Hansard, 2012-04-09

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:

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

20 March 2012

1 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance how Government procurement guidelines ensure that neither local nor foreign suppliers are favoured during invitation, assessment and award of tenders.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is a signatory to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Government Procurement or GPA. Our obligations both under the GPA and our Free Trade Agreements require that local and foreign suppliers be given equal opportunity to participate in Government tenders. The Government's procurement rules are aligned with Singapore's international obligations. All Ministries, Organs of State and Statutory Boards are required to adhere to them.

The Government's procurement rules also require that every tender be assessed fairly and awarded to the proposal that meets the tender requirements and gives the best value-for-money, based on both price and non-price considerations. There should be no discrimination in favour of or against foreign suppliers.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask the Minister of State how would the Government procurement guidelines provide a level playing field for all types of businesses, whether foreign or local, and among the local companies, SMEs versus Government-linked companies. And how does the Government assess or allow tenders by smaller enterprises which may not have the strong financial background but have the requisite track records and capabilities?

Mr Speaker, the Government's procurement regime is an open one that places emphasis on fairness, transparency and value-for-money. It is also important to note that, wherever possible, Ministry of Finance encourages the use of outcome-based specifications in Government tenders. This allows bidders to put in their best proposals regardless of their own size or track record. The other aspect that is important is that bids are evaluated holistically based on their abilities to meet the requirements and objectives of the tender. For example, the total life-cycle cost is considered instead of just price alone. Award of contracts is on the basis of the best value-for-money offer. Specifically, to address Mr Baey's concern of whether the playing field is level for companies that are smaller in size, I am pleased to share with him that if we looked at the tenders that the Government has awarded, about 20% of them go to businesses with net tangible assets of less than $250,000. These would typically be small and medium enterprises. If we were to consider the contracts where the tender value is $100,000 or below, two in three of those contracts typically go to the small and medium enterprises with net tangible assets of $250,000 or lower. The evidence does suggest that our procurement regime is supportive of a whole range of enterprises, regardless of their size.

We also recognise that there may be occasions where the tender value is quite large. Smaller suppliers may need to enter into joint collaborations or consortia in order to compete for those projects fairly. The way to deal with that is to share pertinent information on public sector pipeline projects in advance, so that the suppliers have better visibility and to team up with potential partners. For example, IDA in their annual briefing to the infocomm industry will let suppliers know in advance of the kind of projects that they are looking to put out for businesses to tender for.

In addition, the Government also pushes alerts on business opportunities to suppliers via the GeBIZ system. There is one component called "Really Simple Syndication" (RSS). This is specifically designed to allow even smaller enterprises to access opportunities. When projects are published on RSS, email alerts on SPRING's Enterprise One Portal, which links to SMEs' database, are also made available. That is what we have been doing.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether these same guidelines apply to statutory boards and Government-owned companies where Government owns a significant shareholding. I ask this because not so long ago, I read in the newspapers that Changi Airport Group in the design of the new Terminal 4, that local architect firms were excluded, and that caused a ruckus within their industry. I know there was a subsequent clarification but I wanted to hear the Ministry's response to this and, specifically, whether these guidelines also apply to statutory boards and Government-owned companies.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Seah for his question. These guidelines apply to all Ministries, statutory boards and Organs of State. As for companies, they operate on commercial principles and it is up to them to decide on what basis their procurement is best proceeded with. In the case of the Changi Airport Group, I think they have made a very clear statement that where Terminal 4 is concerned, all local as well as foreign architects are welcome to participate. I think there is no need for us to speculate further. They have made their intentions very clear and in actual fact, in terms of implementation, all architects have been invited to submit their proposals.

Mr Baey Yam Keng, last question.

Sir, the Minister of State has made mention to tenders above certain value and the requirements on asset size and paid-up capital. Can I check what is the tender value that Government agencies use as a benchmark, beyond which they would require such financial status?

Mr Speaker, I should just clarify. I did not say that there were any specific requirements. At the end of the day, Government looks at the criteria holistically and, depending on which supplier is best able to provide the value for money, as well as to meet the requirements of the tender, they will be considered.

2 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development (a) how long does it take to upgrade one lift under the HDB Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP); and (b) if he would consider setting tighter productivity targets for LUP contractors to shorten the time needed for onsite construction work and minimise inconvenience to residents.

Sir, under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), it takes about six months to overhaul ”€ Ms Foo used the word "upgrade" ”€ an existing lift; and about 16 months to build a new lift shaft with a new lift in it.

For overhauling an old lift in an existing shaft, it is a relatively simple job. The replacement of lift cable, motor, lift car and control systems, etc, can be done rather quietly and speedily. Even including testing and commissioning, most of the overhauling can be completed within six months.

For building of new lifts in their lift shafts, the work is more complicated. Firstly, HDB's appointed contractors would need to work with other agencies to detect and divert underground services such as telecoms, power supply, water and sewage pipelines as necessary. This phase alone could take up to four months. Secondly, the appointed contractors would commence the construction work proper starting with micro-piling, and then lift and lift shaft installation, lift testing and commissioning. This phase will take about a year.

When LUP is implemented in a precinct, HDB will ensure that the residents will continue to have access to their lifts. This is why HDB would construct the new lifts first before proceeding to overhaul the existing lifts. Taken together, for each block on the ground under LUP, the duration of the upgrading programme could take about two years.

To minimise inconveniences to the residents, HDB has taken active steps to shorten the time needed for onsite construction work. For example, HDB cut the time needed for construction by two months when it introduced the use of steel lift shafts in 2007. Steel lift shafts are pre-fabricated and can be assembled on site more quickly than concrete lift shafts. More recently, HDB achieved a further two-month reduction, from six months to four months, in the service diversion phase of LUP works, by streamlining the process involving multiple agencies.

HDB will continue to look at ways to expedite LUP works without compromising quality and safety, bearing in mind that the works are often carried out within a tight site area and in close proximity to residents. In some situations, HDB will also need to phase out the work, so that residents can continue to enjoy the same level of lift service while LUP works are ongoing, and to minimise noise and dust to residents.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask two supplementary questions relating to comments made by my residents undergoing LUP at Pandan Gardens. Many of the residents ask me how come it takes two years to upgrade a block when we can build condominiums in the same time. The crux of the issue is about how work is being phased. According to my own observations in the estate, the work being done in upgrading the lifts in the precinct – let us say the eight blocks involved – basically the work is done in batches. They start digging in one block, they finish and they go to the next block, and they go one round before they come back to the first block to do the next step. If it is done like that, it would take a long time, probably two years, end-to-end for the whole project. My question to the Minister of State is whether HDB can consider the work being compressed so that works can start on one block, complete the works there before proceeding to the next block, so that inconvenience to residents is minimised. I would also like to ask a question on pre-fabrication. The Minister of State talked about pre-fabrication being used for the lift steel shafts. What other opportunities are there for HDB to explore so that a lot more work can be completed offsite?

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Foo for her questions and her observations. Indeed, I sympathise with some of these observations that Members have gathered from the local execution of the LUP projects. I, myself, have some LUP works ongoing in my constituency, and I get very similar feedback from residents. Compared to a condominium or new flats built on a greenfield site, the LUP work has to be constrained by existing tight site and hours of construction and to minimise inconveniences and noise pollution to the residents. The Member made the observation about whether we could − instead of treating the whole precinct as one site – carry out work block to block. HDB is studying this approach. The reason why it is currently done this way has to do with the contract that is given. Contractors would typically hire a team of specialists doing certain functions, and they would go from one block to another block sequentially. If not well managed locally, these sequential activities can add up in terms of total duration.

In terms of pre-fabrication, HDB is making use of prefab technology as far as possible. I am hopeful that HDB will continue to make improvements by better onsite house-keeping and project management to make sure that activities are more tightly integrated on the ground, and where feasible to complete work in one block before moving to another block.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions. First, what is the progress of LUP? How many more blocks are in balance, still awaiting LUP? Secondly, the question is whether HDB is on track to meet the Government's target to complete the LUP so that all eligible HDB blocks will have lift access on every floor.

Sir, the short answer is "yes". HDB is on track to complete the LUP programme for all the eligible blocks. In fact, 5,000 HDB blocks have been selected for LUP and polling has been completed for about 95% for these blocks. LUP has been completed for 65%. There is a time lag between polling and completion. The rest is being completed.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry can consider reducing the overall testing and commissioning period without compromising safety of the lifts. Normally, for LUP, the same batch of lifts is actually provided by one company. So, it is possible to stagger or do simultaneous testing and commissioning of the lifts to reduce the overall period.

Yes. We thank Dr Teo for his suggestion. We would ask HDB to look into it.

Mr Low, last question.

When can we expect the LUP to be completed nation-wide? Any specific date, please?

We expect to complete the LUP by end of 2014.

3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB would consider reviewing the relevance of bomb shelters in HDB flats and doing away with such requirements; and (b) whether there are alternatives given that many of these shelters are used as storerooms.

Sir, the Civil Defence Shelter Act governs the provision of bomb shelters. The Act requires all developers, and that includes the HDB, to provide such civil defence shelters within their residential developments. It is a mandatory requirement.

For HDB flats, the shelters can be built within the flats or take the form of a shelter outside the flats to be shared among the residents living on the same floor. The former is referred to as a household shelter, while the latter, a storey shelter.

HDB has built household shelters for most of its flats as they offer some advantages. For example, household shelters offer immediate protection as the residents do not need to leave their flats to search for shelter protection.

4 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact of JTC Corp's plans to divest its industrial property portfolio on local SMEs; (b) whether there are plans to review the divestment plan; and (c) whether the Ministry would consider providing sufficient affordable industrial land or premises to enable promising local SMEs to continue operating and developing their capabilities to the fullest in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 2005, the Government decided to divest JTC's generic multi-storey, multiple-user factory space, or what is commonly known as flatted factory space. As explained in my speech during the Committee of Supply debate last month, there was already a competitive market for flatted factory space in the private sector. JTC's market share then was only 18%.

JTC's tenants were enjoying lower rentals than others. This created an unlevel playing field for other SMEs that were not JTC's tenants. Furthermore, JTC's lower rentals were undercutting private sector developers. If JTC had continued to remain in this segment of the market, it would crowd out the smaller developers. The divestment was therefore necessary to, first, level the playing field for all SMEs and, second, to promote the vibrancy of this segment of the industrial market.

The divestment of JTC's flatted factories has affected only a small proportion of SMEs because JTC's market share, as I mentioned just now, was only 18%. To ameliorate the impact of the divestment on the affected SMEs, JTC worked with the buyers to impose rental caps, for a period of up to three years. SMEs affected by the first phase of divestment in 2008 paid, on average, 6% to 25% less than market rates when they renewed their tenancies in the first three years after divestment.

The increase in rentals after this transition period may appear large to some SMEs, but this is partly because they had enjoyed lower-than-market rentals in the earlier three years.

MTI and JTC have been working to keep industrial space affordable. First, JTC continues to develop innovative infrastructure projects, some of which help reduce business costs for SMEs through innovative designs or the up-front provision of capital-intensive facilities that can be co-shared. Examples of such projects include the Business Aviation Complex and the upcoming MedTech Hub and Surface Finishing Complex.

Second, we ensure that there is a sufficient supply of industrial land to meet SMEs' demand for industrial space. Through the Industrial Government Land Sales (IGLS) programme, about 20 hectares of land was released every half year in 2010 and 2011. This is about 30% higher than in 2008 and 2009. In the first half of 2012, an even larger amount of land – 24 hectares in total – has been made available through the IGLS programme. For this IGLS programme, we also released several small sites with shorter tenure, to satisfy the demand of industrialists, including SMEs, who require customised facilities and thus prefer to build factory space on their own. With shorter tenure, the sites will also be more affordable.

To ensure a timely supply of space, we have also shortened the project completion period for IGLS sites, from eight years to between five and seven years.

These measures will help ensure that our industrial space remains affordable. Industrial rentals have, in fact, moderated recently on the back of incoming supply and weakening demand. Industrial rentals grew by only 0.4% between 3Q2011 and 4Q2011, compared to 5% for the same quarters of the previous year. We expect rentals to continue to moderate as more supply comes on-stream, and with the weaker economic climate.

I thank the Minister for the explanation. Would JTC consider for the remaining of the factory space, instead of divesting to REITs, to sell to the factory owner?

We are at the tail end of the divestment process and these are just smaller flatted factories. We are considering either trade sales in which we sell individual buildings or if the owners and occupiers are able to form bodies, we would be happy to look into selling to them too.

5 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has a target inflation range; (b) if so, does it differentiate between domestic and imported inflation pressures; (c) whether a strong Singapore dollar policy leading to domestic inflation pressures is a concern; and (d) what is being done on the supply side to ease these pressures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's monetary policy is centred on managing the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar. This makes sense given the small and open nature of our economy. Our exports and imports of goods and services are nearly four times as large as our GDP. The exchange rate therefore has a significant influence on domestic prices, and plays an important role in determining economic activity. While MAS does not have a formal inflation target, the MAS Act clearly states that MAS' objective is to maintain price stability for sustained economic growth over the medium term.

MAS and MTI do differentiate between domestic and imported inflation. We keep close watch on consumer price developments from both sources. First, imported inflation from abroad. The prices of goods we import from other countries, for instance, food and oil, can change significantly due to events beyond our control, such as poor harvests, natural disasters, or geopolitical tensions. Second, there are domestic sources of inflation stemming from changes in the cost of factor inputs. For example, when the cost of hiring a worker goes up, businesses may charge higher prices for goods and services to maintain their profit margins.

A stronger Singapore dollar helps to cap both imported as well as domestic inflation. As the majority of products we consume and use in production are imported from overseas, a stronger exchange rate will reduce the Singapore dollar cost of these imported goods for both consumers and producers. Moreover, a stronger Singapore dollar will help to moderate domestic inflation by dampening the external demand for our goods and services, in turn lowering the demand for domestic resources, such as labour and land. As a result, rentals and wages would rise more modestly, reducing Singaporeans' demand for goods and services. This is similar to how interest rates impact domestic prices in larger economies.

Apart from consumer prices, Singaporeans have also been concerned about asset prices. The increase in asset prices is due to strong demand and tight supply of completed units. The low domestic interest rates, which follow global rates because of our open financial system, have also partly supported the demand. We have implemented fiscal and prudential measures to cool the property market. Where supply constraints can be ameliorated to relieve cost pressures in the housing, commercial and industrial property segments, we have also done so directly.

In addition, the Government is partnering Singapore workers and companies to raise productivity. Firms are in a challenging environment, where foreign worker levy and other costs are impacting their bottom line in the short term. Higher productivity allows firms to pay higher wages while remaining profitable without relying on large price increases. There are already several schemes for firms investing in machines that enhance productivity and innovation as well as to encourage further training and up-skilling of our workers.

These supply side measures from increasing the availability of property supply to enhancing productivity will help us manage domestic inflation over the longer term.

Finally, the Government also provides cash grants directly to help mitigate the impact of rising costs on households. For example, the "Grow & Share" package and the U-Save rebates. Last year alone, resident households living in HDB 3-room flats received Government transfers worth more than $2,000 per person on average. This amounts to around 10% of household income per household member. For resident households living in HDB 4-room flats, the transfer was around 7% of their average household income per household member. Although these grants do not reduce inflation, they help to offset the higher cost of living that our households experienced.

Thank you, Minister, for the good explanation. The recent Budget has obviously led to transition costs. My fear has been that with the inflation rate now catching up with the GDP growth numbers, at some point, are we worried that the inflation rate will take to overtake our growth numbers? I cite today's Business Times report, headlined "All eyes on Sing$ as price pressure rises. Stubborn inflation and expectations of rising prices can feed into jobs and wages". This is clearly a concern. The second is, yes, I agree a strong Sing dollar helps with an open economy like ours to mitigate imported inflation. However, I do wish to comment that a strong Sing dollar policy may necessarily mean that our forward rates will also remain low. A low forward rate may lead to a rise in money supply which could also lead to asset inflation, which the Minister rightly pointed out. Those two are potential concerns that I want to raise now.

I thank the Member for stating the complex challenge that MAS faces. It is obviously true that the inflation rate has been more persistent. We have been stuck with headline inflation at just below 5% for quite a long time. And MAS' core inflation has also been stuck at 3% for a long time. This is something which MAS is very concerned about. As Members know, the monetary policy statement will be issued this Friday. So these are some of the factors that MAS will take into consideration. The other point about the very liquid international situation which partly causes the asset inflation that we face is with us for some time to come. And this is also part of a very complex environment that MAS has to deal with in managing its monetary policy.

6 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Minister for Transport if he could provide details on resources spent on preventive maintenance of the rail track and tunnel for the North East Line in the past five years, including labour hours, replacements of critical parts, and total expenditure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from 2007–2011, I understand that the operator SBS Transit spent about $16 million on preventive maintenance for the rail tracks, the tunnels and Overhead Catenary System (OCS) of the North East Line (NEL). Please note that this amount is only for these three areas and is therefore a fraction of the total maintenance cost that is spent on the NEL. The operator also currently has an in-house team of about 470 maintenance staff dedicated to the maintenance of the line.

SBST conducts regular inspections of the tracks, tunnels and OCS, and carries out preventive maintenance in accordance with approved maintenance plans. Some of the measures that are taken include the monthly deployment of a specialised engineering vehicle known as a Multi-Function Vehicle (MFV) to help detect track faults for corrective maintenance. Six-monthly tunnel inspections are also conducted to check for cracks and leaks. Detailed inspections on the OCS are carried out every three months, as well as yearly, to ensure that it is well-maintained. Necessary measures are taken to deal with any defects that are detected during these checks.

The SBST's maintenance staff also carries out nightly checks of the tunnels and tracks, during which components exhibiting signs of defect or wear and tear are replaced immediately to ensure the safety of the system.

In spite of these checks and maintenance, train service disruptions can and do occur from time to time. Where necessary, the LTA will work with the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) to refine maintenance procedures so that the safety and reliability of the rail system is not compromised.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister whether the amount of resources put in for preventive measures are adequate. There is a lot of unhappiness among the commuters due to the frequent train breakdowns especially over the last few months. What more can be done?

LTA works together with the operators. The LTA works with them on three areas. One is to define the Operating Performance Standards and to ensure that these standards are met. For example, the availability of the fleet, adherence to schedules, frequency of breakdowns, severity of breakdowns – those will come under the Operating Performing Standards. The LTA also reviews the two-yearly maintenance plans as well as audits the safety management system. These are key areas that LTA would work with both operators on.

With regard to whether the maintenance regime is adequate, given the number of lines that are available today and the increasing number of trains and trips, the LTA will constantly review this together with the operators. Certainly, the COI will commence its public hearing on Monday next week and this will be one of the areas that I am sure the COI would also look at.

With regard to disruptions, the way I would look at it is that we would try and minimise as much as possible the major disruptions and keep them in check. But I think it is unavoidable that a system that is as heavily utilised as ours is today will not face any disruptions. Every day, there are about 2.7 million passenger trips. They are running thousands of train trips for more than 18 hours a day and I dare say that there is no way you can prevent disruptions from occurring. What you try to do is that you minimise the major disruptions and if they do take place, you then have an incident management plan in place that will then try to ameliorate the effects on commuters.

I thank the Minister for his response. I would like to ask him whether there are ways to detect impending failures earlier and to recover from them faster.

It is a very good question, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Cedric Foo for raising that. As systems age, it is important that we do not hold to the same maintenance regime that we have been using in the past when the systems were newer. Hence, there is a need to holistically relook what we do with regard to maintaining the older lines. I have asked LTA in particular to pay attention to looking at, for example, together with the operators, the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of particularly critical components, as well as to put in place an On-Condition Monitoring regime where you are able to detect, for example, whether there are trains that are experiencing problems because of wheel flats that are especially noisy because the wheels need to be re-profiled. On-Condition Monitoring (OCM) will give you a better idea of how to prioritise some of the maintenance efforts that you will need on particular aspects, whether of the tracks or the trains.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, last question, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister – how does he define "major disruptions" and does the Minister agree that whether major disruption or minor disruption, it will cause a lot of inconvenience to the commuters. I am sure there are a lot more improvements that are needed to be done; otherwise, public transport will be unreliable.

I think the way we will look at the major disruption is one that is more than 30 minutes in duration. Of course, major disruptions may impact thousands of commuters or fewer. So, for example, the NEL incident that was raised by Mr Dhinakaran impacted about 90,000 people. The service between Dhoby Ghaut and Harbourfront was shut down for about 10 hours because of a fault somewhere between Outram and Harbourfront. Yesterday, there was a disruption along the East-West line that affected about 500 people. This was slightly more than half an hour. Yes, every disruption, I know, causes inconvenience to commuters but I think it is also important to recognise that given the very heavy utilisation of the public transport system network, there will be disruptions. If you take it as a percentage of the trips that I mentioned earlier, 2.7 million passenger trips on average every day, then 500 passenger trips would be about 0.02%. So, yes, I know the 500 people were impacted, their trips were disrupted. But I think if you look at it as a whole, we have to recognise that there are going to be some disruptions, there are going to be some defects that we will encounter from time to time.

7 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Transport whether the Malaysian Government has confirmed to the Singapore Government of reported plans by Malaysia to introduce a toll on the Eastern Dispersal Link by imposing it only on Singapore-registered cars at the Causeway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malaysian media earlier reported that Malaysia is looking at the option of charging tolls only on Singapore-registered cars to recover the costs of constructing the new Eastern Dispersal Link (EDL), with tolls to be imposed – not at the EDL itself, but at the Causeway, regardless of whether the Singapore-registered cars actually use the EDL or not. Other media reports have indicated that the Malaysian government has opted to impose a levy on foreign vehicles instead of a toll, so as to avoid having to charge Malaysian vehicles, while arguing that Singapore has similarly imposed Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) fees on foreign cars. I appreciate that several Members are concerned by such news for Singaporeans, especially those who need to travel across the Causeway frequently for work or other activities.

We have checked with the Malaysian government. They are aware of the public reactions so far, and they have informed us that no decision has yet been taken on the various proposals to charge tolls or levies for the EDL. They are still exploring their options.

Our consistent practice is that we peg our tolls to match those set by Malaysia. This should apply to all vehicles using the Causeway or the Second Link, regardless of whether they are Singapore-registered or foreign-registered. Depending on the eventual details of Malaysia's proposal, we will then see how best we should apply this matching principle.

As for Singapore's Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) scheme, fees are imposed on foreign cars and motorcycles entering Singapore in order to equalise their ownership costs with the higher levels paid by Singapore-registered cars and motorcycles. This policy does not discriminate against foreign vehicles' usage of our roads, which would, in itself, be unfair.

8 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a comprehensive manpower study to ascertain the total projected demand for bus drivers in anticipation of the many more public buses to be provided on the roads; and (b) how would the Ministry help the school bus and private bus operators which are already very short of local drivers to meet the increased manpower demand in their industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will be partnering the public bus operators – SBS Transit and SMRT buses – to roll out the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (BSEP). This will significantly improve current bus service levels over the coming years. With the addition of 550 buses that will be funded by the Government under the BSEP, and another about 250 buses that the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) themselves will add at their cost, we expect to progressively increase the public bus fleet by about 800 buses over the next five years. This will require the two public bus operators to recruit a total of approximately 1,600 more bus drivers, because it takes an average of about two drivers to operate a bus throughout the day.

This is a significant increase in the overall manpower requirement facing the public bus industry. The public bus operators will also have to compete with other companies that similarly have to target locals in the face of a reduction in the intake of foreign labour. Nonetheless, how the public bus operators intend to improve their wages and employment terms to attract and retain sufficient bus drivers are ultimately matters for the PTOs to decide as the Government will not micro-manage such matters. However, this is clearly a top priority for both bus operators, and I understand that they are currently in talks with the unions on this matter.

Similar to the public bus operators, there is also a limit to how much the Government can and should intervene in the labour market for the wider private bus industry. In particular, bus driver salaries for this sector should remain market-driven, and private bus operators should make their own commercial decisions on how to ensure that their businesses remain viable in the face of a tightening labour market.

I thank the Minister for the explanations. Being a shipping man, I have experience working with the PSA. During the peak season, where they need to move containers from, let us say, Tanjong Pagar to Pasir Panjang, they talk to the operators like us, to use our ships to ferry the containers. Would the Ministry consider, working with the private bus operators with their existing fleet and their bus drivers, to supplement the public transport during the morning and evening peak hours, without having to put more buses on the roads and having to fight for the limited number of bus drivers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank Mr Teo for that very interesting supplementary question. Indeed, this is something that the LTA is exploring. Not something that is so easy to implement because the private operators we know are also trying to maximise the utilisation of their fleet as much as possible. Whether for workers using private buses, or for the general public commuting on the public buses, the peak hours are roughly about the same. So, therefore, the demand for buses, regardless of whether they are from the private industry or from the public bus companies, generally will tend to peak around the same period. Nonetheless, this is something that LTA is trying to explore together with the private bus companies, to see if indeed there is some room to do as the Member has suggested.

I thank the Minister for his clarification. My question relates to foreign bus drivers because I am quite certain the significant number of this increase will include foreign bus drivers. Just last week, we had a bus accident involving a foreign bus driver. I would like to ask the Minister, in light of this, what are the measures put in place to ensure that the foreign bus drivers are well qualified, adaptable and can assimilate as well and do the job effectively here and without compromising safety of other road users or pedestrians.

I thank Mr Zaqy for that supplementary question. Indeed, we are all saddened by that incident that happened in Sengkang last week. Regardless of whether it is a local driver or a foreign driver, I think it is something that we want very much to avoid as much as possible. In terms of the composition of the nationality of the drivers in the public bus sector, about 61% are locals, meaning Singaporeans and PRs; about 26% are Malaysians; and about 12%-13% are from PRC. Taken across the two companies, because they are given the ratio of within 10% but across the entire workforce, they are within those limits. MOM is very stringent on the quotas that they allow for all the different sectors. We know that and, in fact, it is something that is keenly felt not just by the bus sector but across the service sector as well as the other sectors. The more important thing actually is to make sure that regardless of nationality, every driver is adequately trained, appropriately qualified, and especially if they come from abroad, they are given the kind of orientation that will help them familiarise themselves with the peculiarities of the system here in Singapore,.

My question is a follow-up question to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's. We expect more foreigners applying to become bus drivers. Is the Ministry concerned that these foreign bus drivers might visit our casinos? And I think we are all aware that a bus driver, without enough sleep, can be a public safety hazard. So, is the Ministry doing something about that?

Let me thank Mr Low Thia Khiang for that very interesting supplementary question, although I would hasten to add that there is probably a host of activities and not just visiting the casino that might keep not only the drivers, but all of us awake at night, including Euro football and everything else. But it is a valid question in the sense that we must not only train the drivers in terms of equipping them with the skills but preparing them for life in Singapore, which may be very different from what they are accustomed to in the past. And, hence, part of the training programme is to make sure that we infuse in them the responsibility that they carry when they drive a vehicle like a bus, and to make sure that they pay stringent attention to road conditions and that they operate their vehicles in as safe a manner as possible.

Mr David Ong, last question.

May I ask the Minister whether our bus drivers are being over-taxed? Are they driving too long a distance? Are they driving longer hours? Have we reviewed the driving conditions of every driver, so that we can enhance road safety in public buses?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier, on average, we have about two drivers for every bus in order to operate the bus through the course of the day. Of course, the peak periods, where we deploy most of the fleet, are when we use the drivers at the heaviest, that is, the morning peak as well as the evening peak. In between, some of the drivers will then get to rest in the interchanges and use the facilities. I believe that the ratio of about two drivers to one bus has been something that we have used over an extended period of time. So, I do believe that it is something that is adequate. It is just to make sure that we continue to emphasise safety, continue to ensure that as much as possible, the drivers are properly trained, properly equipped with the skill sets, as well as be very familiar with the routes and the road conditions when they are driving.

9 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) from 2004 to 2012, what is the total number of students admitted into the Integrated Programmes (IP); (b) from 2004 to 2011, what is the number and percentage of IP students who (i) withdrew from the programme; (ii) withdrew from the programme and managed to gain admission to alternative institutions such as polytechnics; (iii) managed to complete the programme to take their "A" Levels and gained admission into local and overseas universities; and (c) what are the reasons for the students' inability to complete the programme.

Sir, approximately 3,400 students were admitted into the Integrated Programme (IP) each year between 2004 and 2012, of which about 20% entered at Secondary 3.

Students admitted between 2007 and 2012 are at varying stages of their education. For the cohorts from 2004 to 2006, on average about 6% of the students withdrew from the IP before reaching JC2. Of these, more than half continued their education in the same school on the "O" level track, or in another school or institution. The remaining students withdrew from the IP primarily because they were relocated overseas.

Of the 94% of the IP students who went on to complete the IP and sat for the "A" Levels or equivalent qualifications, almost all qualified for publicly-funded universities in Singapore.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. I have three supplementary questions: (1) what is the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of the IP programme in terms of achieving its intended outcomes; (2) moving forward, how does MOE ensure that the different IP programmes across the different schools are of comparable standards?; and (3) will MOE be conducting a major review of the IP programme to ensure that the attrition rate will be even lower than what has been shared with us?

Sir, I thank Mr Zainal Sapari for his supplementary questions. First, he asked whether the IPs have achieved their intended outcomes. Having the IP as one pathway alongside the "O" level pathway widens choice for our students and allows them to match teaching and learning to their own individual styles, specifically students who enrol in the IP track will undergo a style of teaching that is more suitable for self-directed as well as independent learning, whereas for students who need a more structured approach, the "O" level track would be more appropriate. So, in terms of offering this choice to students and parents, we believe that the programme has achieved that outcome. There are also some positive outcomes that have been observed of students who have completed their programme. For instance, they have been observed to be more vocal, more expressive and independent in learning, stronger service to the community because IP students do serve more CIP hours, and also the ability to move between collaborative as well as independent learning styles. All in all, we feel that having this variety of learning pathways will enrich the holistic development of our students.

Second, Mr Zainal Sapari wanted to know how the MOE will ensure that the different IPs will adhere to standards. This is something which the MOE works constantly with all our IP schools on, and there are also measures in place to help students who find continuing in the IP a bit of a challenge. For instance, there are support programmes to help the weaker students cope with the demands of IP. The support given to these students includes tailoring the instructional and assessment methods or providing additional guidance to cater to these students. There is also regular communication with parents of these students to help keep them abreast of their children's progress and allow them to also provide additional socio-emotional support, where necessary.

Finally, Mr Zainal Sapari asked whether there will be a major review of the IP. Sir, along with all other educational programmes that our schools offer, we will constantly review and monitor the progress and development of all of these schemes and tracks.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether for the Government-run IP, the International Baccalaureate or other forms of examinations, other than the "A" levels will be allowed.

Sir, currently, for the IP, we do move the students on to the IB as well as "A" levels. If there are suggestions for other forms of assessment, the Member is welcomed to provide them to us.

Sir, I want to clarify my question. My question was whether for Government schools running the IP, whether they are allowed to apply for the International Baccalaureate programmes.

Sir, this is something that we will consider depending on the needs of the school and also the nature of the request. This is something that will remain open to assessing.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. I want to ask one supplementary question. Of the 6% of the IP students who withdrew from the IP, that is, those who do not complete the IP, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give a breakdown of how many of those are admitted under the Direct Admission programme, through sports or other programmes?

Sir, I do not have the statistics that Mr Ang Wei Neng has asked for. He is welcomed to file another Question on this specific issue.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, last question.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry is still seeing a high demand for IP places and if there are plans to expand these places for more students to get into the IP.

Sir, I think the IP is a matter of considerable interest amongst students and parents. But we would like to highlight what is important here is that the IP is one track that is offered alongside the "O" level track, and both tracks, we feel, are equally valid. In fact, the majority of our students are on the "O" level track. So, I think the "O" level track retains great relevance for education. What is important is for students as well as their parents to recognise which style of learning suits the individual student best. Is it one that is more self-directed or independent, or would it be one that is more structured? And this is something which goes a long way towards determining the success of the student in either programme.

10 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Education (a) how does the Ministry define children as exceptionally gifted; (b) how are these children identified and handled; (c) how many of such children have been identified in the past 10 years; and (d) of those who have been identified, how many stayed in Singapore until they completed their university education.

Sir, children who are deemed exceptionally gifted have to meet a set of stringent criteria, which are based on international best practice. These include a psychological report, achievement and aptitude (typically manifested in terms of above-level test scores; in other words, test scores which are well above those of children of the same age), samples of the child's work, and teachers' recommendations. In addition, to determine the social emotional readiness of the child, data from interviews with the parents, and classroom observations will be taken into consideration.

Parents and teachers would typically observe that a child could exhibit exceptional giftedness. The identification is confirmed after specialists have assessed the child on a variety of criteria, as mentioned above. To support the exceptionally gifted child, officers in MOE work with the school and parents to draw up a learning plan for the child.

Since 2000, fewer than 20 students have been identified as being exceptionally gifted. The oldest one is enrolled in the National University of Singapore.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. One, there are some highly gifted students who are sometimes twice exceptional. They are exceptionally gifted, but they may also present exceptional behavioural issues that may lead them to be diagnosed as having special needs. How does MOE handle cases such as these? For example, whether the teachers are equipped to handle such students and if the teachers will feel that they are disrupting the classes, be it whether they are in mainstream or "gifted schools".

Secondly, how ready are our tertiary institutions in partnering MOE to help those who are exceptionally gifted, as some of these children may be so gifted that they can handle university curriculum even at the upper primary level? Do our tertiary institutions take in young students way before the university age, or do such students have to go overseas for their education if they cannot find anything that could be customised to their needs?

I thank Mr Yee Jenn Jong for his supplementary questions. First, he asked about students who may both be exceptionally gifted and yet at the same time exhibit some special needs. Sir, when we are talking about exceptionally gifted students, we are really speaking about a very small group. If these students also have special needs, the first thing to determine is whether or not the special needs of this particular student will allow him or her to undergo education in a mainstream setting. If the special needs are such that the student cannot be adequately cared for or looked after in a mainstream setting, then special provisions will have to be made. So, it really depends on the nature of the special needs that the student may have.

Second, he asked how ready are our tertiary institutions in accepting or taking in students who are identified to be exceptionally gifted. I am glad to inform Mr Yee that MOE headquarters does work quite closely with our tertiary institutions and universities when it comes to progressing these very few students who have been identified as being exceptionally gifted, and the universities work with us in determining whether or not the student is ready to enter the university, even though at a younger age.

I have further clarifications. Firstly, at what age is the youngest that our universities would allow the exceptionally gifted students to be enrolled? Secondly, of the 20 or so that have been identified in the last 10 years, how many of them actually stayed in Singapore and how many of them had to go overseas for their education?

Sir, when we are talking about exceptionally gifted students, we are really talking about very small numbers, each of whom may have very unique circumstances. So, I do not think that there is a hard number or an age below which our universities would not consider. This would depend on many factors. It goes beyond the intellectual ability of the student but also in terms of his or her social-emotional readiness and their readiness to be in a learning setting – a question of which learning setting would suit the individual best.

Coming back to the other question that Mr Yee has raised, whether there have been any exceptionally gifted students who have had to go overseas. Sir, I have mentioned just now that fewer than 20 students have been identified since 2000 as being exceptionally gifted and, out of these fewer than 20 students, one is known to have gone overseas to pursue his university education. The rest remains in Singapore. They are at various ages and they are still going through our education system. They are still in the schools and, as I have mentioned, the oldest one is already enrolled in a local university.

11 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry is reviewing the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) and, if so, what are the areas that the Ministry is looking into with respect to this review.

Sir, the GEP, like other MOE curricula and programmes, is reviewed on a regular basis. This is to ensure that it remains responsive to changing needs, and continues to meet quality standards based on research and sound professional practice.

As part of the recommendations of the Review of Upper Secondary and Pre-University Education in 2001, the Integrated Programme was introduced. As a result, the secondary GEP organised by MOE was integrated into school-based programmes in the Integrated Programme (IP) schools which were hosting the GEP.

In 2007, refinements were made to the implementation of the GEP at Primary level. Primary GEP centres adopted different models to increase interaction between GEP and non-GEP students on a daily basis by placing them in mixed classes for non-academic subjects.

The MOE also redoubled efforts to train more teachers to support high-ability students in all Primary schools. In the last five years since 2007, the Gifted Education Branch has provided over 2,000 places for teachers to be trained in curriculum differentiation and pedagogy.

We will continue to seek improvements to all programmes in our schools, including the GEP, so that they continue to be relevant and are aligned to the Ministry's emphasis on holistic education.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. We know that students mature at different rates and there are some bright students who peak a little later after Primary 3. Will the Ministry consider allowing such students to join the GEP in Primary 4 or Primary 5? In addition, GEP students are taught quite differently from non-GEP students, and the GEP curriculum focuses more on higher order thinking and problem-solving skills. But increasingly, we hear parents and students lament that PSLE questions are getting trickier, and seem to favour GEP students. My question is: will this disadvantage non-GEP students who are taking the same PSLE examination as GEP students?

Sir, Dr Intan has asked two supplementary questions. I will take the second one first. She asked whether undergoing the GEP programme would give an edge, an advantage to students at the PSLE. Sir, GEP students do, in fact, do very well at PSLE on the whole. Why is that so? The GEP draws from the top 1% to 2% of each Primary 3 cohort. These would be students who, at that age, already exhibit rather strong academic abilities. This would be then reflected in their PSLE performance. However, Sir, the GEP itself is not a programme that is intended to prepare children for exceptional performance at the PSLE. Its goals are to develop intellectual depth, higher level thinking and also to nurture productive creativity, amongst others, whereas the PSLE itself is a national examination that is based on the Primary school syllabus which all students undergo. So, I hope this addresses Dr Intan's concerns that there may be any one group that is given an advantage over others. This is not so.

As for students peaking later and considering accepting them into the GEP at Primary 4 or 5, I thank Dr Intan for her suggestion. We will study this, but I think we will have to balance the need to ensure adequate access and entry points for students against the need to ensure minimal disruption to their studies.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MOE thinks that Primary 4 or age 10 is the right age to categorise students into Gifted or non-Gifted? Why not classify them after PSLE when most of the students are slightly more mature after going through their first major examination?

I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his question. In fact, the programme is intended to allow a group of students who demonstrate very strong learning ability in order to be stretched to develop, as I have mentioned, intellectual depth and higher level thinking. The intention is not to classify students into any particular group. Given our commitment to holistic education and to bring our students up to their fullest potential, as Mr Lim well knows, we have many pathways and ladders within the education system for students of all learning profiles, and including students who, as Dr Intan has mentioned, peaked at different times during their journey through our school system.

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how does MOE evaluate the success of the GEP programme, in particular, how do GEP students benefit later on in their working lives?

Sir, I have mentioned earlier some of the goals of the GEP. Alongside the ones that I have mentioned, they also include enhancing aspirations for individual excellence and fulfilment to develop a strong social conscience and commitment to serve society and nation, as well as to develop moral values and qualities for responsible leadership. These are dimensions that we think go beyond quantifiable KPIs and this is something which the Ministry will study alongside with feedback from our schools, educators and students.

12 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) how HDB manages cases involving families in arrears of rental for HDB rental flats under its direct management; and (b) what due diligence does HDB exercise before issuing notices of eviction in such cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has a proactive programme to help families in rental arrears. It will look into the circumstances of each case and tailor the assistance measures according to their needs. These may include providing financial counselling to help them better manage their finances, allowing them to pay their rent arrears in instalments, and working with the Community Development Councils (CDCs) to help them under the relevant ComCare schemes.

Unfortunately, some tenants are not cooperative and refuse to pay their rent, despite HDB's best efforts to engage them. An eviction order may then become inevitable. This will typically be after several warnings have been issued to the tenants. In practice, almost all tenants will cooperate with the HDB and avoid an eviction.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, I would like him to clarify what are the trigger points at which the notice to quit will be issued to the tenant, that is, how many months of arrears typically before the notice to quit is issued? Secondly, if nothing is heard from the tenant, am I right that there are actually no checks done at the premises itself to determine whether the resident has any particular hardship before the notice to quit is sent? I have come across cases where there is a job change, for example, the tenant has lost his job but the notice to quit has still come despite that and apparently no questions were asked of the tenant prior to that. Thirdly, I have noticed also that when tenants request for reduction of rental in the midst of the tenancy agreement, this is usually turned down. So, is it the HDB's default position that there will be no change in the rental amount in the middle of the agreement, or are there any circumstances under which the rental fee could be changed in the midst of the tenancy agreement? Last of all, after the notice to quit is issued, of course, there is a period of time for the tenant to attempt to remedy the situation. But just prior to the eviction, I would like to ask whether there is any attempt made to check whether there is really a hardship case that has somehow slipped through the cracks or failed the attention of the authorities.

Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the supplementary questions. First, I would like to assure Ms Lim and Members of the House that HDB is very sensitive to the needs of families in rental flats. On the trigger point for notices to quit (NTQs), firstly, usually HDB will send reminder letters to tenants who have not been paying their rent, after the first month and the second month, reminder letters, as in any other agencies. The NTQ is issued if the tenant has not responded after the third month of arrears. What happens usually is that in the reminder letters, we encourage the tenants to come to the Branch Office to talk to the HDB officers for us to understand their circumstances better. If they do not turn up, HDB officers do visit the families to understand the situation better. Sometimes, the Member is right, it is an issue of them losing their jobs, temporarily being affected by inadequate finances within their households.

Under such circumstances, HDB will work very closely with CDCs. They will refer the families to CDCs for the Work Support Programme. In the Work Support Programme, the families are then assessed as to how they can be assisted which includes, at some points, rental vouchers that the CDCs may offer to the families.

On the question of reduction of rental fees during the mid-point of their tenancy periods – often times, we do not change the tenancy fees midway because the financial situation of the families may vary across time. The tenancy agreement is for two years. We review tenancy agreements for two years because we want to encourage families to do better. And some families do actually do better because a large proportion of our rental flat tenants are first-timers who have the potential to own flats subsequently. We do not want them to be entrenched in their rental flats. Within that two-year period, if they do improve, we will try to get them to move on to purchased flats. Sir, because of that, we do not change the rental rates in the middle of the tenancy agreement. We try to help them with the Work Support Programmes with the CDCs so that they can try to get back to where they were. During the renewal of the tenancy, we look at whether they are able to move on to purchased flats or at some points where their income situation has improved, it is fair to raise the rental a little bit to be fair to the other rental tenants. More importantly is that we will assess the case individually to understand that if they do need help, help will always be available.

To the point on when we evict, although the notice to quit is issued at the point of the third month, I can assure Ms Lim and Members of the House that many, many months afterwards, HDB continues to work with the families. HDB continues to help the families. We do not usually take any further action until nine months or even several years after the family is in arrears. Since 2003, only three cases have been evicted because we tried very, very hard to make sure that the circumstances of the families are well understood and the families are given the necessary assistance.

We acknowledge that when it comes to rental arrears, it is more than just a housing issue. It is really a social issue that sometimes families are trapped with. There are social service systems that we have put in place and we will galvanise the social service systems to help these families.

13 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the National Sports Associations (NSAs) that had their annual funding from the Singapore Sports Council completely cut were given any forewarning before their funding was cut; and (b) whether these NSAs are being assisted to remedy the shortcomings that resulted in their funding being removed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to qualify for the Singapore Sports Council's (SSC) annual grants, National Sports Associations (NSAs) must be registered as charities and meet other conditions, such as compliance with the financial regulations issued by SSC. NSAs also need to submit an application that shows how their programmes meet the immediate and medium-term priorities for sports identified and communicated by SSC.

For Financial Year (FY) 2012, a total of 48 NSAs will qualify for SSC grants. Three NSAs who were allocated SSC grants in FY2011 would not receive SSC grants in FY2012. Two of these NSAs have not been registered as charities. They also did not submit their financial regulations compliance report. The remaining NSAs had submitted a proposal that did not meet the priorities communicated by SSC.

The requirements for SSC funding are quite clear. SSC also engages NSAs regularly throughout the annual NSA grant exercise. Hence, the three NSAs should not be surprised by SSC's decision. SSC will continue to engage all three NSAs and offer advice and assistance where appropriate. Once they have resolved their issues, they can make an appeal for funding for this financial year or submit an application for grant the following financial year.

Sir, I have one supplementary question regarding the NSAs who went from funding to zero from 2011 to 2012. Was there any possibly more direct warning to the employment of their staff? Because, I understand, for some of them, the funding for their staff – and some of the staff have been working with the NSAs for quite a long period of time – were largely dependent on the funding from the Sports Council. The funding amount was announced in the middle of March and took effect from 1 April. In fact, some of the staff was given less than three weeks' notice and then they were basically out of a job. So, I think some explicit notification for that would have helped even though the general indication might be that they are not doing so well and they need to buck up.

Sir, in response to the supplementary question from Mr Nicholas Fang, SSC has been in communications with the three NSAs throughout the entire year. They were very well aware of the steps leading up to the eventual decision. It is unfortunate that the respective NSAs have not communicated this to their respective staff nor have they prepared their staff for this. Nevertheless, the SSC will continue to work with the three NSAs to see how we can strengthen their governance and also to help them meet the respective requirements so that we can provide better support for the respective sports that they are championing.

14 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the CPF Board would allow low-income earners who have reached the valuation limit of their HDB flat in total payments via CPF to continue using their CPF balance to make monthly mortgage repayments even if they do not have the required Minimum Sum in their CPF account.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Yee for the Question. Our CPF helps to meet various needs, amongst which is to help provide for our retirement needs as well as help us own the roof over our heads. It is, therefore, important that the CPF savings used for property are carefully spent. The Valuation Limit (VL) is a mechanism that helps us to ensure this.

The VL limits CPF savings used for property to the purchase price or value of the property at the time of purchase, whichever is lower. The intent really is to discourage the use of CPF savings to pay for property for which the price exceeds fair value. It also encourages members to be prudent in their property purchase and to take up a housing loan that is within their means, since once the VL is reached, they can no longer service their monthly instalments using CPF savings and have to use cash instead.

If a member wishes to use more than the VL for his monthly mortgage repayment, he would first need to set aside the Minimum Sum Cash Component in his CPF account. This cash component is currently half of the Minimum Sum. This requirement ensures that a member at least has some level of cash savings available for retirement before we allow more CPF savings to be used for housing.

When we look at the data, the number of members who can no longer use CPF savings to pay for monthly instalments after reaching the VL is actually very small. At any one time, we have almost 700,000 CPF members who are using their CPF savings to finance their housing instalments. Of these, fewer than half a percent are unable to use further CPF savings for monthly instalments as they have reached the VL limit.

Nonetheless, we recognise that some members will find it difficult from time to time to continue servicing their housing loans after they reach the VL. Therefore, on a case-by-case basis, CPF Board has allowed members some flexibility where the case merits, for example, where giving such flexibility will help them tide over a period of temporary hardship, or where the member is in the midst of right-sizing his property to avoid defaults.

Specifically to HDB, there is no Valuation Limit on the amount of CPF savings the low-income earner can use when he buys a new HDB flat and when he takes up a HDB loan to pay for the property. So, while we try to facilitate home ownership and it is important, the VL also plays an important role to balance and to ensure prudence in the use of CPF savings, and strikes a balance between housing and retirement needs. We remind CPF members to buy a home within their means, and to factor in the VL in their plans for financing their home.

I thank the Minister of State for the answers. I just have a supplementary question also related to the same topic that if the flat owners have hit the age of 55 and they do not have the Minimum Sum, they would also have difficulties paying their home loans. Will there also be a case-by-case assessment for handling such CPF account holders?

I would like to thank Mr Yee for the supplementary question. As mentioned in my response earlier, we do look at the circumstances that every individual faces. It will vary from person to person. We do have cases of people reaching different ages and, in fact, different circumstances that people encounter. These cases can be raised and then we can take a look and we will deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

15 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower what can be done to help re-employed elderly workers who are re-assessed as "new cases" by insurance companies upon their reaching the age of 62 and risk being denied coverage for existing medical conditions that were previously covered before re-employment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Retirement and Re-employment Act, which came into effect on 1 January of this year requires employers to re-employ their older workers from age 62 to 65. To enable these employees to continue to be covered by group medical insurance schemes, we understand that most major insurers have extended the coverage of employees up to the age of 65 and beyond. Re-employed employees who have been working for the same company over the years and have been covered by the company's medical insurance schemes typically do not need to be re-assessed as "new cases" for the purpose of insurance coverage in this regard. If an insurance company does not extend the coverage of the scheme up to the age of 65 and also requires re-employed employees to be re-assessed, the employer should work with the insurance company to address this issue so that the medical needs of these employees can continue to be met.

Industry feedback drawn from various briefing and outreach sessions has shown that companies have already raised the coverage of their group medical insurance schemes for their employees to the age of 65, or beyond. In such cases, re-employed workers would continue to enjoy medical benefits under their company's medical insurance schemes. By so doing, they would avoid the risk of being denied coverage for existing medical conditions that were previously covered.

16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) how do polyclinics decide whether or not to turn away a patient who turns up just before their closing hour; (b) whether there is a quota on the number of patients to be seen in one day; and (c) what other alternatives do these patients have.

Sir, polyclinics do not have a quota on the number of patients to be seen each day. The official polyclinic consultation hours extend from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm and then after that, 2.00 pm to 4.30 pm on weekdays, and from 8.00 am to 12.30 pm on Saturdays. Registration for patients may sometimes close before official consultation hours to allow time for registered patients to be seen by the doctors.

Notwithstanding, polyclinics often operate beyond official opening hours and doctors have been working very hard and trying their best to see their patients as soon as possible. When the consultation time for patients waiting in line is expected to go well beyond the operating hours, nurses at the polyclinics will assess the severity of the patients' conditions. Those with urgent conditions will be seen or given the necessary triage. Those with non-urgent conditions may be advised to return the next day, but if registered patients wish to wait, the doctor will still see them even after the opening hours. Patients with critical conditions may be referred to the nearest A&E departments after triage.

Polyclinics have introduced measures to better manage waiting times. For example, our polyclinics have implemented self-registration for appointment-based services, such as health screenings, immunisations and visits for chronic conditions. With self-registration, patients can proceed directly to service points without having to spend additional time queuing at the registration areas. Notices of current estimated waiting time and patient volume are also posted at the respective polyclinics and the Internet Queue Watch page on our polyclinic websites, which would enable patients to better manage their time.

As an alternative to polyclinics, patients may wish to seek care at the GP clinics, including after polyclinic opening hours. Most of these GP clinics operate extended hours, including evenings and weekends. Currently, 460 GP clinics provide subsidised care under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) where eligible patients can receive similar subsidy as that received at polyclinics.

Order. We have now reached the closing hour. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos. 18, 23, 27, 29-30, 33, 35-37, 43 and 46-48 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos. 17, 19-22, 24-26, 28, 31-32, 34, 38-42 and 44-45 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Mr Hawazi Daipi. Do you have a clarification to make?

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make this clarification. I had previously shared during the Committee of Supply debates on 8 March that MOE is improving our provision of sports facilities. More schools will be resourced with indoor sports halls and synthetic turf fields. I wish to clarify that these investments will cost a total of $1 billion, and not $3 billion [please refer to Pg 2328 for the Official Report of 8 March 2012].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is closely related to the next Bill on our Order Paper, the Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill. Sir, may I therefore suggest, with your permission, that the debate on both Bills take place now as both these Bills are closely related. Members are welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during this debate.

Yes, we can do that, except that we will need to pass both Bills separately.

Yes, of course. Water has always been of paramount importance for Singapore. With the limited land for both water catchment and storage, Singapore has been acutely aware of the need to provide a safe and reliable supply of water for its people since independence. In the early days, we faced and overcame drought, floods and water pollution as the city grew. These challenges have inspired us to innovate and develop capabilities in water, turning our weakness into strength.

Today, we have a diversified and sustainable water supply through the Four National Taps, namely, the local catchments, imported water, NEWater and desalination. We have also reduced our domestic water consumption over the past decade from 165 litres per person per day down to 153 litres per person per day through a multi-pronged approach which includes pricing, mandatory requirements, and voluntary measures.

We can all turn on our taps today and receive clean, safe drinking water at any time of the day, any day of the year. We often take this for granted, but behind each tap lies an integrated system comprising over 7,000 km of drains, 17 reservoirs, water catchment area which constitutes two-thirds of Singapore's total land area, seven water treatment plants, 5,400 km of water mains, 3,400 km of sewers, four water reclamation plants, and four NEWater factories. I cited a lot of numbers to give Members an idea of the amount of investment that has gone on over the past five decades.

Going forward, the challenge of meeting the water needs of our population and economy will be even more complex. We have to protect the quality of local catchment water in an increasingly urbanised Singapore. We have to build the buffers to accommodate greater climate uncertainties. We have to manage the cost of water against scenarios of even higher energy prices in the future. And by the expiry of the remaining water agreement in 2061, we have to be ready to be self-sufficient in water if no new agreement is struck before that date.

Consequently, we have been progressively building up our water production capabilities and will continue to do so – we will expand our local water catchments, our NEWater and desalination capacities and will further improve the energy efficiency of our water system.

These developments in our water resources need to be supported with corresponding legislation. The Public Utilities Act and the Sewerage and Drainage Act provide PUB the power to regulate matters relating to water supply, the treatment of used water and drainage. These two Acts were last amended in 2001 and 1999 respectively.

The proposed amendments to both these Acts will put in place safeguards to enable the expansion of our local water catchments, to protect our NEWater production, and to protect key infrastructure across our entire water loop. I will elaborate on each of these themes in turn.

With the completion of the Marina, Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs, we now have 17 reservoirs. In other words, two-thirds of Singapore has now become a water catchment area. We intend to continue expanding the water catchment area to cover more of the island. To enable this, we must keep our land, waterways and reservoirs clean. Any pollution of the sources, the pathways or the receptacles of water in any of our water catchment area will make the water more difficult and costly to treat. As such, a pre-emptive approach to controlling pollution is necessary.

One common source of pollution is silt which gets washed down into our waterways and reservoirs. Silt reduces the capacities of our drains and reservoirs, impeding the effectiveness of flood prevention measures. And silt also affects the quality and aesthetics of our water bodies.

While there are existing standards which specify the amount of silt discharges permitted, these can only be enforced after the silt discharge has already taken place. The proposed amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act take a pre-emptive approach to controlling silt discharge. Adequate silt control measures must be installed at worksites before any work takes place, and an order may be issued to stop the work if the control measures are inadequate. For effective deterrence, the penalties for offences related to silt discharge will be raised to be commensurate with the cost of installing adequate silt control measures.

Let me move on to used water pollution. Another potential source of pollution of our water catchment areas is used water which is not treated sufficiently or which leaks from our used water system.

Over the years, PUB has put in place an extensive and effective used water management system by expanding the national sewage system and by rehabilitating older sections of our public sewers. There remain some sewage treatment plants (STPs) in a few remote areas, some of which were built and maintained by private owners. These STPs are small biological treatment plants which treat used water before discharging it into the watercourses. These areas will eventually be served by sewers, in tandem with future land development plans.

In improving used water management, PUB will take responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and repair of all sewage treatment plants with effect from June this year. This approach minimises the risk of used water polluting our water catchment areas and paves the way for future expansion of our water catchment areas.

Apart from Government funding for public sewers, the used water system is funded through the Sanitary Appliance Fee, as well as the Waterborne Fee which is charged based on the amount of water supplied, regardless of location and the end use of the water. The proposed amendments to the Public Utilities Act will more properly reflect these charges as a tax contribution to our national used water system, which is an essential part of securing our national water supply. In this regard, past impositions of the Waterborne Fee are also validated as impositions of a tax. Speeches made in this House at the time when the Waterborne Fee was introduced show the Government's intention had always been that the Waterborne Fee was to be in the nature of a tax and this is now being put beyond any doubt.

However, let me assure the House that this is not a change in the current rates or the structure of our water charges.

Alongside the expansion of water catchments, we will continue to increase the other water sources of NEWater and desalination, which are independent of rainfall. In particular, NEWater is expected to ultimately meet half of our water needs in the long run.

NEWater production depends on a well functioning used water system to provide a feedstock of treated used water. Part of the treatment of used water is a biological process which can be disrupted by high concentrations of illegally discharged chemical substances. The presence of such prohibited substances can also lead to an accumulation of dangerous volatile gases in the used water system.

The proposed amendments to the SDA will tighten the regulation of discharges to the used water system by strengthening enforcement powers and imposing a significantly higher penalty for damage which disrupts the used water system or the NEWater production processes.

PUB's water treatment facilities are complemented by the many thousand kilometres of water mains and sewers to convey potable water, NEWater and used water. These networks require substantial investments, as exemplified by the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, which was completed in 2008. This 48-km long used water superhighway costs more than $3 billion to develop.

To better protect our water infrastructure against damage, the proposed amendments to both Acts will introduce higher penalties commensurate with the severity of the damage. For example, the penalty for causing damage to the water mains of 300 mm or greater in diameter, or to sewers 900 mm or greater in diameter, is higher than that for the smaller water mains or sewers.

Let me give you a sense of the consequences of such damage: a 900-mm diameter sewer typically serves a population of some 100,000 persons − that is equivalent to a Clementi or a Bishan town. Should it be damaged, a considerable amount of used water overflow will result until diversion or repair works can be completed. This will have serious consequences on the environment and public health.

Higher penalties will also apply to damage caused to any of the water installations, for example, waterworks and desalination plants.

Consistent with this pre-emptive approach to preventing damage, the proposed amendments to both Acts will make clear the extent of site investigations required of any person who intends to do any excavation, piling, or similar works, before starting such work. Not only must the person obtain the relevant site plans from PUB, trial trenches must also be carried out to physically ascertain the location of any water mains or sewers in order to avoid damaging them.

Sir, it is essential that Singapore continues to secure a sustainable and resilient water supply to meet the long-term needs of a growing economy and a growing population and to cope with the long-term dangers of climate uncertainty.

To achieve this, our water catchments will be progressively expanded. This will be complemented by expanding NEWater and desalination capabilities. It is, therefore, crucial to ensure the quality of catchment water and adequately protect our water infrastructure.

The proposed amendments to both the Public Utilities Act and the Sewerage and Drainage Act will reinforce our current safeguards to enhance the management of Singapore's water resources and ensure the reliability of our water supply for the long term. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, I wish to seek three clarifications on the Bill. In the Minister's earlier Second Reading speech, he elaborated on how our water supply system is going to become increasingly more sophisticated. And I am concerned about clause 5 of the Bill regarding the water tariff. This introduces some new provisions concerning the pricing of water which arouse suspicions that water prices are going to rise.

The new section 20(1A) ominously states that when the PUB is pricing water, it may take into consideration "all costs incurred in enabling it to supply the water, including but not limited to collection and purchase of water, storage, treatment of water and maintenance and security of the water supply system." In the current Public Utilities Act, the factors taken into account in pricing water are not spelt out. However, I recall that in the recent Committee of Supply debates for the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, the Minister has responded to the Member for Aljunied Mr Low Thia Khiang's cut on Water Tariff by mentioning some of the items now in section 20(1A) as going into water pricing.

The insertion of section 20(1A) is particularly worrying as it is stated to be "subject to section 14" of the Act, which in turn provides that the PUB must ensure that its total revenues are sufficient to meet its total outgoings as well as a reasonable proportion of the cost of developing the Board's services.

Will Minister clarify whether this amendment is meant to signal any change in the way water is priced? More specifically, is the PUB intending to apportion more of the cost-sharing to consumers? What assurances do Singaporeans have that water will still be priced affordably in the future?

Sir, my next point concerns maintenance of water service installation. Under section 45(2) of the Act, a person responsible to maintain a water service installation which has a master meter and cisterns is to engage a professional engineer to inspect and maintain the system once in 60 months (or five years). This is to ensure that such systems on residential, commercial and industrial properties are fit and safe for use, and free from contamination and leakage.

Under clause 15, the frequency of once in five years will now be removed, giving the PUB discretion as to when to require the inspections. Though the explanatory note says that this removal is to give flexibility to the PUB on the frequency of inspections, what is the intention behind the amendment? Will there be installations where inspections will now be carried out less frequently, and would there be an increased risk to public health?

Sir, my final point involves other statutory boards and other persons to be engaged in implementing duties under the Act. Under clause 4 of the Bill, the PUB will be able to appoint and authorise officers and employees of "any other statutory board" to be authorised officers, giving them duties and powers under the Act. It can also appoint "any other person" to perform duties or tasks under the Act. Under clause 21, new sections 55A and 55B give authorised officers or persons vast powers of investigation, including compelling witnesses to attend, taking statements, and entry into premises to search and seize evidence.

Sir, tasks such as forced entry into premises, conducting searches and doing investigation work are confrontational by nature and have a lot of grey areas and decision points where discretion needs to be exercised in a lawful manner. I would like to ask which other statutory boards or persons will be involved in performing such functions. In addition, what assurances will the public have that they are properly trained and accountable for the exercise of such powers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, during a Parliament sitting back in November, I had raised my concerns about the water quality from our reservoirs in light of the bodies found in Bedok Reservoir last year. The Minister for Environment and Water Resources reassured me and the public on the safety of our drinking water. Clause 3 of this Bill increases the functions and duties of the PUB in collection and treatment of water and the management of activities around the reservoirs. So, I am happy to note that the Ministry takes the matter of water quality seriously.

Could the Minister share some more details on the other new functions of the PUB in the management and regulation of activities around reservoirs, aside from that of boat transfer facilities and on barrages, as already mentioned in this Bill? And how would these constitute an improvement on the current arrangements?

Under clause 28(a) of the Amendment of the Second Schedule, what percentage is the water-borne tax imposed in place of certain fees imposed under the Sewerage and Drainage Act (Chapter 294)?

I thank the two Members for their queries on this issue. Let me first reassure the House and members of the public that there will be no change to the structure or to the rates of the pricing of our water charges. The insertion of the new subsection 4 to section 20 of the Public Utilities Act simply clarifies that the Government's intention has always been that the Water-borne Fee was to be in the nature of a tax and that this has now been put beyond any doubt. This is not a new charge. I am not making any announcements for new rates or new charges. So that is not on the cards at this point in time.

Having said that, I also need to remind the House that used water that flows from our sinks, toilets and bathrooms cannot simply be discharged into the sea for environmental and public health reasons. The used water has to be collected properly through public sewers which are not leaking and then treated at PUB plants before they can be safely discharged. The current revenue collected does not fully recover the costs of treating used water and the operating costs of the public sewerage network, and I have not yet even included the capital costs incurred.

The costs of running the entire water system: this was a query that I think Mr Low made to me during COS debate. In order to provide a safe, secure and resilient supply of water for Singapore, right now, it costs PUB about $1.3 billion a year. In the same year, that is, for the year ending March 2011, PUB collected $674 million from water tariffs and $327 million from its used water fee. This includes both the Water-borne Fee and the Sanitary Appliance Fee. Even if you include the amount collected under the Water Conservation Tax, which does not accrue to PUB but goes into the Consolidated Fund, the total amount that has been collected is still less than the total amount necessary to maintain, operate and upgrade our water system in Singapore. If you extrapolate for the long term, every additional drop that we are going to have to get either from expanding our water catchment area and having to make sure that that water is clean or from recycling water through NEWater or from desalination, every additional drop is going to be more difficult and costly.

The key change that has occurred because of the technological availability of membranes in reverse osmosis is that, in the long term, a key determinant of the price or the cost of water is the cost of energy. So, no Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in Singapore can ever give you a warranty that water prices will not change in the future. It is dependent on so many factors which are beyond our control and are, in a sense, because of our uniquely water-constrained circumstances.

Sir, I want to put all these out in the public domain so that we understand that this is a complex and difficult issue. But I also want to assure the House that we are very mindful that by running a most efficient-possible water system, we can maintain water at an affordable rate for all our people. For even those low-income families, through U-Save, we ensure that everyone has access to water that they need. Let me reassure Ms Sylvia Lim and, indeed, members of the public, that we are not changing water rates this year.

The other point that Ms Lim raised was about removing the prescribed frequency for inspecting water storage tanks by professional engineers. First, I would say that being overly prescriptive in legislation in general is not a good idea, and it is better to let this be a professional decision to be made by professionals as to the optimal frequency of these inspections. But having said that, let me also clarify that the proposed amendment is to remove the fixed frequency for inspecting water tanks by professional engineers. Water storage tanks will continue to be inspected by licensed plumbers on an annual basis, and licensed plumbers will inspect every water storage tank and the associated pipes to check for proper maintenance, cleanliness and to prevent any leaks. So I want to assure you that we are not slackening our vigilance and the need for meticulous maintenance of our water tanks and the pipes therefrom.

The proposed amendment is meant to give sufficient flexibility with the possible objective of reducing the cost burden on owners for inspecting water storage tanks. Let me give you an example. The cost for inspecting and certification by a professional engineer is estimated to be between $300 and $500 per HDB block. For an average Town Council with 500 blocks − I presume yours would be in that range − the average cost savings could amount to somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 per year. So I am trying to find an optimal balance to save you money at the same time without compromising the safety and integrity of our water system. So, allow the legislation to provide flexibility and the professionals to make appropriate decisions.

I also want to respond to your point about the amendments to section 10 of the Public Utilities Act which will allow PUB to authorise other parties, other persons, to perform any function or duty under the Public Utilities Act, subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may specify in writing. For a start, PUB is considering engaging agents for catchment surveillance and for the enforcement of minor offences, such as littering or causing nuisance at reservoir parks and water ways. As we open up more reservoirs and waterways for recreational activities, these authorised agents will complement PUB's own team of officers and help maintain our reservoirs and waterways in a clean and safe condition for the public's use.

Let me assure you, whichever way this evolves, PUB and, ultimately, the Minister, remain responsible for the conduct, recruitment, training and the impact that these officers have on the maintenance and integrity of our public water system and, indeed, their impact on members of the public. I give that assurance to you and to others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few clarifications. First, I would like to clarify with the Minister that my concern about the water tariff was not about the water-borne tax but about the main tariff itself which has been elaborated upon in the new proposed section 20(1A), and my question was on whether the enumeration of those various factors that can be taken into account is a signal we can expect some change in the water pricing formula.

Secondly, he mentioned that there will be no change this year, but I am wondering whether he is suggesting that there could be changes next year. Is that what he is saying?

Last of all, regarding the other persons to assist PUB in its functions, he did not answer my question about which statutory boards he foresees, for example, to be engaged in this process to assist PUB.

I do not want to jump to next year's Budget Debate. The purpose of enumerating these factors is just for greater clarity and transparency. We are not enumerating this as a prelude to increasing water charges. But I also want to transparently and openly tell you that, based on the current trajectory, the cost of producing safe water will be under great pressure in the future and it is not possible at this point in time to give you an assurance that it will never be raised in the future. At the appropriate time, if we need to do so, we will do so, and we will explain it fully. But for this year, we are not making any changes.

You have asked about other agencies. For a start, within our own Ministry, NEA officers would also have an interest in littering and in the maintenance of cleanliness and, certainly, with respect to our reservoirs, there is an obvious group of people we will reach out to. But I am considering other people. We may have to outsource some of this routine work which could be outsourced to other people. But the point that I am trying to make is that it is our duty to make sure whoever we recruit to do this is properly trained and is held accountable and performs to the level that you would expect of any other public servant.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is closely related to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill. In the debate we have just had on the Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Therefore, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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." The Energy Conservation Bill, or EC in short, in order to save energy on our part, seeks to introduce mandatory energy management practices for large energy users in the industry and transport sectors, and to consolidate legislation on energy efficiency under one Act.

Sir, we are entering a future of high resource prices and increased economic and environmental risk. The exploitation of low-priced natural resources has underpinned much of our global economic growth in the 20th century. However, there is now soaring global demand for resources due to rapid economic development in emerging markets. Furthermore, the cost and difficulty of finding and extracting new sources have also been increasing progressively.

According to a 2011 McKinsey study on resource productivity, the past 10 years have wiped out, in real terms, all price declines that occurred in the previous century. Old input-driven business models that benefitted from low resource prices will confront a test of survival. Consequently, private and public sector institutions need to make resource productivity a higher priority and prepare for a resource-constrained future.

In a global economy that faces greater resource scarcity, companies, consumers and countries that break with old patterns and take the lead on resource efficiency will strengthen their competitive and economic position. This is certainly true for energy.

Singapore imports all our energy needs to fuel our economy. The more we grow, the more we need to think of conserving energy and using it efficiently. Otherwise, we will pursue an ultimately unsustainable growth path. Today, countries face a stark choice – to compete aggressively for finite resources – this is not a viable option for a small city state with no natural resources like ours – or to advance towards a more energy-efficient economy and more sustainable pathways to prosperity.

For Singapore to continue being prosperous and secure, we must learn how to get more power, more mobility, more lighting, heating and cooling from less energy. We must minimise wastage. We need to focus the minds of corporations and citizens on building and achieving breakthroughs in energy efficiency through more rigorous energy management practices. And this has to be a national effort.

Thus far, Singapore's efforts on improving energy efficiency have been focused on raising awareness, on building capabilities and incentivising the adoption of energy- efficient practices. Much more can be done. Findings from industry consultations and benchmarking studies carried out by MEWR and NEA show that energy management varies substantially among companies in Singapore, with some managing their consumption better than others.

Mandating energy management practices under the Energy Conservation Act will focus management attention of large energy consuming businesses on proper energy management. It will complement existing incentive schemes and capability building programmes, such as the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies and the Singapore Certified Energy Manager Training Grant. The resulting best practices, technologies and processes will subsequently cascade down the economic chain to smaller enterprises. And similar energy management practices are already mandated in countries, such as Japan, South Korea and China.

Sir, let me highlight the key features of this Bill. First, the respective Ministers in charge of the industry and transport sectors will be empowered to gazette the corporations or class of corporations that have to comply with the energy management practices set out in the Act. We intend, as a start, to require all large energy users in the industry and transport sectors that consume more than 15 gigawatt-hours of energy equivalent each year, or 54 terajoules of energy, to first appoint an energy manager; second, to monitor and report energy use and greenhouse gas emissions; and third, to submit energy efficiency improvement plans. Large energy users in the industry and transport sectors were consulted by MEWR, MOT, NEA and EDB on the energy management practices to be mandated. In December 2011, a draft of this Bill was released for consultation and subsequently revised to incorporate the feedback received. MEWR and MOT, together with our statutory boards will continue to engage stakeholders on the implementation details of this Bill.

Second, the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) and the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for household appliances, as well as the Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme (FELS) for passenger cars and light goods vehicles under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) are consolidated under this Energy Conservation Bill. Energy-efficiency related measures for the building sector will continue to be administered under the Building Control Act for now. However, the energy efficiency-related legislation under the Building Control Act will subsequently be incorporated into the Energy Conservation Act. Consolidating all legislation on energy efficiency in the industry, transport and household sectors under this Bill over time will enable a more coordinated approach to mandating energy efficiency.

Third, the Energy Conservation Act will be jointly administered by MEWR and MOT. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will oversee the measures for the industry and household sectors, while the Minister for Transport will oversee the transport sector measures under this Act.

Energy conservation is an area where we can all make a profound impact. It is a global issue. The policies of governments, the operating decisions of local and multinational corporations and international institutions would all play a role.

However, the decisions of individuals count, too. Collectively, the everyday choices that we make at home, in the office, our mode of transport – each of these decisions add up. We can make decisions on energy through the products we buy, how we make them, how we use them, as well as what we do in our own spare time. By moving and acting together, we can all make a difference.

This Bill reflects our collective commitment to commence a process that will transform our approach to the use of energy and other resources. It provides a legislative framework to shape more rational energy choices in industry, transport and households, and to encourage a more conscientious consciousness of the energy we consume. It is an important step towards ensuring that we are prepared for an energy-efficient future and sustainable development. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Order. Before we continue the debate, I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.43 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, I wish to declare my interest as the Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Environment Council. I have five points to make on the Bill.

First, growth of cities. Rapid urbanisation and the rising affluence of people have increased demand for energy, causing severe pollution problems in many cities. Today, global cities are struggling to develop sustainable solutions to meet growing energy demands and solve pollution problems. As a small country with no natural resources, Singapore faces similar challenges.

Over the years, Singapore has developed into a densely built-up environment, with massive expansions to our economy. As a result, Singaporeans have become more affluent and consume more, leading to an increase in energy consumption. These trends pose significant challenges for Singapore in balancing our economic growth and energy security while providing a sustainable and liveable environment for our people.

Second, Singapore's carbon footprint. Sir, in a recent newspaper report by TODAY on 6 March 2012, Singapore was highlighted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as "a top carbon culprit in Asia-Pacific". The business and industrial sectors were identified as major contributors to our high carbon footprint. In fact, the building sector is responsible for 15% of the country's carbon footprint.

According to the Energy Data and Modelling Centre handbook of Energy & Economic statistics in Japan (2010), Singapore has the fifth highest CO2 emission per capita, after USA, Australia, Canada, and Taiwan. We emitted 11.92 ton-carbon/person in 2007. Sir, although such emission measurements disadvantage countries with small populations, such as Singapore, it is a fact that Singapore is contributing to increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir, the WWF's remark serves as a timely wake-up call for Singapore to reduce our carbon footprint. We should not be defensive but should instead be progressive and take concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To do that, we need a robust structure to manage the demand and supply of energy in Singapore.

Third, Japan's Energy Conservation Framework. Sir, the proposed Energy Conservation Bill will help Singapore develop a framework to legislate, implement and enforce energy conservation policies and measures more effectively. At this point, I wish to share the success of Japan's Energy Conservation laws and policies. Over the last 40 years, Japan has implemented a comprehensive set of energy conservation measures, such as formulation of energy conservation laws, financial support for energy conservation equipment and systems, development of energy conservation technologies, and extensive public education on energy conservation. These measures have diversified Japan's energy sources, reduced energy demand in many sectors, and built an energy-conserving culture among its people.

Fourth, regulating the business sector. Sir, Singapore can also learn from Japan to reduce energy consumption in the industrial sector, residential sector, business sector and transportation sector and implement various energy saving measures. The proposed Bill has provided an energy conservation framework for the industrial, domestic and transportation sectors. However, it fails to address the business sector, especially with regard to energy conservation policies and measures, for the operation of buildings.

Sir, buildings have high energy consumption and are responsible for a significant amount of our greenhouse gas emissions. In Singapore, many buildings in the business sector, such as offices, commercial buildings, hotels and hospitals, consume a lot of energy. Although the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is encouraging the Green Mark scheme for the construction of new buildings and retrofitted buildings, BCA does not monitor the energy consumption of buildings.

Thus, there may be inefficient electrical and mechanical appliances, IT and security systems, and lighting systems in many buildings that waste energy, contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions. Sir, I am glad that the Minister has mentioned that the Building and Control Act, part of it, that is, the energy conservation portion, will be incorporated into the proposed Energy Conservation Bill. May I ask the Minister when will this be done?

Fifth, energy savings in domestic sector. Sir, I support Division 1 of Part III of the Bill which prescribes for the labelling of certain goods which consume electricity or fuel, and the prescription of minimum energy efficiency standard for such goods. This information will help consumers purchase more energy-efficient appliances. However, having energy-efficient appliances does not directly translate to low energy consumption. Thus, we need to inculcate green habits among Singaporeans in order to further reduce energy consumption.

Sir, the Government has been educating the public on energy conservation for many years. However, it seems that many building users, especially in offices and commercial buildings, have not fully embraced energy-saving habits. This could be partly due to a lack of ownership. We need to constantly identify and highlight high energy consumption appliances and devices to Singaporeans and various building users. At the same time, we must set up monitoring mechanisms to help them track their energy saving efforts. This will encourage better ownership among Singaporeans and various building users.

Sir, the lack of green values among Singaporeans and building users may pose significant barriers to the effective implementation of the energy labelling scheme. I wish to ask the Minister if the Ministry has any plans to further encourage our people to reduce the purchase of energy or fuel consuming appliances, and also reduce consumption of energy through energy saving habits.

Sir, to further increase awareness on energy conservation among Singaporeans, more educational activities and publicity events should be organised. In Japan, the government has established "Energy conservation day" on the 1st of every month, "Energy conservation month" in February and "General check-up day for energy conservation" on 1 August and December. We should organise more regular activities to reach out to our community, and develop a green culture among Singaporeans.

Sixth, effectiveness of energy manager. Clause 30 of the Bill requires a registered corporation to appoint an Energy Manager who will assist the firm to comply with energy management practices. This practice is similar to Japan's energy conservation law. However, I am concerned that the Energy Manager in Singapore may not be as effective as the Energy Manager in Japan due to cultural differences.

First, the Energy Manager in Singapore has limited mandate to implement the energy efficiency improvement plan. This may be so when introducing new energy management practices in different departments in a firm, or installing new energy-efficient devices or appliances. The energy efficiency improvement plan may also face resistance or not receive top priority when introduced to different departments. These problems are commonly encountered in the implementation of ISO 9000 Quality Assurance System in companies.

Very often, the Quality Service Manager (QSM) faces difficulties in getting their colleagues and sometimes their bosses to comply with quality procedures. To overcome such problems, I suggest that we should instead appoint External Energy Auditors to help firms implement energy efficiency management practices. The use of External Energy Auditors will facilitate the sharing of best practices, thus benefiting more firms in energy conservation, while in-house Energy Managers may have limited expertise and experience and may find it difficult to provide innovative solutions for continual energy conservation. Sir, in Japan, the Energy Conservation Centre Japan provides FOC (free of charge) energy audit services for firms. This service has benefited thousands of companies over the years.

Sir, in 2006 and 2007, Japan launched the New National Energy Strategy and Basic Energy Plan respectively to conserve energy for the next 20 years. Likewise, I propose that Singapore should also formulate a National Energy Strategy Master Plan to provide a roadmap to guide Ministries, Government agencies, industries, businesses and our people to conserve energy.

Sir, together, we can work towards a cleaner, greener and more sustainable Singapore in the future.

Sir, it is time for Singapore to have this Bill. It is also time for us to formalise and legislate certain practices and requirements. It also shows we are fulfilling our global responsibilities with some of the new measures that are going to be undertaken. This Bill is also necessary in our move towards achieving our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 16% by the year 2020.

I have a few issues to discuss. One, on the requirements for corporations to perform energy reporting, record-keeping and submission of energy improvement plans, will there be some form of training provided to the relevant personnel to be on par with these submissions? Will there be specific training available for them for the so-called "energy manager"? If so, which funds can the companies utilitise for this, and can the post-secondary education funds be used by these employees who are going to be trained? Certainly, this will also likely be a new job scope for a lot of companies and, no doubt, it will be a move towards job creation.

Also on the same matter, Sir, now that we are starting to legislate, will we be having more relevant courses available at our institutions of higher learning or even at WDA? Currently, there is a course conducted by the National Environment Agency, that is, the Singapore Certified Energy Manager Programme. Is this course sufficient for the required training, or do we need to supplement and enhance the available course?

Two, this Bill is targeted towards the larger energy users in industries, consuming more than 15 gigawatt hours of energy per year. This is equivalent to energy consumed by some 3,000 4-room flats. This is a good starting point. However, studies done at the Danish Institute of Energy Authority has shown that companies can substantially reduce their energy consumption and cost by implementing such programmes. And, on average, typically they can reduce their energy consumption between 10% and 15 %. So, I hope we can study some of these models.

How about the inclusion of other companies, like our SMEs? We have many SMEs contributing significantly to our economy and if we add their total energy consumption, it might come up to something quite substantial. SMEs may have unique energy demands and requirements and face different issues from bigger companies. This move will certainly help companies to be more energy efficient and energy conscious. After all, energy conservation and reducing climate change is everyone's and every company's responsibility, I feel. Countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, do have energy policies for their SMEs; perhaps we can study from these models.

Three, what else and how else are we stepping up education of the public as well as the industries? Will we be able to send relevant staff and personnel to study and share best practices from other countries like Japan, Denmark and South Korea where there are indeed good practices on energy-efficient usage? For the sales personnel in Singapore, we will also need to perform training for them as they will be the ones who can promote sales of various energy-saving household appliances and equipment.

Four, can we have an update on the development of the proposed web-based system planned to support online submissions from corporations? Is this in its early phase of implementation already?

Five, let me now turn to air-conditioning, something many of us cannot do without. It is one of the major contributors to our energy consumption. This is dependent a lot on the temperature set and, interestingly, the temperature set has effects on productivity. Studies have found that for work requiring focus and high concentration, temperatures should be set between 22 and 23 degrees Celsius. For jobs involving innovation and creativity, it has been recommended that a temperature of about 24 to 25 degrees, a little bit higher, is sufficient. Now, the temperature set in offices also depends on the climate origin of the people and the workers there. It has been shown that tropically acclimatised persons prefer lower temperature, whereas those workers who come from temperate or other cooler climates prefer a warmer temperature. Thus, companies must know how to choose smart air-conditioning systems and set the appropriate temperatures. Some recommendations and guidelines from the Ministry will also be useful in this area.

Six, Singapore is one of the countries that is actively promoting Green Buildings. There is a "Zero Energy Building" in Singapore, in case Members did not know, run by the BCA. Now, to build a Green Building, there must be a green concept plan, a construction stage with active and passive phases, green promoting tenants who will then realise the economic incentives it can bring. How are we doing in reaching the target set that 80% of our buildings must be green-marked by the year 2030?

Seven, Singapore has also set a target to improve our energy intensity by some 35% by the year 2030, from the 2005 levels. This has also been documented in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint of 2009. Can I ask the Minister how are we doing now in 2012, enroute towards 2030? Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Energy Conservation Bill aims to bring about a 35% improvement in our energy intensity by 2030 and to improve the energy performance of our companies in the industrial and transport sectors. Sir, I welcome this Bill.

As a developed nation, we should be more energy efficient, both for the purpose of allowing our companies to become globally competitive as well as to signal our commitment to good use of scarce global resources. This Bill sets out the minimum energy management standards. These include the appointment of energy managers, reporting of energy use, and submission of energy efficiency improvement plans for large users of energy. I noted that the Government recognises that these are "minimum" standards, which imply that it is aware that more needs to be done and companies can be encouraged to do more. I would like to point out some implementation matters for consideration, as well as to offer suggestions on what more can be done.

First is in the area of energy management practices. We are generally supportive of making energy management plans mandatory for heavy energy users. There are, however, potential issues concerning governance that we anticipate with the proposed energy management practices. This Bill gives extensive flexibility to the Director-General and to the Minister to subsequently introduce by-laws, regulations and standards via Gazette. The Minister is empowered to gazette by-laws, but no guidance has been given so far. It is left to the subsequent discretion of the Director-General. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to give more indications of the by-laws, regulations and standards the Ministry intends to gazette, so that Parliament can debate this. What guidelines does the Ministry intend to use? Can the Minister share the timeframe guidance on when the by-laws may be gazetted? I believe these are necessary to prevent inconsistency in the implementation and enforcement of the proposed Bill.

Drawing a parallel from the practices in the building industry, there are the Building Control Act (BCA) and the Building Control Regulations (BCR). The BCA and the BCR have been in use for more than 20 years in Singapore and are very detailed. Does the Minister anticipate that the by-laws, regulations and standards of this Bill will take a form like that of BCA and BCR?

Second is in the area of energy managers that large companies must now employ, and auditors to monitor for compliance. We noted that there have been recent programmes which are supported by E2Singapore and EDB to train auditors and energy managers. How many have been trained and how sufficient are these programmes to ensure that there will be sufficient qualified officers to fulfil our needs to implement this Bill? Are there guidelines on the qualifications and experience of such energy managers?

Third, I would like to cover an area I believe will be increasingly important for both Singapore and for the world, which is renewable energy. I think a gap in this Bill is that it does not seek to promote renewable energy explicitly. A comprehensive energy conservation effort must include renewable energy as a component. South Korea is aiming for an 11% share of renewables in total energy consumption by 2030. Another heavy energy consuming country, Belgium, is aiming for 12% share of renewables for electricity suppliers in 2012. Japan, the energy intensity of which is comparable to the EU, is aiming for 10% by 2020. Denmark, already a leading energy-efficient country in the world, is aiming for 13% by 2020.

According to statistics from Singapore's Energy Market Authority, in 2010, 79% of electricity in Singapore is produced from natural gas; 19% is from petroleum products, that is, fuel oil and diesel, but only under 3% is from renewables. This gap is made more pronounced by the fact that our National Climate Strategy commits Singapore "to do our part in the international effort to address climate change". We have promised to play our part by "improving the energy efficiency of our major energy sectors, namely, power generation, industries, transport, buildings and households" and "to the global research effort on climate change and energy technologies", particularly in solar energy and green buildings. The Strategy states, "The objective of our research efforts ... is to improve the current state of technology, and to bring down production costs to a level that would make large-scale adoption commercially viable". The Government is conscious of the need to signal to the international community our national commitment to the international climate change effort. The fact sheet in this Bill concludes, "Establishing energy efficient standards across sectors under an Energy Conservation Act will also send a strong signal to external parties that Singapore is serious in undertaking mitigation actions to meet its international obligations".

Therefore, I would like to know the progress of our development in using more renewable energy. What are our current plans to significantly increase the use of renewables? I would like the Government to be more proactive to signal to the international community of our commitment to international efforts to address climate change by setting a target of renewables in total energy consumption to be achieved by a specific year. Using the four benchmark countries' target as reference, how far can we push for a target of, say, 10% of renewables in total energy consumption by 2030?

Lastly, I would like to cover another area which I feel can be promoted more aggressively to drive energy conservation practices, which is, having an integrated system of financial incentives and disincentives. A comprehensive energy conservation policy, especially for a liberalised energy market such as in Singapore, should include such a financial system to support volunteer agreements with corporations on energy efficiency targets. In terms of financial systems, the developed world can be divided into three zones: EU and UK, AAC (America, Australia, Canada) and Asia, namely, Japan, Korea and Singapore. AAC offers both financial assistance to promote energy management and tax incentives to encourage achievement of energy efficiency targets. EU and UK use carbon emission market "cap and trade" to promote energy efficiency, but individual countries use a variety of other instruments, including financial assistance, tax incentives and green taxation. Asian countries, including Singapore, use only financial assistance.

We can look more aggressively at using tax and cash incentives to encourage the achievement of energy efficiency targets set for different industrial sectors in consultation with stakeholders. Currently, the energy efficiency initiatives of E2Singapore are mainly support schemes for implementing programmes. Only the Green Mark Scheme gives out cash incentives for hitting targets. I am interested to know how effective Green Mark has been, and if the effectiveness of all schemes has been indexed and tracked. I am also interested to know the utilisation rate of existing schemes listed in E2Singapore and if the Minister thinks this has been effective in promoting energy efficiency.

Calling current assistance schemes as "incentives" is also a misnomer as they do not really measure actual achievement of targets. Besides current support schemes, I hope the Ministry can look at providing real incentives for hitting energy efficiency targets. My colleague, the hon Member Gerald Giam, will elaborate further on suggested taxation and incentive schemes that can be considered.

In summary, I support the Bill in its intent to bring about a more energy-efficient Singapore. I hope the implementation issues and other suggestions that I have raised can be considered by the Minister to more aggressively set the pace for Singapore to be a global leader in energy conservation and energy technology.

Mr Speaker, as an industrialised economy which consumes its fair share of energy, Singapore must play its part to reduce its carbon footprint and combat climate change. One way of doing this is to be more efficient in the use of our limited energy resources. Doing so is not only environmentally friendly, but it is also economically beneficial to our companies.

The introduction of the Energy Conservation Bill (EC) is a welcome development to signal our nation's commitment to improving energy efficiency. The key objectives of the Bill are to give the practice of energy management greater focus within companies that are large energy consumers, and to build industry capability in energy management. This is expected to help reduce Singapore's energy intensity by 35% by 2030, from 2005 levels. Improving the energy performance of companies will make them more competitive in the global economy. The Bill is also expected to complement existing schemes and capability-building programmes which provide support for companies that invest in improving their energy efficiency.

I would like to ask the Minister how the Government arrived at its 35% target for reduction in energy intensity. Is this meant to be a stretch target that will need measures like the EC in order to achieve, or is this likely to be achievable with the improvements in technology expected over the next 20 years, even without an EC?

South Korea aims to cut its energy intensity by 46% between 2007 and 2030. Both our countries are highly industrialised economies that are dependent on external sources of energy. Both are large energy consumers. Why are we not being as ambitious as the South Koreans?

The Bill establishes the framework for the energy labelling of certain "registrable" goods. Energy labelling is currently targeted at only household electrical appliances. Only refrigerators, air-conditioners and clothes dryers now require energy labels to be affixed on them.

I would like to suggest that energy labelling would be a more effective tool to achieve energy conservation, if it were expanded beyond household appliances to equipment used by industry and businesses. This is because the industrial, commerce and services sectors consume 71.9% of all electricity in Singapore, while households consume only 16.7%.

Common business machines, such as computers, monitors, printers and photocopiers, should be gazetted as registrable goods. The energy efficiency rating of these machines could be better integrated into the energy management systems of companies. For example, as part of its energy efficiency improvement plan, a company could aim to increase its proportion of energy-efficient computers by, say, 25% within five years.

The proposed regulations will require companies that consume more than 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy annually to maintain an energy management system. These include keeping records and reporting on their energy use, submitting energy efficiency improvement plans to the Government, and appointing a qualified energy manager. However, the vast majority of companies will not come under the radar of the EC and, hence, will not be required to implement these energy management systems.

Could the Government consider drawing up an "Energy Efficiency Certification" scheme under which all Singapore companies can voluntarily apply to be assessed on their energy efficiency practices?

The Energy Efficiency Certification could complement the existing Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe) by providing an incentive for companies to follow through the energy services company's suggestions for improvement. They will also have an added incentive to apply for EASe, as they can get rewarded if the appraisal is positive. I will explain more about the possible tax incentives later.

The Energy Efficiency Certification scheme would be similar in structure to the People Developer (PD) Certification scheme, which is used to assess a company's training management practices. Like the PD Certification, companies attaining the Energy Efficiency Certification could be given public recognition of their excellent energy management practices.

This could help create a culture of good energy practices throughout companies in Singapore, not just a few large energy consumers. Would the Minister agree that the more companies that implement programmes to improve their energy efficiency, the greater the cumulative benefits to the nation's economy? Since improving energy efficiency will reduce companies' electricity bills and, hence, improve their profitability, it should be in their business interest to improve energy efficiency. We need to make it even greater business sense for them to do so.

I would like to build on Mr Yee Jenn Jong's suggestion for tax incentives to be extended to companies which adopt good energy management practices. The EC requires registrable corporations to submit their energy efficiency improvement plans and targets, but makes no requirement for them to achieve their targets

Firstly, I would like to propose that tax rebates be extended to companies which achieve their energy efficiency improvement targets. Secondly, if the Energy Efficiency Certification scheme, which I suggested earlier, is introduced, then companies which attain the Certification could also be given tax rebates as an incentive. Thirdly, disincentives could be introduced for companies which use energy or electricity inefficiently and, hence, consume more.

Currently, large energy consumers enjoy several benefits which smaller consumers and households do not. These include contestability of their electricity suppliers, lower electricity tariffs and much lower off-peak period tariffs. In short, there are currently limited financial disincentives for them to reduce their electricity use.

I would like to add to a suggestion made in this House in 2008 by Ms Sylvia Lim, to introduce tiered electricity tariffs, such that those who consume more electricity pay more for additional units at a higher rate. Ms Lim's suggestion is even more relevant today, given the push for energy conservation. Introducing tiered tariffs could result in large energy consumers paying a higher bill, and smaller consumers paying less, while remaining revenue-neutral overall. The price mechanism will impact large energy consumers the most. It will, therefore, force them to innovate and improve their energy efficiency, in ways that an energy management framework alone cannot.

In summary, Sir, I support the introduction of the energy management framework in the EC. And I propose that this can be implemented by, firstly, tax incentives for companies which meet their energy efficiency improvement targets; secondly, disincentives for high usage of electricity, like a higher tariff for large users; thirdly, an Energy Efficiency Certification scheme that extends to all companies, not just the biggest energy consumers; fourthly, energy labelling of business equipment; and, lastly, aligning energy labelling with companies' energy management systems.

If these complementary measures are in place, I believe Singapore can aim for a more aggressive reduction in our energy intensity over the next 20 years. More importantly, these measures will contribute towards creating a stronger culture of energy efficiency in Singapore and encourage large and small companies to innovate and invest in this area. This will improve these companies' economic competitiveness, while at the same time preserving our environment for generations to come.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Energy Conservation Bill is a good move that will enable the Government to monitor energy consumption and improve energy efficiency in our large-scale industrial and transport sectors. It also shows that Singapore is taking its international responsibilities in tackling climate change concerns seriously, in line with other developed countries.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first concerns the reporting requirements for the companies under this Bill. I understood then that this issue was raised during a consultation exercise on the Bill in December 2011. I find it surprising that the detailed reporting requirements are still not finalised, and that the consultative exercise on these will only be completed by the end of June 2012. Would the Minister be able to share more details of the reporting requirements at this moment?

The second concerns the Energy Efficiency (EE) improvement plan targets that the companies are required to submit. Since this Bill does not require companies to meet their EE improvement targets, but are strongly encouraged to develop robust cost-effective plans with the intention of implementing them, the provision seems to be a weak instrument. I understand that this Bill is modelled on similar ones in places like the European Union and Japan, and I suspect that they are more stringent on companies meeting their EE improvement targets. This Bill does not cover SMEs, but rather MNCs, which can afford to invest more effort and resources to meeting their EE improvement targets. My question, therefore, to the Minister is, does the Government plan to establish mandatory EE targets in the future?

Third, the Bill currently covers companies which consume more than 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy per year. This would generally affect only MNCs. Does the Government plan to lower the qualification threshold and, hence, include SMEs in this Bill in future, in line with some other countries? Such a move is certainly a laudable one in improving energy efficiency in Singapore, and should be supported. However, it may put the resources and efforts of some SMEs at a strain, for it to meet the reporting requirements, without any substantial cost savings from improvements in their energy performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully endorse the objectives of this Energy Conservation Bill. It is vital that we maximise our resources in a rigorous and systematic way. Targeting a 35% improvement in energy intensity from 2005 to 2030 is a significant goal. This is comparable with the European Commission Energy Efficiency Plan, which targets a 20% saving in Energy Consumption from 2007 to 2020. However, the latest projections indicate the Euro zone will only achieve 9% savings by 2020, largely due to the lack of awareness amongst citizens and the energy issue not being high on the national agenda. Hence, it is important to bring more focus into our new Bill by improving its scope and defining measurable quantitative objectives for energy conservation.

Moving to the specifics of our current Bill, I refer to Part III of the Act, which is "Energy Conservation Measures for Domestic and Industry Sectors" (sections 27 to 29). Large energy users are to: report energy consumption, energy production and greenhouse gas emissions; keep relevant records; and prepare and submit an energy improvement plan.

It would be more efficient and more in line with free market principles to implement an energy tax or a carbon tax on large users. Carbon and energy taxes are currently in legislation in Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. China is also planning to introduce carbon tax by 2015. I note with particular interest the Denmark model in which the carbon tax can be offset by a tax refund for implementing energy efficient initiatives. It would be good to explore possibilities of implementing a similar carbon tax structure in Singapore progressively, with the current Bill serving as a starting point for such future initiatives. Ultimately, businesses should face the true social and environmental cost of their energy usage via a price mechanism.

Another important area of the Bill is the impact on the transport operators. Part IV of the Act is on "Energy Conservation Measures For Transport Sector". Through section 47, it obligates the transport operators to report energy consumption, energy production and greenhouse gas emissions. Through section 49, it requires the preparation and submission of an energy improvement plan. Through section 62, it empowers the Transport Minister to specify minimum fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. This would lead to increased overhaul and fleet maintenance costs, and increased compliance costs of energy reporting and record-keeping.

It must be emphasised that the incremental costs of compliance must be offset against the gains in energy efficiency rather than passing to the consumers. Further, it should be mandated that the surplus savings from energy efficiency above the compliance costs must be passed on to the commuters through fare reductions, in order to achieve holistic gains from energy efficiency.

Singapore, limited by nature, has been using fossil fuels for producing much of its electricity. A large portion of electricity consumption is by export-oriented business, with domestic consumption being rather small. The three oil refineries, for instance, consume 20% of the total power consumed in Singapore. Together with major pharmaceutical and wafer fabrication facilities, they make a significant impact on our total consumption. Our focus in the current Bill is on these large users of energy only.

Energy savings in these sectors are either by controlling wastage of energy or by radical technological improvements. The quantum of savings by controlling wastage alone may not be significant enough to achieve our ambitious target of 35%. Further, the technological improvements within a specified timeline are also beyond our control. Therefore, it will be prudent to include in the scope the secondary users of energy as well.

The Bill should additionally emphasise measures that will shape the habits of Singaporeans. This will be more relevant towards building a culture and society which respects the scarcity and dearness of energy and attempts to make more judicious and conscious use. Singapore, being a small country, and based on effective and efficient centralised planned amenities, has a far higher chance of succeeding in efforts relating to secondary consumption of energy. We must make legislative efforts to bring energy saving habits amongst Singaporeans so that, over time, the national culture and habits change.

Some thoughts towards this are: (a) mandatory tapping of solar energy in every building in Singapore, residential and commercial alike; (b) mandatory use of light sensors in all public lighting to ensure maximum and progressive use of daylight. Today, with the timer-based system, we see lights on in the evenings well before sunlight fades away; (c) commercial and residential buildings must be designed to have higher ceilings, windows and ventilators to allow better natural flow of air and more daylight; (d) include compulsory education to minimise and reduce the need for air-conditioned environment with emphasis on health besides energy savings; (e) introduce markings on all cooling equipment on ideal healthy temperature at 25 degrees centigrade, thereby curbing the tendency to over-cool ambient temperature. Lastly, encourage use of new technology and materials for treatment of exterior walls of buildings for better insulation and reduced demand for air conditioning.

While we are discussing the Energy Conservation Bill, I wish to briefly highlight a positive spin off from this effort which could be a long-term opportunity for Singapore and Singaporeans. Green economy is the future. Energy efficiency, compliance methods, science and enforcement technologies are areas where specific skills will be needed. In the process of introducing the Bill, we should explore developing training courses in our institutes and polytechnics which will help people qualify in this area. It will also generate job opportunities for Singaporeans as it has done in other countries, like the United Kingdom.

To summarise, Sir, the Bill presently empowers the enforcing authority and establishes the rules and regulations for large energy users to follow and conserve energy. In order to make the Bill more effective, it must define measurable quantitative objectives for the energy conservation besides increasing the scope to include secondary users of energy. In conclusion, I support the objectives of this Bill, and I look forward to an energy-efficient future.

Mr Speaker, I applaud the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources for introducing this Bill as part of its pledge to work towards enhancing the country's energy efficiency and dealing with climate change issues in its long-term goal of creating a sustainable, adequate society, as stated in the Addendum to the President's Address in October last year.

Making it mandatory for the relevant large energy users in the private sector to report energy use and submit energy efficiency improvement plans, gives a strong signal of the seriousness on the part of the Government in dealing with the issue beyond providing incentives for the big players.

However, I have a concern which I do not see addressed in the Bill. This relates to the question of public disclosure. It is unclear from the Bill whether there is a requirement, mandatory or otherwise, for public disclosure of the information either on the part of the relevant large energy users or the Government.

With due respect, I would question why this is so, especially given the very public nature of the kinds of activities and the size of the industry players targeted in the Bill and the consequences of these activities on public health, public safety and the environment at large.

Apart from the mandatory reporting I referred to above, I also want to highlight Part V, clause 65(1) which reads: "The Director–General may, from time to time, undertake investigations or surveys of the levels of energy consumption, energy production or greenhouse gas emissions for the purposes of (a) assessing the impact on the environment of certain industries or activities; or (b) advising the Minister or other public bodies concerning energy or environmental policies. In clause 65(2), the Director–General may require relevant parties to furnish the required information. There is no mention of whether the public, stakeholders and other interested citizens shall have access to this information.

Sir, regretfully, Singapore still does not have a legal obligation on public authorities and regulators to provide environment related information to stakeholders and other interested persons, much less a mandatory Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and public access to such an EIA.

While I am hopeful that this will change, with regard to this Bill, I recommend that the Government set up a publicly available data repository regarding energy and greenhouse gas data as well as public access to the information relating to clause 65 that I mentioned above.

I have two reasons for this. First, public scrutiny will offer an additional incentive for companies to reduce their environment impact. When the public is environmentally aware of ethical and environmental practices and more critical of unethical corporate activities, there is much companies can gain when they are motivated to be more socially responsible. And, second, it is very clear that Singaporeans are also more critical of the Government and are demanding greater consultancy and accountability in public policy-making and policy enforcement. From the time that this Bill was first mooted, much has changed in public perception of the Government. Demands for public engagement are getting louder and cannot be ignored. A public data repository will go a long way to ensure more openness and transparency.

Sir, in the addendum to the President's Address aforementioned, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources also had this to say, "We will explore how we can develop a more robust framework on environment reporting by business and make environment information more open to the public. We will consult more closely with the public on our policies, by developing more channels of communication." I trust that what I have said is simply a reminder of this commitment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the mandating of energy management practices proposed by the Bill is a timely move in the right direction for Singapore in its quest to minimise energy wastage, improve productivity and play its part in contributing towards the realisation of our goals of reducing CHG emissions by 16% by 2020.

Sir, the electricity that powers our businesses and our homes, the fuel that powers our cars and machineries contribute towards carbon emissions and pollution. As the world population grows to seven billion and inching towards 10 billion in the near future, we need to review our strategies and policies towards how we use energy and regulate a framework which will phase out technologies and practices that will be harmful to the environment and promote the development of sustainable technology that is environmentally friendly and which is efficient and clean.

As Singapore's economy powers itself alongside other developed nations in the world, it is imperative that it puts in place systems, structures and programmes for its companies to invest in efficient energy management and benchmarking practices. We would also have to be creative in ensuring that our energy usage habits and processes are sustainable in meeting the demands of the 21st Century economy. I believe that this Bill will play its part in laying the necessary framework to cultivate such a culture and changing mindset shift needed for our companies, especially the SMEs in their quest to realise efficient, environmentally friendly energy management production capabilities and operational practices. Although Singapore is small compared to the rest of the world, I am convinced that we can still make the difference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill, I would like to clarify a few issues with the Minister. Sir, while most companies would welcome the change and agree that this is a move in the right direction, there will also be those that have yet to cultivate such processes within their operational systems. These companies may find this mindset and operational changes challenging especially if the expectations of the new regulations of the Bill would require a restructuring and transformation in their operation and practices. I would like to urge the Government to allow for a transition period for these entities so that they could focus more attention on examining issues relating to their energy consumption and production as well as greenhouse gas emissions generated by their operations.

To facilitate this transition, I would like to call the Government to adopt a humane perspective in allowing companies to coherently infuse into such a framework by providing the relevant assistance and support. They could be in the form of guidance and advice on management practices as well as providing grants for the expected costs some of these companies may incur in its journey towards realising an efficient energy management culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I highlight some of these transition issues because the Bill would empower the Director-General to conduct surveys, audit and inspect companies to ensure compliance and impose punitive measures if they do not. Companies that sell products and services or operate in a way that flout the regulations may be adversely affected by this Bill. For those without the knowledge would have to hire staff to ensure compliance within the company and incur additional manpower costs. New operational procedures would also have to be devised. Additional operating hours would have to be put in place to manage the requirements of an efficient management culture.

Perhaps, the Ministry can help to establish a body to help companies to make the transition, help them pool resources together for sharing of expertise and knowledge in this area and to generate cost savings through economies of scale as they build their energy conservation improvement plans.

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister on how the Bill will affect businesses, particularly our SMEs. How will the additional costs, such as the registration fees and fees for renewal of registration, the need to provide free of charge to the Director-General samples of the registrable goods for the purpose of testing and analysis as well as the need to prepare reports, such as the Energy Improvement Plans, affect the cost of operations of the businesses? How will the Ministry assist those companies affected by the Bill to comply with these requirements?

In addition, I would like to know how the Ministry will evaluate the impact of this Bill on the cost structure to businesses and whether it may result in the cost being passed on to end users and our consumers? I would also like to know what will happen to those companies that have great difficulties in meeting the requirements of the Bill.

My third issue relates to manpower needs and training. Sir, the Bill requires the employment of an Energy Manager and possibly few other executives to support the requirements of the Bill. In addition, with the Bill, I would expect the growth of consultancy services related to the energy production and efficiency.

With the above needs, I would like to ask the Minister if there are adequate manpower provisions to meet the needs in implementing an effective platform for such a Bill. How does the Ministry intend to beef up the expertise and manpower in this area and how will our local polytechnics and universities support this sector of the industry? I hope that this will open up more employment opportunities for Singaporeans.

Finally, to manage this transition, businesses will also need to adjust to a new paradigm where social costs of pollution and energy inefficiencies are weighed in by consumers and Government alike. They have to transform and reinvent themselves to build products and services that use energy efficiently and are friendly to the environment. This is a journey that all types of businesses must take to remain relevant in a world facing energy shortages due to the growing demand from the ever increasing population and economic activities. I would like to urge the Ministry to continuously engage and encourage companies to reinvent themselves to operate under the new operational environment.

In conclusion, I believe there is a need for inclusivity in ensuring that this Bill, in its essence and spirit, is infused in the economic structure of Singapore. Regulations alone will not suffice but has to be complemented, supported and guided by the Government and its people to ensure that all stakeholders within our society are able to manage this transition effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank all the eight speakers who have spoken. I must admit to being surprised that so many of you have spoken. However, I am gratified that every single speaker has supported this Bill, bipartisan support, as well as the Nominated Members of Parliament. So, this is a good sign. Let me start by reiterating our principles behind what we are trying to do.

First, this Bill is just a first step. It is not in its final form yet. Another review would be due in 2015. This is a first step that is designed to facilitate and enhance our nascent capabilities in this area.

Second, we believe that we have to work closely with all stakeholders, and I do not just mean across the House at the political level, but, indeed, with all industry stakeholders as well.

The third point is that we do not want to unnecessarily inflate costs because ultimately if we do things prematurely for ideological reasons, pursue technologies which are not yet mature, we will inflate costs and costs will have to be borne by consumers.

The fourth point is that even whilst we do not want to unnecessarily inflate costs, we do want to ensure that we have right pricing in our economy. In particular, this means that we do not subsidise the price of electricity in Singapore. From time to time, there are political kerfuffles every time the energy tariffs have been revised when oil prices change. But the more important point is you do not distort the economy and resource allocation by mispricing precious resources and in this particular case, is the price of energy.

The fifth point is that I agree with Members of this House that we want to provide Singaporeans with an opportunity to make an informed choice, and that is where things like energy labelling and other schemes which Members have suggested in their earlier speeches are relevant.

Finally, having said that we should not prematurely rush into technology which is not yet mature, we should nevertheless pre-position ourselves to be a useful test bed for promising technologies which may have applications later on when they become more mature or when they enjoy economies of scale.

So, this is a statement of the principles, the guiding philosophy behind what we are trying to do in our energy conservation.

Let me now address the points that Members have raised in particular. First, I want to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for referring to the recent news article which cited the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) having ranked Singapore as the top carbon emitter per capita in the Asia-Pacific. The methodology that the WWF used in its report differs significantly from the methodology that is officially adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is important for us to remember that it is the UNFCCC which is the international authority on climate change issues.

The key difference between the methodology adopted by these two organisations lies in the treatment of goods imported and consumed in a particular country. The WWF methodology attributes the carbon emission from such goods to the importing country. By contrast, the UNFCCC attributes the emissions to the country in which the goods are produced. The UNFCCC treatment is internationally recognised because it is not practical to hold the importing country responsible for the emissions in the production of the goods overseas because this is beyond our control.

The use of per capita indicators to measure carbon emissions is also not appropriate as this naturally disadvantages a small, densely populated city state like Singapore. A better and more direct measurement of Singapore's performance or carbon footprint would be the carbon dioxide emission per dollar of GDP. Based on this indicator, Singapore is ranked amongst the lowest carbon dioxide emitters per dollar GDP internationally. We ranked 123 out of 137 countries. This is one lead table when you want to be lowly ranked. This ranking is done by the International Energy Agency.

Singapore's absolute house gas emission is also very low. It accounts for less than 0.2% of the global total. Nonetheless, Singapore is committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 16% below business as usual by 2020, if hopefully there is a global agreement on climate change.

I am glad that Mr Yee supports our efforts to encourage greater use of renewable energy in Singapore. Unfortunately, let me share some of our constraints in this area. We do not have large rivers in Singapore. So hydroelectricity is not a viable option. We do not have volcanoes. So geo-thermal energy is not an option as it is in other tectonically active countries. Solar and wind farms require large tracts of lands which we do not have. A recent report authored by Stewart Brand estimated that you need land about the size of the entire island of Singapore in order to generate one gigawatt of wind energy. To put this in context, it means even if the entire Singapore was converted into a wind farm, you would produce only about 10% of the installed capacity that we have. It is not possible. Even if we were to cover every roof top and every surface with photovoltaic panels using current technology, we estimated it could provide maybe about 12% to 14% of electricity needs.

Similarly, our gentle winds and the fact that we do not have typhoons and hurricanes, which is a good thing, also mean that the same characteristics that have made Singapore a safe harbour also make wind, tidal and these other renewable sources not viable in our context.

I have taken some pains to explain all these so that you understand that it would be wrong to prematurely and simplistically set a target for renewable energy in Singapore. We are an alternative energy disadvantaged country. Some people say we are not even a country, we are a city state. So, you need to understand this basic strategic fundamental constraint because otherwise if you just simplistically copy what other larger countries in very different circumstances do, you will end up imposing an impossible burden on Singaporeans, Singapore enterprises and businesses. That would be counter-productive.

Assoc Prof Fatimah and Mr Yee have also asked about our progress in achieving a sustainable Singapore blueprint targets for energy intensity and green mark buildings. Here, I have some good news. Under the "Sustainable Singapore Blueprint" which was published in 2009, Singapore was supposed to pursue a less energy intensive growth trajectory. Our target was to improve our energy intensity by 35% compared from 2005 levels, and to achieve this by 2030. I am pleased to inform the House that our energy intensity has already improved by some 16% since 2005 levels. This we achieved in 2010.

Mr Giam has also asked whether the 35% improvement in energy intensity is a stretch target. It is a stretch target. Paradoxically, the fact that we had done well in the past makes further improvements more difficult. Let me give Members an example of that. We already have a very energy efficient fuel mix as far as the generation of electricity is concerned. More than 80% comes from natural gas. We also have limited access to alternative energy sources, as I have explained earlier. Nevertheless, we have committed to achieving this stretch target and a working group under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change has been established to study in a practical and reasonable way how we can achieve this target. But I want to caution that this would not be an easy target to achieve.

In order to reach our targets, we would need to implement cost-effective energy efficiency measures, but there are market barriers. For instance, lack of information, lack of capability and these deficiencies exist in many companies; in fact, in most companies currently. The Energy Conservation Bill addresses some of these barriers by establishing a legislative framework that would require companies to build up this capability in energy management and to cultivate a practice of systematic monitoring measurement of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) also sets a target of 80% of our buildings achieving the Green Mark status by 2030. Efforts towards achieving this has been guided by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and it has set out specific initiatives under six key strategic thrusts: first, by taking a lead in the public sector, that means we have to lead by example; second, to spur the private sector to follow in our footsteps; third, to further the development of green building technology; fourth, building industry capabilities through training; fifth, to profile Singapore and to raise awareness of its capabilities; and, sixth, to impose minimum standards. Through BCA's Green Mark rating scheme, buildings are assessed as environmentally sustainable if they meet the stipulated criteria on energy and water efficiency, indoor environmental quality and environmental protection.

As of March this year, we have more than 1,000 Green Mark projects which represent about 14% of our building stock in terms of floor area. At this rate, we are on track to meet the 80% target by 2030.

Dr Teo is right that BCA does not currently monitor the energy consumption of each and every single building. This gap will be addressed when MND amends the Building Control Act later this year to introduce some new energy efficiency measures for the building sector. So, for example, utilities suppliers and buildings, excluding industrial buildings and dwelling units, will be required to submit annual electricity consumption data and basic building information such as gross floor area. As mentioned in my speech earlier, the energy efficiency related specifications under the BCA Act will be incorporated into the Energy Conservation Act subsequently. We will do this in step so the next review will be in 2015. If we do so, it will be after 2015. But do not mistake this as tardiness or as unwillingness to move forward in parallel.

I was intrigued by Mr Dhinakaran's speech when he suggested the introduction of carbon pricing as a means to incentivise companies to reduce emissions and to enhance energy efficiency. In very few places do you get a corporate leader asking for higher taxes. I agree that there is a need to price externalities, and carbon emission is one obvious case of an externality that currently is not priced. But we also need to encourage our industries to take a long-term view and a sustainable growth path. So this is, and I am sure Mr Dhinakaran will agree with me, a very complex area. It needs careful study, given our needs circumstances and our competitive position. In terms of natural endowments, as I have explained earlier, we would always be alternative energy disadvantaged compared to almost any other country in the world.

It is also worth Members of this House bearing in mind our total trade is three times our GDP. That means our companies, every day, every year, are engaged in a global fight for survival. The progress of negotiations on a global agreement to tackle climate change will therefore be a key factor in this decision-making process because we do not want to prematurely disadvantage the viability of our companies. I would also give the assurance that we will consult carefully and widely all stakeholders for their inputs and I welcome Mr Dhinakaran's participation in this in his capacity as a corporate leader in Singapore. So, let us not rush this and I hope he agrees with me on that.

Dr Teo shared with us Japan's successful energy laws and policies. And he is right. Japan is a leader in energy efficiency and conservation. And that is why, to a large extent, our Bill is also being modelled up with Japan's energy efficiency related legislation.

Assoc Prof Fatimah asked about the assistance that will be rendered to companies and manpower training to meet the requirements. In 2010, the Government actively engaged industry players to seek feedback on energy management practices and the Energy Conservation Bill was subsequently published for public consultation in December 2011. We refined the Bill in response to public feedback, and the NEA and the statutory boards under the MOT are currently conducting another round of consultations with stakeholders in affected sectors on the detailed reporting requirements of the Act. I hope Mrs Lina Chiam would be more patient. This is again a very odd situation where the Opposition is asking the Government not to take time to consult all stakeholders. Be a bit more patient where in any case, we expect to wrap this process up by June of this year – three months from now.

In order to reduce the reporting burden, the circumstances of the company are borne in mind. The proposed requirements are not overly prescriptive and these will be reviewed and evolved over time as industry needs and as our circumstances and performance change. Companies affected by the Act will receive training on the use of an online system for them to submit information that is required by the Act. We will try to make this as simple as income tax submissions, which I think are due in a few days. The online system is also currently under development and it will be ready by next year.

We are preparing the industry early by introducing programmes. Mr Yee asked about the progress of our training efforts. The Singapore Certified Energy Manager (SCEM) Programme was launched in 2008 and co-administered by the NEA and the Institution of Engineers Singapore in order to equip facility and building managers, engineers, technicians and others who intend to pursue a career as energy professionals. They need to have the technical skills and the competencies in order to manage these services within their organisations. And we will continue to refine the SCEM syllabus to ensure its robustness and its relevance over time.

We have an SCEM training grant. This is a co-funding scheme administered by the NEA to promote the programme. And NEA has, so far, approved grants for 800 people. We intend to support the training of 1,000 energy managers by 2013.

Dr Teo and Assoc Prof Faishal have also quite rightly pointed out the Singapore companies may lack sufficient expertise and energy management at this point in time. Dr Teo suggested that companies appoint external energy auditors to help them implement energy efficiency management practices. This is a good idea and it can complement our efforts. We have started by requiring large energy users to appoint and train their own in-house energy managers. This is to ensure that energy management capabilities and practices are internalised to cultivate a culture of continuously seeking energy efficiency improvement within that company itself. It is better that this be "organic" and in-house to the company, and then you supplement that by seeking expertise outside the company.

The energy manager within the company needs to be entrusted with mission critical processes, access to equipment and have access to key operational information on the company. Assoc Prof Faishal suggested that the establishment of a dedicated body to help companies make the transition and to build up the necessary manpower to support the requirements of the ECA. I am glad to inform him that aside from supporting training through the SCEM, NEA and partner agencies will provide advice and exercise oversight of the progress made in energy management by the companies. Concurrently, we hope to facilitate the entry of more reputable international energy service companies which can provide the external energy services. Over time, we hope that there will be a good number of locally trained and experienced energy managers built up in Singapore.

I thank Assoc Prof Faishal for his suggestion to pool together resources by sharing expertise and knowledge in area of energy efficiencies in order to achieve economies of scale. The Energy Efficiency National Partnership (EENP) Programme which was introduced in April 2010 is an industry-focused voluntary programme to support companies in their energy efficiency efforts and to share best practices. This is a key platform. It will help companies build up the necessary capabilities and prepare them for the onset of the ECA. A total of 107 companies have joined the EENP as partners as of March 2012. Companies can also tap the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies scheme to meet their energy efficiency improvement plans. This scheme aims to incentivise owners and operators of industrial facilities to invest in energy-efficient equipment and technologies. So far, NEA has approved about 31 projects worth $66 million by 28 companies. Each project is estimated to generate about $168 million in energy cost savings over the lifespan of the equipment purchased.

In addition to the above programmes, Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe) encourages companies in the manufacturing and building sectors to carry out detailed studies on their energy consumption – these are known as energy appraisals – and to identify potential areas for improvement. According to the appraisal reports submitted by companies under the EASe, conducting energy appraisals makes economic senses – each dollar spent on energy appraisal typically generates $5-$10 in annual savings.

Dr Teo suggested having more educational activities and publicity events. And I want to assure Dr Teo that my Ministry and the various partners have been promoting energy efficiency more widely through green-themed activities. Some of the activities in more recent memory will include the Earth Hour – just two weeks ago; the Youth Environment Day later on this month; the Singapore International Water Week and the World City Summit in July this year. We have the President's Award for the environment due in September as well as Clean and Green Singapore in November. So there is no shortage of campaign platforms. But we need to make these messages more effective and more relevant.

Members have also suggested several other areas to be covered under the Act. For instance, increasing the coverage to include SMEs – I believe Assoc Prof Fatimah and Mrs Lina Chiam suggested that. Mr Dhinakaran wanted to include secondary users as well. Then, there were suggestions for an introduction of an Energy Efficiency Certification Scheme and enhancement of the Mandatory Labelling Scheme for industrial equipment – I believe Mr Gerald Giam was proposing this. And, of course, Ms Faizah Jamal suggested to having greater public disclosure of environmental information. All these are good ideas worth studying but let us approach this step by step.

Currently, the Bill only includes large energy users defined as those using more than 15 gigawatt-hours. These are large energy users, which collectively account for the lion share of energy consumption in Singapore. We go after the big animals first. But this is just a first step and the Government will consider expanding the coverage of the Act when we review this Act in 2015.

In terms of public disclosure of environment-related information, we are working towards greater transparency. An example is the Singapore Exchange which adopted precisely such an approach in August 2010 by encouraging listed companies to engage in sustainability reporting, specifically by making the details of the company's environmental, economic and social impact publicly available. As this is a new Act, we want to give industries time to adjust and we will progressively move towards additional measures and a more transparent regime when we review the Act. For now, our focus will be ensuring that the information submitted will be robust and will be accurate and provide us with a better understanding of the current landscape. This will allow us to stand a better chance of designing better and more targeted measures to improve energy efficiency in Singapore. I think we need to beware of being overly intrusive and forcing companies to reveal commercially sensitive data which they will naturally be reluctant to. So, with this approach, build on trust, in order to build a relationship and to improve their performance without being unnecessarily intrusive or anti-competitive will, I believe, be a more useful and relevant approach at this point in time.

As I mentioned in my speech earlier, it goes beyond companies too. Every individual makes a choice in everyday decisions and all these add up to the stake and the way we use energy in Singapore.

Dr Teo asked if there are any plans to further encourage our people to reduce the purchase of energy or fuel consuming appliances and to reduce their consumption through energy-saving habits. Members may be aware that MEWR is carrying out a behavioural study to better understand and shape the behaviour of consumers towards greater energy efficiency. Ultimately, we want to create a system where it makes economic sense – do the right thing for the environment and for Singapore's future. It can become a virtuous cycle and not a zero-sum game between the industry and the environment. That is ultimately what we are trying to achieve with this Bill.

I agree with the Minister that solar energy is the main option available to Singapore. The others that we have tried include bio-gas and waste which is quite minimal given the limitations. I understand the Government has been significantly funding solar research with EDB also funding solar and alternative energy research. The question I would like to ask is: if not 10% for KPIs, what other KPIs can we set for all these investments that we are currently putting into solar energy and other alternative energy?

He is right. We have been promoting research and development as well as early prototyping of systems including solar technology in Singapore. For instance, there is an HDB precinct, I believe, in Punggol, where we are evaluating the system, the performance of the system and the economic implications of such a system. But the point right now is that, even as of today, the electron that you get from a photovoltaic cell is more expensive than an electron you get from the grid. So Members have to be very careful that whilst we want to do the right thing, we want to be more green, you got to be careful not, in your zeal, to impose costs onto consumers. And that is why we are taking a technology agnostic approach. And we are taking a very careful approach in the rollout of all these new technologies and green renewable sources of energy. We do not want to add on costs to people.

I do not want to politicise this but, if you take the summation of yours and Mr Giam's speeches, you have a position where the Workers' Party is in fact asking me to raise taxes for high energy uses, to set standards for the use of renewable energy modalities which will impose higher costs to our people and I am somewhat surprised that you have been so enthusiastic that you are prepared to do that. I just want to add that, as a Government, other times when Ms Sylvia Lim gives me "heat" on prices of utilities, so this is an area in which I want to be very careful on. So, we want to do the right thing. We want to encourage the research and development. We are prepared to test-bed new technologies but we are not going to prematurely roll out technologies when they are not economically viable and when they will increase costs to consumers.

Similarly, on your suggestion during your speech on having tiered tariffs for electricity, that in effect penalises big consumers. You need to understand that in the case of Singapore, our energy and electricity costs are not subsidised. So, what all people are paying, whether you are a small or large consumer, you are paying market price for it. I would rather make it worth their while to invest in capability and technology to conserve energy, and therefore to make business sense rather than to impose taxes in the name of ideology or in an effort to look green, but actually impose a burden on our stakeholders and our industrial sector. So, this is one of those situations where I understand where you are coming from. I appreciate your support for this Bill. I am just asking for a little bit of careful analysis and not to be over-enthusiastic and lead down the road of unintended consequences. We are not actually that far different in our intention to ensure that Singapore becomes a leader in energy efficiency.

Sir, I wish to find out from the Minister's response to my proposal to develop a national energy strategy master plan. Today, we know the direction but I think there is no road map to help all the stakeholders to move towards the same objective. I think it is important that we provide a road map so that all stakeholders know exactly what to do to achieve the desired outcome.

That is a fair suggestion and it will involve multiple Ministries. On the energy supply side, obviously the Ministry of Trade and Industry; on my side, as far as conservation and energy efficiency is concerned; for transport the Ministry of Transport and the larger scope of our commitment side our international commitments for greenhouse gas emissions under the National Climate Change Secretariat that is chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. Over the next few months and year, we will have to be more explicit in describing our overall strategies so that people – the lay of the land – understand our constraints and the opportunities, and what each of us will have to do. But for now, I hope my statement of the principles of the philosophy behind our efforts will be one which Members of this House, across both all the Parties, I hope, can support.

Sir, I would like to clarify my points just now about the taxes or the new taxes that the Minister is suggesting I suggested. I suggested two tax rebates actually for companies which achieve their energy efficiency targets as well as those who have attained their energy efficiency certification that they will be assessed under. So, even though the tiered tariffs might result in some high energy users paying a bit more for their energy, this could be returned to the companies through the tax rebates. And, in fact, the tiered tariffs that will be imposed on the higher energy users could serve as a further incentive for them to reduce their overall bill which would benefit them overall economically.

I am being a bit more constrained because I am acutely aware that he is supporting the Bill. But actually there is a fundamental difference in approach here and I cannot help wondering whether you have calibrated your position with the Workers' Party, in particular as a whole. So, let us go back to basics.

Our electricity price in Singapore is not a subsidised price. There is a market. The market sets the price. Everybody pays for it. For the big consumers, they are in a position to bargain to take advantage of the contracts which are available. But the point is these are all market prices. We are not subsidising them.

If I take your proposal to add another levy on top of the market price, it is a real burden on our industry sector. And if you say let us only target the big consumers, then you can start playing games by having a big company decide it has got multiple subsidiary units and qualifying for the lower rate. All these are regulatory games which I believe are counter-productive. The key point is to have right pricing for energy. It makes sense for everybody to save energy to reduce their consumption and to invest in more energy efficient equipment. But right now there are some barriers to that – lack of knowledge, or the fact that sometimes the split incentives between owners and users of a facility, or a building, or because the payback period is too long. Businesses, for instance, might be prepared to invest in technology that can pay back in three years, they may not be prepared to invest in technology that takes six years to pay back.

So, our approach right now, rather than play games with tax or additional levies, is to focus on building up capability, building up access to information. And in the case of technology that takes too long a period to pay back, for instance, the GREET scheme in which we co-fund equipment that will lead to greater energy efficiency for the company. Our co-funding in effect reduces the payback period to a level in which the company is willing to go for. By making these measures carefully and slowly, we are enhancing capability, building up knowledge and, more important, I am enhancing the competitiveness of our companies in Singapore. I think this is a better and safer way of promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Not by saddling our companies with additional levies and taxes as what you have proposed. So, I do not want to be overly robust to engage in an overly politicised debate with you. But I just want to hasten to add that you got to be very careful about the unintended consequences of your proposal.

I have just been reminded that we do have U-save grants and the reason we do that is so that we can have a system in which energy and water is right priced but yet low income families can afford it, by giving them in effect cold, hard cash which they can then decide how to spend and how efficiently they use precious resources like water and energy.

So, what we have is a unique system. In many other countries, just in our own neighbourhood, they are unable to stop subsidies for fuel oil, for cooking oil, for energy. The logical thing is to actually remove subsidies and then target assistance to low-income families who need access to these essentials in life. But if you do not have a government and a civil service that is capable of planning things rationally and of directing assistance in a targeted way without worry of corruption, you cannot get out of this subsidy trap.

We are in a very fortunate position in Singapore to be able to right price, to market price essentials and yet ensure that even the lowest income family has access to water, energy and other essentials in life. So, it is a complete package that you have to look at. That is why be very careful when we try to emulate or copy other people who may be in very different circumstances, from the environmental, social, political and economic perspective.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Government began developing Singapore as a hub for international arbitration in the mid-2000s. We have come a long way. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre's ("SIAC") total caseload stood at 188 last year. I have asked for a distribution of an Annex which sets out how our arbitration sector has developed and some data on the caseload [A handout (Pg 102-106) was distributed to Members]. It will be treated as part of my speech.

The data does not include arbitrations administered by other institutions and ad hoc arbitrations.

I think, by most international reckonings, our position as the leading centre for arbitration in Asia is now cemented. An Asian Legal Business article in December 2011 called Singapore's rise in the world of arbitration as "meteoric". Singapore has become the leading Asian seat for international arbitrations.

Today's Bill seeks to make further refinements to laws governing arbitration. We have consulted many people, both in Singapore and overseas, with whom we work closely. I thank all who have contributed.

There are four main amendments. One, broadening the definition of what an arbitration agreement is; two, providing recourse against negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal; three, clarifying the tribunal's power to award interest; and, four, recognising emergency arbitrators and interim orders.

First, on the definition of what is an arbitration agreement. Clause 2(b) deletes the existing definition of an arbitration agreement in section 2. Clause 3 inserts a new section 2A, containing a broader definition of an arbitration agreement. The new section 2A incorporates Option I of Article 7 of the 2006 Amendments to the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Under the new definition, an arbitration agreement which is concluded orally, or by conduct, or through any other means, if its content is recorded in any form, it will be recognised as an arbitration agreement within the context of the International Arbitration Act. In our consultation last year, a majority of arbitrators and practitioners were of the view that the broadened definition should be adopted.

Second, recourse against negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal. Clause 4 repeals and re-enacts section 10 to provide recourse against negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal. Such a ruling is one where the tribunal holds that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear a dispute. The Act currently follows the Model Law in not providing any recourse against such negative jurisdictional rulings. The absence of recourse against such rulings may defeat the parties' intention to arbitrate.

Academics and practitioners have called for reform in this area. In particular, the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee had recommended that the review of negative jurisdictional rulings be allowed. That was in its January 2011 Report on the Right to Judicial Review of Negative Jurisdictional Rulings.

Such a ruling made at any stage of the arbitral proceedings can now be appealed to the High Court, and appealed further to the Court of Appeal, if the High Court grants leave to appeal. The Bill will also allow the tribunal and the court to award costs against any party for the arbitral and/or court proceedings, when it rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction.

Third, clause 9 amends section 20 to clarify the power of arbitral tribunals to award interest. Subject to the arbitral agreement, the tribunal will be able to award simple or compound interest, on sums claimed or costs awarded in the arbitration, from such a date, at such rate and with such rest as it sees fit. In other words, full discretion will be given to the arbitral tribunal to award interest.

Fourth, clause 2(a) amends the definition of an arbitral tribunal in section 2(1) to include emergency arbitrators. Emergency arbitrators provide urgent interim relief to parties before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. They are a fairly recent innovation in international arbitration. The SIAC was one of the first in the world to introduce them. Other arbitral institutions have now followed suit.

With the amendments, there will be clear legislative support for emergency arbitrators. They will be able to exercise the full range of powers available to the tribunal under the Act. Their awards will be enforceable in our courts in the same way as awards by any other tribunal.

In addition, clause 10 amends the definition of foreign arbitration awards in section 27(1). The amended definition will encompass interim measures made by an arbitral tribunal, such as orders for the preservation of property. Such interim measures will now be enforceable in our courts.

Clause 11 makes similar amendments, where relevant, to the Arbitration Act. The remaining clauses make miscellaneous, consequential and other minor amendments.

In conclusion, Sir, may I mention that the Bill comes before this House at a significant moment. In June this year, Singapore will host the 21st Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA). That is a significant global arbitral meeting. It is the first time since 2004 that the ICCA is meeting in Asia. It emphasises Singapore's growing status as a hub for international arbitration. The passage of this Bill will signal to the international arbitration community our continued commitment to providing the fullest legislative support for international arbitration. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a member of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. Sir, I rise in support of the Bill that will help to further enhance Singapore's status as an international arbitration hub. The Bill demonstrates our commitment to developing Singapore as an arbitration hub through constantly improving the legislative framework for the conduct of international arbitration in Singapore. It is a very competitive arena, and to secure our position as the leading hub in Asia, we have to work constantly to make improvements to the overall environment. I am confident that the amendments will encourage more international businesses to adopt arbitration as an expedient alternative dispute resolution platform with Singapore as a preferred site.

I would now like to enunciate further on the amendments and how I see them. For a start, the relaxation of the writing requirement acknowledges commercial realities and practicalities, as it may not always be feasible to make an arbitration agreement in writing. This is a step forward.

The critical importance in the enhancement of the arbitration framework to strengthen Singapore's status as a commercial hub in Southeast Asia cannot be understated. For Singapore to continue to grow and prosper as a nation and maintain our attractiveness to foreign investors, not only do we need the best infrastructure and people, our legal framework must also keep up with the times. The new provision for an appointment of an emergency arbitrator is a fine example of this strategic development.

In a fast-moving business environment, emergency arbitration provides for the swift resolution of arbitration cases where timeliness is tied to the product nature. The amendments to the law will provide the legal recognition and alignment to what has already been practised by the international arbitral institutions, including Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). In recognition of the emergency arbitrator, I am glad that the Bill has decided to take a pioneering approach. In fact, we are doubly a pioneer in this area – the SIAC was one of the first arbitral institutions to introduce the emergency arbitrator, and we are now the first jurisdiction in the world to provide explicit legislative support for such a scheme. The legislative recognition of the emergency arbitrator is complemented by the recognition of interim conservatory orders made by foreign arbitral tribunals. These proposed legislative amendments would further widen the range of options available to parties who require interim relief in aid of arbitrations.

The last time the International Arbitration Act was amended, the court was granted the power under section 12A to make certain interim conservatory orders in support of arbitrations. With the passage of the Bill, a party involved in an arbitration conducted in Singapore who requires such relief now has the additional option of applying to an emergency arbitrator who would be able to exercise the full range of powers available to arbitral tribunals, and the proposed amendment to section 2 would ensure that such orders would be enforceable by the Singapore courts. I believe that this amendment gives greater flexibility to parties and enhances the attractiveness of Singapore as a forum for arbitration.

On allowing the review of negative jurisdictional rulings by arbitral tribunals, it is an important step in giving our Singapore courts a greater power in making judgements that are "non-interventionist" and to enable the arbitration process to achieve its intended outcomes – which is a swift and speedy resolution of disputes.

Contrary to the thinking that this may be in conflict with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law in relation to international arbitrations, a "non-interventionist" approach should not be equated with a totally inactive one. Taking a step back to understand the relevance of the review mechanism, we currently have a good number of fully administered arbitrations of which many are foreign entities. As the Minister has mentioned earlier, in 2010, we have a total of 265 cases; in 2011, 235 cases, all from more than 40 countries. In many of the arbitral agreements, Singapore is cited in the clauses as a venue for the enforcement of awards. If there is a lack of clarity and understanding from our judicial system on the execution of international commercial arbitration, this would not bode well for us as an arbitration hub. I am glad to note that the amendments will therefore help to close the loop on this.

On the last point in expanding the powers of the tribunal to provide post-award interest, this is an indication of the further empowerment that our local laws are allowing tribunals like SIAC to expand its rights to exercise the judgement. Therefore, not only have we achieved economy and efficiency in the arbitration process, we are also now able to tag a time value to its effectiveness as a compensation mechanism.

On the whole, I would like to welcome the Bill which will make Singapore an even more competitive and efficient focal point for arbitration. I am also glad to hear that today's amendments are made as a result of close consultations with industry experts, academics and other stakeholders. I opine that the Government must be seen as willing and able to work closely with stakeholders to rapidly put in place policies to meet the changing needs of the commercial world, whether in arbitration or in any other area. This is imperative to Singapore's strive for competitive advantage and success. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, before I begin, I wish to declare that I am a practice trainee in an International Arbitration department of a local firm. Sir, the changes proposed to the International Arbitration Act by this Bill are likely to buttress Singapore's position as an international arbitration hub. Specifically, the amendment of the International Arbitration Act to accommodate aspects of the 2006 amendments to the Model Law, which has moved away from the requirement that an arbitration agreement must be in writing – as proposed in the First Schedule of the Bill – is one helpful indicator to the market that Singapore intends to keep its arbitration regime in line with the arbitral norms around the world. The careful and calibrated inclusion of certain aspects of the 2006 Model Law amendments to our international arbitration regime bodes well in Singapore's drive to maintain its premier Asian arbitration hub status.

A second amendment, the judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings, has provoked a little more uncertainty among some segments of the arbitration community, especially since it opens the curial prospect of reversing an arbitral tribunal's ruling that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute. In this regard, Singapore is moving ahead even though there is no international consensus with regard to erroneous negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal. However, allowing the judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings is persuasive for a variety of reasons, many of which were laid out in paragraph 12 of the Report of the "Law Reform Committee on the Right to Judicial Review of Negative Jurisdictional Rulings" published, as the Minister stated, in January 2011.

In this regard, the Law Ministry's willingness to move ahead of the Model Law when the situation deems it appropriate also speaks well for the continued and organic development of the international arbitration space in Singapore, and it should also continue to attract the confidence of the international legal community. I also note the Ministry's willingness to adopt provisions from other jurisdictions, specifically the tribunal's powers to award interest, with section 20 of the Bill based on section 79 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance 2010 which came into force last year.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I note in the public consultation brief for this Bill that the Ministry is assessing and requesting for additional inputs on the waiver of a right to set aside an award and even third-party funding. This commitment to constant review and revision of our arbitral laws is likely to have a positive effect on the development of international arbitration in Singapore in the years to come. And these amendments are timely as we are already seeing other seats of arbitration in the region slowly but surely stepping up their efforts to attract international parties and clients to their shores. Mr Speaker, with that, I support the amendments proposed.

Sir, can I read the two Bills together as the second Bill is rather short?

No. Mrs Chiam, you have to deal with one Bill at a time.

Okay. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has the support of the majority of arbitration practitioners and stakeholders in the industry, as the public consultation on this Bill has shown. These amendments are seen by them as important steps in Singapore's development as a cosmopolitan arbitration jurisdiction.

I wish to raise the issue of the Emergency Arbitrator Procedure for our discussion here. The provision in this Amendment Bill for legal recognition and support to the status and orders of emergency arbitrators is not addressed in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Neither has such legislation been made in many notable jurisdictions.

I understand the "pro-arbitration" thrust of this Bill, and I support what the majority of its practitioners in Singapore are in favour of. However, there is not yet international consensus on the concept and status of an emergency arbitrator in the arbitration firmament.

Also, emergency arbitrator proceedings may be unnecessarily protracted if parties are allowed to appeal to the High Court against the ruling of an emergency arbitrator. Thorny questions may potentially arise from these situations. Would the Minister explain how these questions and issues can be resolved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and let me declare my interest as a lawyer and an arbitration practitioner. We have succeeded beyond most expectations to become a global arbitration player, the paper just distributed by the Minister makes this clear. For a small and young country like ours, this is a remarkable achievement.

Arbitration has firmly established itself as the method of choice of most large and multinational companies to resolve disputes. And they will naturally choose to arbitrate in a jurisdiction which has the political and legal infrastructure to facilitate a fair, timely and cost effective resolution of proceedings. This is where Singapore has succeeded in providing a real value proposition to the world. Prof Michael Pryles, Chairman of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), noted that Singapore is seen as a neutral venue for the holding of international commercial arbitration which is in a geographically convenient location and is supported by a physical, legal and political infrastructure that is sophisticated, skilled and of high integrity.

But competition is increasing, and other countries are eager to establish themselves as centres for arbitration themselves. In order to stay ahead, we need to provide a proper legislative framework to support and facilitate arbitration and our laws must reflect the best practices in the industry. The proposed amendments align Singapore law with the needs of the industry and are therefore a welcome improvement.

I just have one issue which I hope the Minister could clarify. The amendments propose that an arbitration agreement will be considered to be in writing if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct or by other means. This is line with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

However, what exactly are the requirements for the agreement to be "recorded in any form"? Would it suffice for one party to the oral agreement to record the arbitration agreement without confirmation from the other party? What happens if the parties both record terms which are inconsistent?

Should there be a disagreement as to the existence or content of the arbitration agreement, parties could be forced to resolve this preliminary issue before they can even engage on the substance of the claim? This would result in uncertainty and higher costs. Further, some parties may try to delay court proceedings by contriving allegations that the parties had agreed to arbitrate. If the party appeals an unfavourable decision, the delay could take months. How does the Ministry propose to ensure that these disputes are resolved quickly?

Another problem, as noted by the editors of Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, is that an arbitration agreement that is regarded as valid by an arbitral tribunal or court in one country may not be so regarded by the courts of the country where the award falls to be enforced. By way of example, the Norwegian Court of Appeal refused recognition of an award rendered in London because an exchange of emails did not, in its view, satisfy the writing requirement under Article II(2) of the New York Convention. Although such an electronic exchange was sufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement as a matter of the law of the place of arbitration, the court held that the validity of the arbitration agreement was to be separately assessed by the law of the enforcement court.

In the circumstances, it would be helpful if some clarity can be given on the phrase "recorded in any form", as any uncertainty may diminish our attractiveness as an arbitration centre. With that, I support the Bill.

Sir, before I start my substantive response, I could not quite follow Mrs Chiam's point. I thought she said that she supported and welcomed the amendments, including the emergency arbitrator procedures, but was not quite sure how thorny questions may be addressed. Could I get some clarity on what sort of thorny questions Mrs Chiam is thinking of and whether she is in principle supportive of the amendments given that she also recognises that the vast majority of local arbitration practitioners as well as international people whom we have consulted, support it? I would like some clarity on what sort of thorny questions she is thinking of.

I am not very sure of these thorny questions. So, that is why I wanted to ask the Minister about it.

It is a little bit difficult to answer when I am asked about thorny questions when the Member is not able to explain. Perhaps, she might want to do it by way of a written question.

I would write a written question on that.

Because you are assuming there are thorny questions. In law, there could be a range of circumstances taking place over many years and we cannot be dealing with those sorts of hypotheses. We may have been the first, in terms of the SIAC, setting up this process, but we are not the only ones. I am not sure if the Member is aware that the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce as well as the Dutch Arbitration Institute have similar procedures for the appointment of emergency arbitrators. We have had emergency arbitrators appointed since we started the process. We have not come across any particular difficulties. So, I take it that the Member does not have any specific points in mind and would clarify at some point in time in future.

I will do that, Minister.

I thank all the Members who spoke for supporting the Bill and for the recognition of the Government's efforts to develop the arbitration sector.

Mr Kumar has asked for some clarifications on the new section 2A which relaxes the requirement for an arbitration agreement to be in writing.

First, what does section 2A(4) mean when it provides that an arbitration agreement is in writing, if its content is recorded in any form? The general intention is that an arbitration agreement can be entered into in any form, including orally, if there is some record of the content of the agreement which can subsequently be referred to. Section 2A(5) goes on to provide that electronic communications satisfy that requirement of record if they can be accessed for subsequent reference. The definition of "electronic communication" in section 2A(10) encompasses emails.

So, does the record made by one party suffice? The answer is "yes". This is the answer we give. At the end of the day, the courts have to decide. Our legislative intention is that, yes, a record by one party would suffice. Section 2A does not require that the record of the arbitration agreement to be confirmed by all parties. Of course, there could be disputes as to the authenticity of the record if the record is made only by one party or if inconsistent records by different parties are produced. Those disputes would have to be resolved by the courts or by the tribunal in the same manner that disputes on authenticity of written arbitration agreements are resolved, or, for that matter, any other dispute, on facts, are resolved.

Legislatively, the question is whether the possibility of such disputes arising should preclude us from recognising unilateral records. The answer must balance the competing needs of certainty as opposed to flexibility, and that is, of course, a challenge that both legislation and the courts deal with in commercial law. In this case, the loosening of the writing requirement has been recommended by UNCITRAL. When we held consultations on the Bill, the feedback was also in support of relaxing the writing requirement.

Mr Kumar has also raised the issue of enforceability. This issue arises whenever awards are made in one country and enforced in another country. In international arbitration, enforceability is governed by the New York Convention. Under that Convention, each country has some, albeit limited, discretion in deciding whether or not to recognise and enforce an award. Some countries take a stricter approach than others; Mr Kumar gave an example. Two points are, however, of note. UNCITRAL's commentary to Article 7 emphasises that its approach is intended to preserve the enforceability of awards under the New York Convention. A second important point is that many mainstream countries have adopted similarly pragmatic approaches to the writing requirement. Jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Australia have like us, adopted Option I of Article 7 in the 2006 Amendments to the Model Law. UK similarly recognises arbitration agreements which are evidenced in writing. France does not even require arbitration agreements to be in writing. Thus, while it is not feasible to renegotiate the New York Convention to make this enforcement issue absolutely clear, we are moving in a direction that is recognised in other jurisdictions.

Mr Patrick Tay mentioned the recognition of foreign interim arbitral awards. I would take the opportunity to expand a little more fully on this amendment. Members who follow developments in the arbitration world will know we consulted on the 2006 Model Law's interim measures − Articles 17A to 17J. Industry opinion was on balance against the adoption of those Articles. At the same time, it was also recognised that some interim measures ordered by foreign arbitral tribunals ought to be enforceable. This Bill reflects an approach that takes these two considerations into account. Tweaking the definition of award in Part III of the Act achieves three things. It allows the same range of measures that the court may order under section 12A in aid of foreign arbitration. Two, it is enforced with the leave of court as with other local interim arbitral orders, but with the added protection of the grounds for refusing enforcement set out by the New York Convention.

Sir, as regards to Mr Pritam Singh's points, I think he is generally in support of the Bill. One small qualification. I think he said that he welcomes the fact that we have moved away from the requirement that arbitration agreement should be in writing. We are not moving away completely. We are loosening it. There is still a requirement that it be in writing, but any written record, as defined in the Act, would be accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill enacts the Foreign Limitation Periods Act. It adopts the recommendations of the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee's 2011 Report on Limitation Periods in Private International Law. The Report was prepared by Prof Yeo Tiong Min, Senior Counsel and Dean of the SMU Law School. Practitioners, arbitrators and academics contributed during our public consultation on this Bill. We thank all who have contributed.

Let me first outline the principles underlying the Bill. It deals with the application of limitation periods. In common law jurisdictions, limitation periods prevent actions from being brought after a specified period. That is the case under our Limitation Act.

Traditionally, the common law characterises time bars as procedural in nature. Therefore, according to the principle that a forum applies its own procedure, the forum would apply its own time bars, even if a foreign country's law is applicable to the issue at hand. So you could have a Singapore court applying Singapore time bars to an issue which is substantively governed by French law. The effect of the time bar, when it is applied, is to terminate the action in the forum.

To use the words of the Canadian Supreme Court in Tolofson v Jenson [1994], the time bar is "determinative of the rights of both parties". It is not part of the rules which "make the machinery of the court run smoothly." It is therefore incongruous to say, on the one hand, that an issue is governed by a foreign law and, on the other hand, to apply the forum's time bar to that issue.

The UK, Australia and Canada have introduced legislation to reform the common law position. The basic position is, if an issue is governed by a foreign law, that foreign law's limitation period will apply; and the forum's limitation period will not apply. Such an issue has not yet arisen in our courts. Nevertheless, we think it prudent to clarify the law in this area.

Clause 3 lays down the general rule that, when the law of a foreign country applies to a matter before the Singapore court, that country's law relating to limitation will apply, and Singapore's law relating to limitation will not apply.

Clause 3(2) in particular addresses the double actionability rule governing tort claims. The double actionability rule states that a claim in tort must be actionable under the law of the country where the tort is committed as well as the law of the forum. The rule exceptionally allows for the law of a more closely connected country to displace either or both laws if that is more appropriate. Clause 3(2) provides that, in both cases, the applicable limitation period is that of the applicable foreign law.

Clause 4 provides exceptions to the general rule. Clause 4(1) and (2) provide that clause 3 will not apply to the extent that it is against public policy. This includes situations where undue hardship will be caused. Clause 4(3) provides for any suspension or interruption of a limitation period on the ground of a party's absence from a jurisdiction to be disregarded. This would prevent forum shopping by plaintiffs, to deprive defendants of the benefit of limitation periods. This is similarly subject to a public policy exception in clause 4(4).

Clause 5 provides that, when a foreign court disposes of a matter by reference to a limitation period, it is deemed to have disposed of the matter substantively. This will preclude further litigation on the matter.

Clause 6 defines the meaning of laws relating to limitation, and clause 7 provides for the Act to bind the Government.

Clause 8 provides for consequential amendments, in particular it provides for the Act to apply to the International Arbitration Act.

The choice of Singapore as an arbitral seat will no longer automatically require the adoption of Singapore limitation periods. That will help enhance Singapore's status as a neutral arbitral seat.

The Bill was strongly supported by the legal fraternity during consultation and during the Arbitration Dialogue 2011 that my Ministry held at Maxwell Chambers last November. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a good move, in that we can give greater effect to foreign law without the complications of applying Singapore law for certain parts of claims that are otherwise governed by foreign law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The amendments mirror reforms that took place in the United Kingdom in 1985 and help clarify the law. The determination of whether foreign limitation is procedural or substantive leads to much uncertainty. The Bill provides for foreign limitation periods to apply as a general rule, without the need to determine whether it is substantive or procedural. This move by the British in 1985 simplified their law and we will reap the same benefits.

A foreign limitation period may extinguish a claim (as a matter of substance) or bar a remedy (as a matter of procedure). As noted in the seminal text, The Conflicts of Laws by Dicey, Morris & Collins, the complexity of the law forced individuals to navigate legal minefields.

If the statute of limitation of the foreign country is procedural, an action will fail if it is brought after the period of limitation of Singapore has expired even though that of the foreign country has not. But it will not fail if the period of limitation of Singapore has not yet expired although that of the foreign country has expired. This has been criticised for encouraging forum shopping – where litigants choose forums which have little connection to the dispute, but which afford more generous limitation periods. It also creates uncertainty for defendants – as they may labour under the impression that potential actions against them have become time barred, only for it to be brought in a different jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if the statute of limitation of the foreign country is substantive, the Singapore limitation period will apply if it is shorter than that of the foreign country because the case will be considered stale by the Singapore courts. But once the period of limitation of the foreign court has expired, no action can be maintained even though the Singapore limitation period has not expired. In short, there is more certainty and less legal manoeuvring.

However, I have some queries regarding the exceptions to the general rule. The general rule will not apply where its application would conflict with public policy and the period of limitation of Singapore would apply. This would occur where the application would cause undue hardship to a person who is or might be made a party to the proceedings.

This provision of an exception is problematic for two reasons. First, if we are choosing to apply foreign limitation periods as a general rule, then we should embrace it completely. If the party to the dispute finds himself falling outside of the limitation period if his case was heard in the foreign country, why should he be given additional time simply because he chooses to sue in Singapore? The Limitation Act in Singapore does not recognise hardship as a reason to extend the limitation period and I wonder why we are borrowing a British concept of "hardship" that was in fact not supported by the majority of their Law Commission when it considered the issue in the 1980s.

I would ask the Minister whether it would be preferable that "hardship" should only be relevant if the foreign law on limitation recognises it as a ground to extend the limitation period. In short, if the exception does not apply in the foreign country, it should not matter in Singapore either. Allowing such exceptions only encourages satellite litigation, because all litigants who miss deadlines under foreign law will no doubt argue that their case is one of "hardship". It creates uncertainty and raises costs.

Secondly, this provision would be removing one area of uncertainty only to replace it with another. Limitation periods by definition create hardship as meritorious claims may be time barred in order to fulfil the idea of limitation itself, that is, the protection of defendants from stale claims and the encouragement of plaintiffs to proceed with expedition, the preservation of evidence and finality of closure of a specific period under potential liability incidents.

Could the Minister clarify in what scenarios where hardship would be considered such that the exception would apply to oust the foreign law on limitation? Laws, in particular, procedural laws, should be made simpler and clearer, so that individuals will know their rights and will be better able to enforce them. I support this Bill.

Sir, I thank Mr Kumar and Mrs Chiam for supporting the Bill. Mr Kumar has some concerns about the exceptions to the general rule which are based on public policy and undue hardship. It is a general principle of private international law, or the conflict of laws, that a forum will not apply a rule of foreign law which is contrary to the forum's public policy. That is a function of the forum's court's duty to uphold its own public policy. At the same time, of course, Mr Kumar will know, the courts do not take a parochial approach in defining public policy. For example, the Court of Appeal has recognised the case of Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees [2004] 4 SLR(R) 690 − Mr Kumar may want to look up who the counsel were − and this was a case decided before we had IRs in Singapore − that public policy operates with less vigour in the conflict of laws than in domestic law. Relevant policy must be "so important as to form part of the core of essential principles of justice and morality shared by all nations", quoting from the court, before it can be applied in the conflict of laws.

Mr Kumar, I think, has a valid point in noting that the majority of the UK Law Commission which considered the same issue in the 1980s did not recommend a statutory exception for public policy. But that was not because public policy was not a legitimate reason for disapplying foreign limitation law but because the majority was of the view that the existing public policy defence at common law would suffice. That is the reason. Also, the UK statute ultimately provided for an exception based on public policy and undue hardship.

Our Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee considered the same issue in some detail and similarly concluded in favour of an undue hardship exception. Prof Yeo pointed out in the Law Reform Committee's Report that there is now a substantial body of case law in the UK on what would constitute undue hardship. And our courts can refer to this body of UK case law and apply the exception, of course, taking into account and applying it in the context of Singapore and Singapore's public policy.

I think we can state some general principles. One, the exceptions would not apply simply because the foreign limitation period is different from Singapore. Otherwise, we would encourage forum shopping. Two, it should also be emphasised that the exception is framed in terms of "undue hardship".

As Mr Kumar points out, all limitation periods necessarily cause some hardship to plaintiffs in that they impose a cut-off time for bringing in an action. But that hardship alone cannot be sufficient to trigger the exception. The plaintiff must go on to show that he would suffer greater hardship in a particular circumstance than would normally be the case. One example could be that the plaintiff was prevented from suing by war or civil unrest.

The court should also consider the policy reasons underlying the foreign limitation period. If the hardship complained of was already considered in formulating the foreign limitation period that would militate against applying the exception. In practice, exceptional circumstances would be required before the exception has been applied.

Mr Kumar makes a point as to whether it would be preferable for hardship to apply only if the foreign law on limitation recognises it as a ground to extend the limitation period. But that could lead to a situation where there is in effect no hardship exception because a foreign law exception to the foreign limitation period is already applicable as part of the general rule. Our view is that it is better for the court to have some discretion in cases considered exceptional where the foreign limitation period does not provide for an exception. I think we can rely on our courts to apply these public policy and undue hardship exceptions judiciously. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2002 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$170,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Four Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$490,000,000,000).

Sir, the Government Securities Act was set up in 1992 to provide for the issuance of Government securities in Singapore. We issue securities not for spending, but to fulfil other specific purposes: Singapore Government Securities are issued to develop the Singapore debt market, while Special Singapore Government Securities are non-tradable bonds issued specifically to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund. As the proceeds from the issuance of securities are not spent, they are invested.

There is a limit on the amount of securities Government can issue, and this limit is authorised by Parliament. The last increase in the issuance limit was in November 2009, when Parliament approved the increase of Government's issuance limit from $250 billion to $320 billion. As at the end of 2011, the outstanding amount of securities is $295 billion, and this amount is estimated to reach $490 billion in five years' time. There is, therefore, a need to raise the limit now.

About 80% of the increase is expected to be issued to the CPF Board to meet its investment needs. The needs of CPF Board are expected to increase due to growth in the resident labour force and wages, as well as the increasing accumulation of CPF balances.

The remaining 20% of the increase would be for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to increase the issuance of Singapore Government Securities in line with the growth of our financial markets, and to enhance the efficiency and liquidity of Singapore's debt markets in particular.

As Members would know, all proceeds from the issuance of securities by the Singapore Government are invested. Unlike other countries, none of these borrowings are spent. We operate on a balanced budget, and under our Protection of Reserves Framework, a Government can only spend the reserves accumulated during its term.

I propose, therefore, that the ceiling for issuing Government securities be raised by $170 billion, to $490 billion. The proposed limit of $490 billion will apply to the outstanding amount of Government securities, and is expected to last us till 2017. Sir, I beg to move.

A clarification, Sir. When Parliament approved the last increase in the borrowing limit two-and-a-half-years ago, it was estimated that the increase of $70 billion would be sufficient to last a period of five years, taking into account the expected increase in CPF funds as a result of changes in policies such as CPF LIFE and the increase in Minimum Sum, as well as the expected growth in the market for Singapore Government Securities over a period of five years. So I would like to ask the Minister of State what new and additional considerations now necessitate this substantial increase of $170 billion to the borrowing limit − how did the Ministry arrive at this number of an additional $170 billion?

Sir, I thank Mr Chen for his question. Mr Chen will recall that in 2009, it was a period of great uncertainty and we were in the depths of a recession. As it turned out, at the end of 2009, actually Singapore did remarkably well. We registered a growth of nearly 2%. The rebound in 2010 was even faster and stronger than anyone had hoped for. Our Resilience Package had not only served its purpose, it exceeded all expectations. So the rebound was very strong. So in 2009, when we made those projections, it was with a certain set of economic conditions in mind, it was with a certain expected growth in CPF balances which soaks up quite a large part of the issuance of these Government Securities.

In summary, what has happened in that time was that the increase in the Special Singapore Government Securities was faster than expected as the economy recovered very rapidly and exceeding expectations. As a result, the issuance limit that we sought in 2009 is going to be reached much earlier than we expected. So this is why we have come to Parliament again to ask for the issuance limit to be raised.

Question put, and agreed to.

That this Parliament, in accordance with Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act (Chapter 121A of the 2002 Revised Edition), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore under that Act, a further sum not exceeding One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$170,000,000,000), thereby in total a sum not exceeding Four Hundred and Ninety Thousand Million Singapore Dollars (S$490,000,000,000).

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." − [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Adjourned accordingly at 6.40 pm

to a date to be fixed.

18 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will consider exempting investment-grade gold bars from GST when sold by local jewellers to retail customers; and (b) whether IRAS is taking steps to monitor the online sales of gold bars which may not have been tested or accredited by approved test laboratories.

Investment-grade gold is essentially a financial asset that is actively traded in international exchanges, just like other financial instruments such as stocks and bonds that do not attract GST. Exempting investment-grade gold from GST brings our GST treatment of investment-grade gold in line with the practices of developed economies like Australia, UK and Switzerland. This will facilitate the development of gold trading, which can draw on Singapore's strengths as an international financial centre and trading hub, to meet strong demand for investment-grade gold in Asia.

The GST exemption does not depend on who the buyer and seller are. What matters is that the gold must meet the prescribed definition and attributes of "investment-grade", and be produced by accredited refineries. The prescribed definition ensures that the gold is indeed of investment-grade quality and be readily accepted for settlement by international exchanges.

The GST exemption does not therefore extend to retail sale of gold products like gold jewellery and collector's gold coins.

There will be safeguards and enforcement by the Comptroller of GST to ensure that GST exemption is only on sale of investment-grade gold that meet the prescribed definition, whether online or otherwise.

23 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry will consider regulating pawn shop advertisements to minimise the promotion of pawn shops as places for ready and easy cash and to inculcate responsible money management.

Pawnbroking loans are essentially secured loans. The pawner needs to furnish items of personal property as collateral for a loan. The amount of loan the pawner can take is limited by the value of his collateral. He does not have to come up with cash to service the loan. If the pawner fails to repay the loan, he forfeits the collateral.

Such loans are therefore quite unlike unsecured loans given by moneylenders, where there is much higher potential for individuals to borrow beyond their means to repay. Given this nature of pawnbroking loans, pawnbroking advertisements are of less concern.

We have been monitoring the pawnbroking industry, including advertising by pawnbrokers. We have observed that pawnbrokers advertise mainly through the platforms of TV, radio, buses, taxis and the MRT. These advertisements are taken out by some of the bigger players in the industry.

Nonetheless, we note the Member's concerns and will look into introducing measures to regulate the content of pawnbroking advertisements. These would likely include stipulating that such advertisements must not be misleading, and must not encourage gambling. We will continue to monitor the situation, to see whether there is a need for even stronger regulatory action, such as restricting pawnbrokers' advertising channels. The Member may also wish to note that the Ministry is in the midst of reviewing the Pawnbrokers Act, with a view to strengthening protection for pawners and enhancing corporate governance for pawnbrokers.

On the Member's second point to inculcate responsible money management, there is already a national financial education programme in place, called MoneySENSE. MoneySENSE works with various partners including community organisations, industry associations and consumer bodies, to educate the public on the importance of thrift, the responsible use of credit facilities, money management and financial planning.

27 Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in the past three years, how many motorists were issued summonses for infringing the three-quarter fuel tank rule at our immigration and customs checkpoints; and (b) what measures is the Ministry taking to ensure competitive pricing of fuel prices in Singapore.

Dr Teo Ho Pin has asked for the number of summonses issued in the past three years for infringements of the three-quarter tank rule. Singapore Customs has clarified that there are none as the Customs Act was only recently amended to allow the issuing of ticket summonses. Singapore Customs will start issuing ticket summonses for the offence only from June 2012. However, Singapore Customs reported that about 3,000 persons per year were offered compositions to settle the case out-of-court. The composition amounts range from $100 for first-time offenders, to $500 for third-time offenders.

Dr Teo also asked what measures my Ministry takes to ensure competitive pricing of petrol. The Government maintains competitiveness in the petrol market by making sure that there are no anti-competitive practices that keep prices artificially high. The Competition Commission of Singapore, or CCS, conducted an inquiry into the retail petrol market in Singapore in 2010. Based on the facts and data gathered, CCS did not find any evidence that the petrol players had engaged in anti-competitive collusive behaviour.

The Government will continue to monitor developments in this market and CCS will not hesitate to take action if there is evidence that market players are colluding to fix prices.

29 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) how many primary and secondary schools currently have class sizes of 40 students and above; (b) what is the Ministry's targeted class size for primary and secondary schools; and (c) when the target can be achieved.

Most primary and secondary schools have classes of 40 students or fewer, while Primary 1 and 2 classes have 30 students or fewer. We plan on the basis of 30 students per class at Primary 1 and 2 and 40 students per class at the other primary and secondary levels.

While a smaller class size may be intuitively appealing, empirical evidence on the benefits of a smaller class size remains inconclusive. Studies have shown that teacher quality is the most important factor in achieving better student outcomes. Hence, MOE's focus is on raising the quality of teachers, even as we increase our recruitment of teachers.

Without compromising teacher quality, our approach has been to progressively deploy more teachers to the schools while giving schools the flexibility to decide on how best to deploy their teachers to meet the needs of their students. This may involve reducing class size for certain subjects or student profiles. For example, in Design & Technology and Home Economics, where students may be required to operate machinery or equipment, the class size is usually 20. Learning support programmes for Primary 1-2 students with difficulties in basic literacy and numeracy skills are conducted in small groups of eight to 10 students. Some schools also deploy two teachers in a class of 40 students – one teacher brings the class through the curriculum, while the other teacher assists specific students who may have difficulty understanding the materials being covered.

Thus, while the Ministry does not mandate targets for class size, we plan to improve the pupil teacher ratio from 18 and 15 at the Primary and Secondary levels to 16 and 13 by 2015 when the Education Service grows to 33,000 Education Officers. This will ensure that our schools are well-resourced so that they can organise learning to best meet the needs of our students.

30 Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for Education (a) if he will give an update on the progress and developments of the Malay Language Elective Programme (MLEP) and Elective Malay for Secondary Schools (EMAS) programme; (b) how many students have registered for these programmes in the last three years; and (c) how many of these students still pursue to specialise in Malay Language upon their completion of the programmes.

The Malay Language Elective Programme (MLEP) and the Elective Malay for Secondary Schools (EMAS) were introduced in 2001 to provide more opportunities for students who are keen to pursue Malay Language (ML) at a higher level.

Both MLEP and EMAS programmes enrich students' language capacity, and appreciation of Malay literature and culture through a variety of enrichment activities such as language and literature camps, lecture series and immersion programmes to neighbouring countries. Students share their creative expressions in prose and poems through annual publications.

EMAS has been offered in two Secondary schools and MLEP in two Junior Colleges; in 2012, we added Anderson Secondary and Pioneer Junior College to offer EMAS and MLEP respectively.

Both EMAS and MLEP continue to attract students strong in ML to enrol in them. Over the past three years, intake into EMAS averaged 355, whereas that for MLEP averaged 122.

To further encourage our students to learn Malay at a higher level, MOE has also increased the number of MLEP scholarships from 10 to 15 with effect from 2012.

Since its inception, about 100 former MLEP students have continued to pursue Malay Language related courses in either National University of Singapore (NUS) or National Institute of Education (NIE).

33 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower if he will share the results of implementing the Retirement and Re-employment Act since the amendments to the Act on re-employment provisions came into effect on 1 January 2012.

The implementation of the Retirement and Re-employment Act has been relatively smooth. Since the re-employment policy was first announced five years ago, the tripartite partners have been working closely together to prepare companies and workers for its implementation. In 2011, about 79% of private establishments had in fact already implemented measures to allow their local employees to work past the age of 62 even before the Act took effect. Employers in general are re-employment ready.

MOM provides conciliation services to employers, unions and employees to help them resolve any re-employment issues amicably. If the issue cannot be resolved through conciliation, workers may appeal to the Minister for Manpower, or lodge a claim with the Commissioner for Labour to seek remedy.

Since 1 January 2012, MOM has received 14 re-employment dispute cases, mostly over eligibility for re-employment. Several have been successfully settled, while the remaining cases are still undergoing discussion and conciliation.

To avoid any disputes, employers should refer to the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees which provides advice on engaging employees and in making re-employment offers. The Government has also reconstituted a tripartite workgroup comprising representatives from the unions, employer groups and the Government to monitor the progress of implementation of the re-employment law and the Tripartite Guidelines, and to address issues that may arise.

The new re-employment legislation is very important in helping us look after our older workers and to increase employment opportunities for them. The employment rate of older residents aged 55-64 has increased from 59% in 2010 to 61.2% in 2011. We must help our people, regardless of age, acquire the right skills, and we must promote the adoption of age-friendly practices so that older Singaporeans can continue to work if they choose to, and to earn a regular income as long as they are healthy.

35 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) for the last three years (i) what is the number of foreign vehicles entering Singapore; (ii) what is the number of accidents involving foreign vehicles in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will liaise with the Malaysian government to work out a mutually beneficial regulatory framework to facilitate easier motor insurance claims for both Singaporean and Malaysian motorists involved in accidents in Singapore.

Our Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks & Compensation) Act (MV Act) requires all vehicles used on Singapore roads to be insured against third party bodily injury and death. This is to ensure that victims who are injured or killed in motor accidents are not denied compensation. There are similar provisions in the Malaysian Road Traffic Act.

To facilitate the smooth flow of traffic between Singapore and Malaysia, since 1975, Malaysian insurers had entered into a Special Agreement with the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore. This Agreement requires them to settle claims for their insureds who get into accidents in Singapore, in accordance with Singapore legislation. Singapore-based insurers have a similar agreement with West Malaysia's Motor Insurers' Bureau. Should accidents involving deaths or injuries occur in either country, these agreements facilitate third party claimants from both jurisdictions to file their claims with the insurers on the other side directly.

In the past three years, the average number of foreign vehicles entering Singapore is about 400,000 annually, the majority being Malaysian-registered vehicles. At the land checkpoints, the Land Transport Authority verifies that each foreign-registered vehicle has valid insurance before allowing it to be driven into Singapore. In this same three-year period, about 2800 accidents a year involving foreign vehicles had been reported.

In regard to insurance claim processes, the insurance companies in both jurisdictions have their established processes to assess each claim according to its validity and merit. Where there are disputes, the private insurance associations in the two countries, namely, the General Insurance Association of Singapore and their counterpart Persatuan Insurans Am Malaysia (PIAM), do facilitate claims settlement negotiations with the insurers concerned.

36 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development given that HDB flats and shops in Outram Park had been torn down for many years, what does the Ministry intend to do with the land.

The HDB flats and shops at Outram Park were demolished in 2003, as part of our renewal plans for older HDB estates and towns under SERS. Most of the affected flat owners had subsequently moved into their new replacement flats at Cantonment Close.

Under Master Plan 2003, Outram Park was to be developed for high-density housing. The development plans were however affected by SARS and the ensuing economic slowdown, and were put on hold.

In 2007, URA released a mixed use site adjacent to Outram Park, and just above the Outram Park MRT Station, on the Reserve List of the Government Land Sales programme, with the intention to kick-start development in the area. There was however no market interest and the site was removed from the Reserve List in 2009.