial hardship. The Singaporean children receive financial assistance from the Ministry of Education and other agencies for their school fees, textbooks and other needs. The family may also be referred to a Family Service Centre which will help them adjust to their new circumstances and help them get back on their feet.

42 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) from 2009 to 2011, how many suicides were committed by foreigners and Singaporeans in Singapore; and (b) what are the probable causes of suicides among the foreigners.

Based on the suicide data compiled by MHA, there were 401 suicides in 2009 and 353 suicides in 2010. Foreigners accounted for 52 and 57 suicides respectively. We do not know the exact reasons why these foreigners choose to commit suicide.

43 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Defence (a) over the last five years how many males who become permanent residents under the sponsorship of their parents have served National Service; (b) of these, how many of them have taken up citizenship after completion of their National Service; and (c) how many males who become permanent residents under the sponsorship of their parents did not serve National Service and chose to give up their citizenship instead.

Over the last five years, about 8,800 males who had become permanent residents under the sponsorship of their parents were enlisted for and served National Service (NS). About 6,100 of them have taken up citizenship. In that same period, about 4,200 males who had become permanent residents under the sponsorship of their parents renounced their PR status prior to serving National Service. Their failure to serve NS will be taken into account when they subsequently apply to study or work in Singapore. These PRs were warned about the consequences of their action at the point of renunciation.

44 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in the last five years (a) how many special needs children below the age of 21 years are there in Singapore; (b) how many families have more than one special needs child in the family; and (c) how many of these children come from lower-middle income families and from families in the lowest 20% in terms of household income.

45 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the expected lifespan of special needs children; (b) how many of these outlive their expected lifespan and to what age generally; (c) what is the average cost needed per month to maintain a special needs child; (d) how do their parents generally meet such costs; and (e) how much is the Government subsidy for each special needs child.

The number of preschoolers (aged 0 to 6 years) diagnosed with developmental delay or disability is approximately 7,000. For those with developmental delay, some of them would overcome them by the time they are in school. There are about 13,000 children with special needs known to MOE in SPED schools and mainstream primary and secondary schools. Hence, there are about 20,000 children with special needs below the age of 18.

Currently, MCYS and MOE do not have comprehensive income and other data on families with children with special needs. The Centre for Enabled Living (CEL) has started to track children who need the Early Intervention Programme for Infants & Children (EIPIC) run by the Voluntary Welfare Organisations. Based on 1,600 children in EIPIC, about 2% belong to families who have more than one special needs child. Also, based on EIPIC data, some 13% come from the lowest 10th household income percentile, 16% are from the 10th-30th percentile and 20% are from the 30th - 50th percentile 1 . I must caution that these figures come from a small base and are not fully representative. The income levels might also be skewed towards the lower income because EIPIC is run by VWOs and some higher income parents might use private services instead.

I understand and appreciate the Honourable MP's concern. I want to assure her that the Government is aware that families with special needs children face greater costs because of the need for early intervention services, education, as well as care arrangements. This is why Government has provided significant subsidies for EIPIC, integrated child care centres and SPED. Families that have more than one special needs child in EIPIC can get additional financial help on a case-by-case basis.

Let me now address the Member's concerns regarding persons with disabilities who outlive their parents. There are many types of disabilities and for each disability type, there is also a range in terms of severity, which affect their health condition and expected lifespan. The "World Report on Disability" produced in 2011 by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Bank reported that the mortality rates for people with disabilities vary depending on the health condition. Thus we cannot be definitive on the expected life span of people with disabilities. However, it is likely that those with learning disabilities, mild Autism Spectrum Disorder, mild intellectual disabilities and sensory impairments have life spans similar to the rest of us and are likely to outlive their parents. Some are also more able to work and live lives similar to us.

There would be a smaller group who will require to be cared for all their lives. The cost of care for such a disabled adult varies, depending on whether he is cared for by family, a maid, at a day activity centre in the community or in a residential home. Cost for a maid is about $600 per month, day care about $800 a month, and that for Homes is about $1,600 per month. Government provides a monthly foreign domestic worker levy concession of $95 per month. Means-tested subsidies for day care go up to $615 per month and for institutional care, it is up to $1,200 per month. This works out to be up to $7,000-$15,000 per annum for the adult disabled from the lowest income tier. While it is difficult to put a single dollar value on Government subsidies, as families can switch between different care arrangements, the subsidies are sizeable. Over and above this, the Community Chest and VWOs also raise funds to help defray costs.

We understand and empathise with parents' concerns. This is why my Ministry formed and acted on recommendations from the Parents' Workgroup led by MP Denise Phua in 2006 and the last Enabling Masterplan Steering Committee in 2007. We have begun to put in place the legal and financial security framework to provide for persons with special needs if they outlive their parents. The Mental Capacity Act passed in 2008 allows parents to appoint trusted persons as decision makers for their mentally incapacitated children when they pass on. The Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) launched in 2009 provides non-profit trust services and also enables parents to lodge a care plan for their children when they pass on. MCYS and CPF Board are also implementing the Special Needs Savings Scheme, so that parents can use their Central Provident Fund accounts to provide a stream of income to their children upon their demise. The ongoing Enabling Masterplan exercise will look at many issues related to the disabled, including how we can provide better support and care for the adult and ageing disabled and their families.

47 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what are the Ministry's further plans to address the disamenities caused by droves of men loitering and standing along Lorong 24 of Geylang and Jalan Suka nightly.

The Lorong 24 Geylang and Jalan Suka area is lined with terrace houses. Along this stretch, there are 6 approved boarding houses, which have been approved from as early as the 1970s. Due partly to the presence of these boarding houses, foreign workers tend to congregate along these narrow roads.

Police recognise that the gathering of men in this area may affect the sense of safety and security of neighbouring residents. Thus Police have been closely monitoring the situation and have acted swiftly when needed. While crime along this stretch remains low, Police carry out daily patrols and frequent plainclothes operations in the area. Separately, in response to complaints about illegal public gaming, Police installed 2 CCTV cameras along Jalan Suka in September 2010. This has successfully eliminated illegal public gaming at this junction.

To address the disamentities caused by the crowds, Police officers also accompany other authorities, such as NEA, URA, LTA and Customs enforcement officers, during their inspections of statutory violations. This includes enforcement action against illegal lodging houses.

Police will continue to work closely with the grassroots, other Government agencies and various stakeholders to explore possible means to address the disamenities. The goal will be to keep disamenities to a minimum, and ensure that lawless characters do not use the crowd as a cover for criminal activity.

48 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development in view of URA's rejection of the only bid submitted for the Sims Avenue/Tanjong Katong Road land site (a) what was the objective of releasing this plot of land for tender; (b) what is the rationale for the Government's decision not to award the tender; and (c) how is this decision consistent with the Government's efforts to keep property prices from escalating.

The sale site at Sims Avenue/Tanjong Katong Road is within Paya Lebar Central. Our plan is to develop Paya Lebar Central into a major commercial hub over the next 15 years. The 2.1 ha site is meant for a mixed use commercial development.

The site attracted only one bid. The tender evaluation committee carefully assessed the bid and concluded that it was below fair market value. The tender award committee accepted the tender evaluation committee's recommendation not to award the tender.

We have an interest to preserve a stable and sustainable commercial property market. This is important to ensure the competitiveness of the Singapore economy.

To achieve this objective, we try to provide an adequate supply of commercial land to meet projected demand. In the pipeline, there is some 930,000 sqm of office space. This is about 200,000 sqm of new office space per annum over the next 5 years. The historical take-up rate is about 150,000 sqm per annum. We will continue to release a regular supply of office space through the Government Land Sales programme to meet market demand.

Our efforts have helped to stabilise the commercial office market. The rate of rental increase for commercial properties is slowing down. Island-wide rentals for office space increased by 0.9% in 3Q2011, the lowest quarterly rate of increase over the last six quarters. Office rentals are about 14% below the peak in 2008.

The intent to keep the commercial office market competitive does not mean that we should give away Government land below its fair market value.

49 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health in view of the shortage of medical practitioners and our rapidly ageing population, whether the Ministry has plans to increase the intake of Singapore citizens for our universities' medical faculties.

In view of our growing and ageing population, and the rising prevalence of chronic diseases among Singaporeans, MOH expects demand for healthcare services to rise over time. Consequently, the demand for medical manpower will also increase. In response to this, MOH has put in place two key strategies to ensure that we have sufficient numbers of well-trained Singaporean doctors to meet our increased healthcare needs.

Firstly, we have expanded the local pipeline for doctor training. This year, our medical schools graduated a total of 279 new doctors. The Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the National University of Singapore (NUS) has been progressively increasing its training capacity over time, and will take in 300 students annually by 2012. The Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, which was established in 2007, now takes in about 50 students a year.

Singapore's third and newest medical school, the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), will begin training its first batch of 50 students in August 2013 and will gradually increase its annual intake to 150 students eventually. At steady state, the three medical schools will train a total of about 500 doctors annually. This is almost double the number currently.

Secondly, we are stepping up efforts to attract Singaporeans studying medicine overseas to return back to Singapore. Last year, our public healthcare clusters introduced the pre-employment grant (PEG) which provides financial support for overseas Singaporean medical students during their final two years of study. The grant was very well-received by Singaporean students studying in the United Kingdom and Australia, with 68 awards given out last year. We aim to attract back more overseas-trained Singaporean doctors in the coming years.

Together, the expanded local training pipeline and recruitment of overseas-trained Singaporeans will increase our supply of Singaporean doctors to meet increased healthcare needs.

50 Ms Low Yen Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current number of therapists (psychologists, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) in public and private sectors who are serving children with learning difficulties in Singapore; (b) what is the current number of children under 18 years old who are diagnosed with learning difficulties; and (c) what is the progress of training and recruitment of manpower in child development that was announced under the $46 million fund for the Child Development Programme.

The management of children with learning disabilities is a complex issue which requires multi-agency coordination across the social, educational and healthcare sectors. Currently, it is estimated that there are about 22,000 children under 18 years old with learning difficulties. They are assisted by several programmes that seek to develop their potential to be independent, self-supporting and contributing members of society.

Under the Child Development Programme (CDP) (under MOH), child development experts from KKH, NUH and four community-based clinics work together to identify and treat children with developmental problems, including learning disabilities, early, that is, in children from 0 – 6 years old. The programme complements MCYS' and MOE's efforts under the Enabling Masterplan, a national roadmap to chart the direction for the disability sector in Singapore, to help such patients and their families.

Children identified with special needs under the CDP will be referred to centres under the Early Intervention Programme for Infants & Children (EIPIC) or Integrated Child Care Programme (ICCP) (under MCYS) that provide therapy and education support services, depending on the severity of their conditions. Children with special educational needs at school-going age (6 – 18 years) are enrolled in either Special Education (SPED) or mainstream schools. SPED schools run special programmes catering to distinct disability groups of children who are not able to benefit from mainstream schooling. Children with mild learning disabilities enrol in mainstream schools, where additional support is provided to them through Allied Educators or professionals from Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), such as the Dyslexia Association of Singapore, Singapore Association for the Deaf or Asian Women's Welfare Association.

It is estimated that there is a total of about 230 psychologists and therapists in the CDP, EIPIC, ICCP programmes, SPED and mainstream schools. This includes a total of 36 psychologists, occupational-, speech- and physio- therapists, in the CDP. The injection of $46 million into the CDP has enabled KKH and NUH to increase their child development manpower by more than 65% over the last 3 – 4 years. KKH and NUH will be further enhancing the manpower resources by recruiting trained professionals both locally and from abroad.

Overall, the Government has been expanding its support and programmes to train child psychologists and therapists. For example, MOE has collaborated with NIE to offer a Diploma in Educational Psychology since 2008 to train Associate Psychologists and psychologists from SPED schools and ITE, to equip them with competencies to provide psychological services to schools under the supervision of qualified Educational Psychologists. KKH, together with Parenting Research Centre (PRC), Australia and with the support of the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) and Temasek Cares, started a "Signposts" programme in 2011 to train therapists to be Signposts facilitators, with the objective to equip parents to better understand and manage their children's behaviour. To date, KKH has trained over 70 facilitators, including therapists and social workers, in the 12 EIPIC centres. It has also trained 3 local trainers certified to train others.

In addition, as mentioned by my colleague, Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing, in Parliament last month, MCYS has introduced a new "place-and-train" scheme to allow EIPIC teachers and therapists to be hired ahead of enrolment. This will help expand the capacity of EIPIC more quickly to meet the needs of the growing number of pre-school children diagnosed with disability or developmental delays.

Medical intervention (under the CDP) plays a part in the integrated support for children with developmental needs. Such children require coordinated support from the social, educational and health sectors. MOH will work with MCYS and MOE under the new Enabling Masterplan to further meet the emerging needs of the disabled sector, including children with developmental needs.

51 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) how will the Ministry monitor the employment status of older workers; and (b) what is the Ministry doing to protect older workers from losing their jobs or being discriminated against when they apply for jobs.

MOM collects timely and reliable statistical information on the labour market through the annual Labour Force Survey, which captures data on the employment status of our labour force, including older workers. These statistics are used to monitor the labour market and to review and formulate manpower policies, including those pertaining to older workers. Our partners – the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) – also monitor the placement and retention of specific groups of job seekers who approach them for employment or training assistance.

But more can be done. With improvements in healthcare and the general standard of living, our population is living and working longer. It is important that we prepare employers and workers for an ageing workforce. Hence, the Tripartite Committee (Tricom) on Employability of Older Workers, which comprises representatives from unions, employers and the Government, was set up in 2005. One key indicator monitored by the Tricom is the employment rate of older workers aged 55-64. Through the concerted efforts of tripartite partners, the employment rate for this group of workers reached a new high of 59% last year. The Tricom has set a target of 65% employment rate for workers aged 55-64 by 2015.

To achieve this, we need to ensure that our workers have the opportunity to work longer. Today, the statutory minimum retirement age is set at 62. When the re-employment legislation takes effect from January next year, employers will be required to offer re-employment to employees once they reach age 62, until age 65, so long as they are medically fit to continue working and have satisfactory work performance. This is an additional layer of protection for older workers to help them continue working if they wish.

MOM takes a serious view of discrimination against any employee, including that of age discrimination. If an employee feels that he or she has been unfairly dismissed on grounds of age, he or she can appeal to MOM for reinstatement or compensation.

Persuading employers to adopt non-discriminatory recruitment practices requires a change in their mindset. The tripartite partners have issued the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices to promote the adoption of fair and responsible employment practices, including that of discrimination against older workers. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP), which was established in 2006 with key representatives from unions, employers and the Government, provides a range of services, tools and resources to help organisations implement fair employment practices. TAFEP also looks into feedback and complaints on workplace discrimination issues.

The Ministry will continue to work with our tripartite partners to keep a close tab on the labour market situation and to help our older workers secure employment.

52 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) how the Ministry intends to ease the parking shortage situation in the Central Business District; (b) whether the car park shortage in the financial district has impacted our attractiveness to draw global institutions to plant their regional HQ in Singapore; and (c) whether the ratio of car park lots to office space should be reviewed.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) sets a minimum parking requirement for each building according to its type of use and Gross Floor Area (GFA). Developers can decide whether to use their GFA to provide parking spaces over and above the minimum requirements. In other words, there is no cap on parking provision. In deciding the additional parking lots to be provided, developers will have to balance the use of their building space in order to maximise their returns and to meet the parking needs of their tenants and customers. Parking charges are also left to the market, as building owners decide on the appropriate pricing in response to demand for parking spaces.

LTA monitors the parking situation through regular parking occupancy surveys. A survey conducted this year for many of the office buildings along the Shenton Way and Raffles Place area showed that there are sufficient parking spaces with an average utilisation of about 70% during peak periods. However, there may be a perception of parking shortage as parking demand is not evenly distributed. The car parks in some buildings are more attractive to motorists due to their location and/or parking charges.

LTA has recently conducted a review of the parking situation in the CBD and will retain the current parking standards.

Going forward, as we implement more MRT lines to encourage travel to the city centre by public transport, the need to drive to the CBD, and hence the demand for parking, should decline further over time.

This trend is consistent with other cities, such as Hong Kong, London and Tokyo, where public transport is the dominant and sustainable mode of travel to their CBDs. These cities have thrived as major financial centres, and are ranked well in terms of economic competitiveness.

54 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cyclists were summoned for traffic offences in the past three years whilst cycling along roads; and (b) whether there are any plans to have stricter enforcement of traffic regulations against cyclists who flout traffic rules.

In the past three years, about 800 summonses were issued annually to cyclists for cycling offences committed along roads. The common infringements were: failure to ride in an orderly manner, riding during hours of darkness without a front light or red reflector, and riding a motorised bicycle without wearing a protective helmet.

The Traffic Police takes a strong view against cyclists who flout traffic rules, particularly those who display dangerous cycling behaviour, such as riding without due regard to the safety of others. The Traffic Police will continue to maintain ground presence to ensure that cyclists and other motorists abide by the traffic rules. Stepped up enforcement is also conducted against specific traffic offences and in areas where road accidents commonly occur.

However, enforcement alone is not sufficient. We must also inculcate a safety mindset in cyclists to take responsibility for their own safety and accord due care to the safety of other road users. As such, the Traffic Police continues to engage the community on the importance of safe riding. For instance, it conducts road safety talks and exhibitions at schools, workplaces, worker dormitories, and community events. The Traffic Police also works with the Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Authority to create a safer environment for cyclists through the development of suitable infrastructure and facilities.

Road safety is a shared responsibility. All road users must play their part by adhering to the traffic rules, and by respecting the rights and safety needs of the different road users. This is the most effective way of reducing both errant behaviour and accidents on our roads.

55 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs from 2000 to 2010 (a) how many Singaporeans with locally-born children applied for long term visit pass and permanent residency for their foreign spouses each year; (b) how many of their spouses were granted long term visit pass and permanent residency; and (c) which countries do most of these foreign spouses come from.

From 2000 to 2010, the number of Singaporeans who applied for Long-Term Visit Passes (LTVP) and Permanent Residence (PR) for their foreign spouses each year averaged 12,100 and 8,700 respectively. Over the same period, an average of 10,300 and 4,600 foreign spouses of Singaporeans were granted LTVP and PR respectively each year. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority is unable to further break down the data by whether the applicants had locally-born children at the time of application.

The majority of these foreign spouses granted LTVP or PR are from South East Asia.

56 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether trees will be planted along the side of expressway to reduce traffic noise affecting residential homes that are built near the expressways.

The National Parks Board (NParks) has been planting trees along the sides of expressways and major arterial roads, where space permits. These trees serve as visual screens and reduce road noise transmission to some extent.

Besides tree planting, several other measures are currently being adopted by various agencies to minimise road noise. First, there are building setback requirements by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to ensure a minimum distance between the facade of residential buildings and roads. Second, non-noise sensitive developments, such as industries and parks, are located next to expressways where possible to act as noise shields. Third, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) uses a special road pavement material on expressways to reduce noise and, fourth, the National Environment Agency (NEA) regulates noise emission levels from road vehicles by setting and enforcing noise emission standards.

Given our dense urban environment, it is inevitable that some of our roads may have to be located near residential homes. NEA and LTA have embarked on a joint study, involving URA, HDB and NParks, to look into noise levels near expressways, major arterial roads and elevated rail lines, and explore appropriate noise mitigating measures that are applicable to our local context. The study is expected to be completed by the first half of 2012.

57 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for National Development whether further installation of solar panels in HDB estates will result in incremental cost savings for the respective Town Councils.

58 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for National Development whether the contracts for the installation and maintenance of solar panels in HDB estates will be awarded to a number of companies via tenders so as to increase the opportunities to gain experience with this technology.

At the current state of technology, solar energy costs more, watt for watt, than electricity from the grid. However, as the cost of solar energy is expected to fall over time, HDB has embarked on a pilot programme to test-bed the technology and to build capabilities in HDB and the industry.

As this is done on an experimental basis, HDB plans to install solar panels in only 3% of HDB blocks, thus covering only a small percentage of overall electricity consumption. In these pilots, HDB either pays for the installations fully, or subsidises 30% of the upfront cost in a solar leasing model, where private companies own and maintain the solar panel systems. The solar energy generated is then either passed on to the Town Council for free or sold to the Town Council at a subsidised rate by the leasing company to power lighting at common areas, water pumps and lifts. So, while solar energy costs more than grid electricity, the participating Town Councils will enjoy some savings because of the subsidies that the Government provides for this capability building programme.

As technology develops, and when solar energy costs less than electricity from the grid, the systems can be installed more widely and Town Councils will be able to enjoy savings even without subsidy.

Dr Janil has also asked whether the contracts for the installation and maintenance of solar panels in HDB estates will be awarded via tenders to increase the opportunities for companies to gain experience with this technology. Indeed, HDB has been procuring solar PV systems through open tender via Gebiz. Since 2009, HDB has awarded 10 contracts to six local companies. Some of these companies are gaining experience not just locally, but overseas as well. HDB will continue to procure future contracts through open tenders.

62 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) whether insurers are regulated and/or receive guidelines on the extent to which they may exclude healthcare coverage because of applicants' pre-existing medical conditions; (b) whether additional regulation is needed to ensure that insurance exclusions are not disproportionate; and (c) whether the Ministry sees areas for improved efficiency and competition in the market for healthcare insurance.

My Ministry takes a two-tiered approach towards health insurance. For basic coverage, we encourage as many Singaporeans as possible to be covered under MediShield, which is run by CPF Board and aimed at covering the cost of Class B2/C bills. 90% of Singaporeans are currently covered under MediShield. For those who wish to have additional coverage beyond MediShield, for example, for non-subsidised services, such as Class A or B1 charges, we have allowed the private sector to play a role in meeting this demand, via a range of Integrated Shield Plan and other private insurance products. There is a competitive Integrated Shield Plan market for those who seek higher coverage, with five insurers offering 26 plans targeted for different needs.

MOH does not regulate the underwriting decisions of private insurers and the criteria for accepting or rejecting applicants for Integrated Shield Plans or for imposing exclusions on pre-existing conditions. These are commercial decisions taken by the industry, depending on each insurer's risk appetite and claims experience as well as the profile of the applicants. About 5.5% of Integrated Shield Plan policyholders have exclusions for pre-existing conditions imposed on their coverage. To safeguard the interest of Singaporeans, MOH requires private insurers to be transparent with their clients by keeping their terms and conditions simple and clear. We also require them to guarantee renewals so that policyholders are not dropped even if they fall sick and incur high claims subsequently, and publish the time taken for them to process claims.