Hansard, Friday, 16 February 2024

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA has conducted any studies or assessments to estimate the potential increase in makeshift smoking corners due to the phase-out of designated smoking areas; and (b) whether there will be any collaborative efforts by NEA with coffee shop owners and other stakeholders to move these makeshift smoking corners away from public areas with high footfalls.

Sir, to limit the exposure of second-hand tobacco smoke to non-smokers, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has stopped accepting applications for new smoking corners in coffee shops since June 2017. The number of smoking corners in coffee shops has been gradually decreasing over time.

As mentioned previously in the House, makeshift smoking points are not prohibited unless they are located in places specified in the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations 2018. Nevertheless, premises owners are urged to be considerate and ensure that makeshift smoking points in areas they manage, do not cause disamenities to the public.

While NEA does not have plans to conduct any studies or assessments, we will look into feedback on any disamenities caused by makeshift smoking points and, where substantiated, we will engage the relevant stakeholders on possible mitigating measures, including removing or relocating the smoking points.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have several makeshift smoking corners or hotspots in my Yio Chu Kang estates. These are just made up of a few chairs and usually, situated close to coffee shops, along main thoroughfares. Given that they are situated along areas with high footfall, residents walking by often complain about the smoke and also about the noise. Every time, when there is feedback, the Town Council will go in, take action by removing the chairs, but the individuals do come back after a week or two and the problem remains.

I wish to ask the Ministry whether NEA has concerns about the potential health and safety risks associated with these makeshift smoking corners, especially when the numbers may be going up and how does the Ministry intend to address the issue of these smoking corners situated directly below Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, especially the dwelling units, and ensure that it is not a cat-and-mouse situation where the smokers disband when NEA and Town Council officers come by, and then, the smokers congregate back again when enforcement officers leave the place?

Sir, as explained, if the makeshift smoking point is located in a smoking prohibited area, then smoking there is illegal. Enforcement will be taken and the smokers will be subjected to fines.

If the area is not under the prohibition list, technically, it is not illegal to smoke there. That is where we would need to work with the premises owners to remove or relocate chairs, seating or receptacles that encourage or make it convenient for smokers to congregate in those areas.

NEA will also work with the premises owners to try to identify a potential designated smoking area, which is somewhere where smokers would find convenient or would want to congregate, and at the same time, reduce disamenities to the public. On this, we seek the community's understanding and also the cooperation of premises owners to try to resolve this problem.

2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health for each year over the past 10 years (a) how many cases of non-emergency and non-critical admissions to public hospitals took place; (b) how many of such cases claimed hospital stays from their MediSave or MediShield Life insurance policies; (c) how many of such patients are deemed to have "overstayed"; and (d) whether the Ministry has plans to discourage unnecessary hospitalisations by offering cash incentives for those who do not make hospitalisation insurance claims for the entire year.

Mr Speaker, hospital admissions are based on clinical necessity. Some patients have medical conditions that are non-urgent and yet inpatient care is medically necessary. They account for about 20% of all public hospital admissions, which has been a stable percentage over the past 10 years. As these admissions are medically necessary, they can tap on MediSave and/or MediShield Life.

Some patients stay longer in our hospitals as their homes are not ready to receive them. To minimise such over-staying in hospitals, we try our best to right price and right site patients. This includes improving and expanding our Transitional Care Facilities and home care services to provide post-discharge care.

We need to be very careful about offering incentives to reward non-claims. It can discourage some, especially the lower-income, from seeking medically necessary care.

Assoc Prof Lim.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. My question builds a little bit on the discussion in the last Sitting by Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary about transition care. Hence, I am wondering to what extent the Ministry has an intent to ramp up transition care and hence, this notion of discouraging excessive hospitalisation by shifting those who would otherwise be staying in hospitals because there is not sufficient Transitional Care Facilities. I am wondering to what extent some kind of incentives, like I suggested in the Parliamentary Question, are being considered by the Ministry of Health (MOH)?

Firstly, I would like to thank the Member for recognising the need to prioritise beds in the public hospitals for those who really them. Indeed, this is something that we need to grapple with. The concern, though, in respect of the suggestion of incentives, is that we put incentives in place to nudge the right behaviours. We are really concerned if we put the wrong incentives, because then, there may be a perverse reaction of people not getting the treatment they need if they are actually being rewarded for not making a claim.

Having said that, I think the larger part of the question is an important one, in relation to transitional care. Indeed, it is something that we have been looking into, as mentioned in my reply. I had said that we are already ramping up and looking into our Transitional Care Facilities – which are already in place, but we are ramping up and expanding.

We are also making sure that there is a suite of homecare services that will help address some of the needs, post-discharge. This is something we would continually have to look at, as you can see there is a larger shift towards preventive care, towards Healthier SG. This is something we want to encourage – for more residents to look at the larger picture. We really want to shift care within the community, get people to stay healthy within the community so that we can shift a lot more of these concerns away from the hospitals.

3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years (a) how many Singaporeans aged below 35 who are married to foreigners who are not Long-Term Visit Pass holders made appeals to buy HDB flats or rent flats under the Public Rental Scheme; (b) how many appeals were approved; and (c) what were the main reasons for approval or denial.

Mr Speaker, Singapore Citizens (SCs) married to non-resident spouses, or SC-NR couples for short, have similar access to public housing as other Singaporean families, if they have a child who is an SC or Singapore Permanent Resident, or SPR.

SC-NR couples without an SC or SPR child can buy a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat under the Non-Citizen Spouse Scheme.

If the SC is aged between 21 and 34, and the NR spouse has a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or a Work Pass with at least six months validity at the time of flat application, the couple can buy any resale HDB flat on the open market, except for 3Gen flats and flats launched under the Prime Location Public Housing model.

If the SC is a First-Timer aged 35 and above, the couple can also buy a new 2-room Flexi flat in the non-mature estates from HDB, in addition to the resale options I explained earlier.

For public rental housing, SC-NR couples who do not have an SC or SPR child, do not meet the citizenship eligibility criterion. That notwithstanding, HDB assesses all requests holistically and exercises flexibility for those in exceptional circumstances with no other housing options or family support.

From 2019 to 2023, HDB received an average of about 160 appeals per year to buy an HDB flat or access public rental housing from SC-NR couples who did not meet the citizenship eligibility criterion and where the Singaporean spouse was aged below 35. This number includes couples where the foreign spouse had a LTVP, as HDB does not track the number of such couples with or without LTVP.

HDB carefully assesses each appeal based on the household's unique circumstances, taking into account factors such as housing needs, financial conditions, family circumstances and medical conditions. Over the last five years, HDB acceded to an average of 13 appeals per year.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I just want to understand why is it that the Family Scheme under HDB does not include spouses with LTVP who are LTVP holders. Because LTVP is similar to SPR in many ways – as far as healthcare is concerned, they get similar kinds of benefits. So, why do they not get the same kind of housing benefits that SPRs get?

Sir, we look after the Singaporean families first, as the resources are finite. As such, we want to support and prioritise Singaporean families. However, as I shared earlier, those with a valid LTVP, even though they may not come under the Family Scheme, they have the option to purchase resale flats, excluding the 3Gen flats and flats under the Prime Location Public Housing model. So, basically, it is about how we prioritise resources.

At the same time, we look at the circumstances of the family. So, I want to assure the Member that HDB has allowed appeals in various instances; it is something we look at, on a case-by-case basis. We also work with the residents to see how they can have that housing option.

While we move forward, I hope that Members would also understand the situation that we are facing, where we want to balance the needs of our citizens and at the same time, we also want to make sure that there are opportunities for parenthood and provide housing options for Singaporeans, whatever circumstances they are in, and also provide help for those who are in dire need.

4 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) to date, how many inmates have been enrolled in the Employment Preparation Scheme; and (b) of which, what is the number of such inmates who were granted (i) weekend home leave and (ii) long home leave and (iii) secured permanent employment upon release from detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 339 inmates have been emplaced on the Employment Preparation Scheme since it was introduced in September 2022.

Inmates emplaced on the scheme are required to serve the tail-end of their sentence in a work release centre administered by Singapore Prison Service. Those who are doing well and have support from their family, may be allowed to go on weekend home leave or long home leave. As at 31 January 2024, 71 of the 339 inmates had gone or are currently allowed to go on weekend home leave. Another 35 had gone through or are currently on long home leave. And 204 of the 339 inmates have been released. Among them, 196 had secured employment at the point of release.

Assoc Prof Razwana, any supplementary questions?

I would like to thank the Minister of State for highlighting this. Basically, I wanted to check if we can do more to increase the numbers and whether there is any form of case management given, in view of the recent data that was released to highlight that recidivism rate has gone up for certain population of inmates.

Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. In fact, what we have seen, has been encouraging, where not only the inmates are having the opportunity, but the employers are coming, quite strongly, to support this scheme.

And we are also very happy that the social service agencies (SSAs) are also coming on board, working together with our specialists, to make sure that not only do we provide that employment, training opportunity, but looking at a throughcare rehabilitation and re-integration process.

So, I want to assure the Member, wherever possible, we will do more. We are also looking at how we want not only to support the inmates, but also their families. So, this would involve much coordinated work with SSAs, economic agencies as well as companies, to see how we can support the inmates and their families holistically.

5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how are potential grassroots leaders, key appointment holders and patrons vetted to ensure they are not susceptible to foreign influence; (b) whether there are regular review processes in place after appointment to identify and address potential vulnerabilities; (c) whether citizens born or educated outside Singapore are subject to more stringent vetting criteria; and (d) how are grassroots members empowered to critically evaluate information and resist undue foreign influence, especially from social media.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an important part of the People's Association (PA)'s mission is to foster social cohesion and racial harmony and build a strong and resilient community. To achieve this, grassroots leaders, or GRLs, volunteer with PA, to help PA with its mission. GRLs come from all walks of life, representing a diverse cross section of our society. They volunteer their time, effort and resources to serve Singaporeans and make Singapore a better home for all.

GRLs also help the Government communicate policies to residents and receive feedback. This helps Singapore's interests. To fulfil this role, it is important that GRLs can discern information from misinformation and are able to critically evaluate information that they receive, including from social media sources. PA supports GRLs in this role by regularly sharing key information on Government policies, with regular dialogues, both formal as well as informal, held with GRLs on national and local issues. This also includes open discussions at regular Grassroots Organisations (GRO) meetings so that GRLs better understand the intent of various Government initiatives. In addition, the National Community Leadership Institute, or NACLI, conducts workshops to equip GRLs with the knowledge and skills to identify and manage misinformation.

As leaders in the community, GRLs are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that befits their standing and role in the community, and also to act in Singapore's interests.

There are sound processes and due diligence in place when appointing and re-appointing GRLs, regardless of their background, to ensure that they are able to carry out the above duties. We constantly review the appointment system to ensure that there is sufficient rigour.

For instance, before GRLs join GROs and are appointed to leadership positions, they first serve as observers for a period of time. This is an opportunity for them to be given direct and hands-on exposure to grassroots work, but also an opportunity for PA to observe them and assess their suitability for appointment into GROs as full-fledged GRLs.

Sir, we endeavour to make the best judgment of a person before deciding to appoint him or her as a GRL, with the appointment and vetting processes in place. But even the most rigorous checks cannot preclude the possibility of the person subsequently behaving in an unbefitting manner or discovering a hitherto unknown fact or circumstance. Where such facts are brought to PA's attention, we will take immediate action to reassess the person's suitability to continue as a GRL and revoke the GRL appointment if necessary.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Indeed, our GRLs in the community, play critical roles in community engagement and facilitating better Government to citizen communications.

I just have two short supplementary questions. How often are the regular review processes conducted after GRLs are appointed and does this review include an assessment of the susceptibility to foreign influence?

Second, I want to check whether there are avenues or agencies that GRLs can seek advice, in the event that they are approached by individuals or organisations or encounter situations where there may be attempts at influence.

Sir, on the first question, we review the process regularly. We look at it periodically to assess whether or not the system that we have in place remains rigorous, given the evolving circumstances on the ground. For example, with the proliferation of social media a few years ago, we looked at that as an additional factor. We also look at the local ground conditions. What are some of the organisations that the GROs partner with, in fulfilling their mission or conducting their events. So, it is on a regular basis.

The point, really, also is to not just focus on the systemic reviews and the processes that we look at regularly, but also to apply a common sense approach. When you assess an individual, when you get wind of, perhaps, a person becoming too close or unnaturally closer to one or more organisations, then, I think that you can surface it.

Which segues into the second question on what are the avenues. Bring it up to senior GRLs. There are now grassroots' mentors that we appoint. These are senior, more experienced GRLs who have since retired from their position. They are deployed in various constituencies and serve the constituency as a resource person and more from a mentor perspective, to cast a broader view with their experience. And of course, there are also the grassroots' advisor and other organisations to whom you can raise any particular observations or concerns.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, I have one question for the Minister. Do Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners participate in our grassroot activities and are any of them in leadership positions?

Sir, I think this is the subject of a question that has been answered in writing, so I refer Mr Leong to it. The short answer is PRs and non-citizens, they are welcome to take part in events. They make up a part of the Singaporean society, so they are present in the events. A proportion of the PRs do take up leadership positions as GRLs, but not foreigners.

6 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider partnering with profession-based associations of freelancers to provide guidance to listed firms on fair contracting of freelancers as outlined by the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons.

Sir, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons was introduced in March 2018, and specifies a set of fair and progressive employment practices for service contracts that all service buyers should implement. Today, more than 2,600 companies have adopted this Tripartite Standard.

The Tripartite Alliance For Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will continue to work with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)'s Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit and explore partnerships with relevant associations to strengthen outreach to companies, including listed companies, on the Tripartite Standard and its practices.

Ms Jean See.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. The first is shall the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and TAFEP have a growth target for the adoption of the Tripartite Standard on Contracting and Self-Employed Persons, given that the Tripartite Standard provides a baseline protection for freelancers, which is a segment that has little or no protection under employment related laws?

The second question, is what would be the steps taken, to ensure that the adopters follow through to implement the guidance in a Tripartite Standard?

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. On the first, whether we should be setting growth targets for adoption of the standards, it is quite difficult a priori to decide what is the target number. Ideally, of course, you want as many companies as possible. The challenge is that, in this particular landscape of service buying from freelancers, it is a very diverse landscape, because freelancers comprise of professionals and individuals in many different types of service provision. And it is quite hard, then, to specify that each of these interact with the service buyers in exactly the same way.

What we are trying to do with this set of standards is to encourage service buyers to distinguish themselves as fair buyers of services and, therefore, make themselves worthy partners of many of these freelancers as well.

We must also not forget that freelancers have agency, because as a self-employed person, they are technically their own bosses, so they have their own strategy and their own business strategy to decide how best they can engage with service buyers. And I think, in this space where it is competitive, we should allow competitive dynamics to take place, while allowing the standards to be adopted by both buyers and users of services to distinguish themselves as better partners, so that freelancers will work more preferentially with these companies.

For the second supplementary question on steps to ensure follow-through, I think that it is important that we continue to reach out to companies that are adopting these standards to help them understand what these standards are trying to achieve, what the standards entail, so that they understand the reasons behind adopting these practices and hope that both parties will abide by the contracts that they have signed, and ensure that if there are any disputes to the contract terms that have been signed, they can surface to TAFEP or Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), whichever the agency would be. And we can take actions against companies who may have violated their contracts.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I should declare that I have Clementi residents who are freelancers as well. Can I raise two supplementary questions to the Minister? The first question is, does the Ministry agree that the Public Service plays an important role in setting labour market norms and, in particular, aspirational norms and best practices?

And the second question is, does MOM have a sense of whether, at a whole-of-Government level, our agencies, our Ministries, our Statutory Boards, abide by the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons?

And lastly, in terms of approaching tenders and contracts with listed firms, would the Ministries consider this as another best practice in looking at the awarding of contracts as well?

Sir, the short answer to the Member's question is that, yes, the Public Service will lean forward, as far as possible, to ensure that we contract fairly with freelancers.

But I must say that through the years, since the introduction of the standards, there has been an increase in adoption across the board by many companies. For example, in 2018, when we first rolled out this standard, there were nearly about 470 companies that came on board these standards. In the year 2020, it increased to about 1,800 companies. And then, in the year 2023, it further increased to 2,600 companies.

So, I think, beyond the Public Service taking the lead, companies are indeed coming on board and adopting these standards to be better buyers of services. What we will need to do is to continue to engage with companies, continue to do outreach and especially, partner the NTUC as the ground unit that reach out to these freelancers and the companies, to help buyers and sellers of services to, in that sense, adopt these standards as a standard.

7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for FY2021 and FY2022 respectively (a) what is the total number of (i) group 2 cases, (ii) group 3 cases and (iii) group 4 cases that are handled by the Family Service Centres (FSCs); and (b) what is the total number of social workers employed by the FSCs.

Sir, cases with higher risk and complexity under the Family Service Centre Code of Social Work Practice (FSC-CSWP) are assigned higher CSWP groupings.

In Financial Years (FYs) 2021 and 2022, the total number of cases across all groups handled by the FSCs were about 20,500 and 18,900 respectively. Similar to previous years, about 73% of the cases in FY2022 were group 2, 22% were group 3 and about 5% were group 4 cases.

There were about 1,000 social workers managing cases in FSCs in FY2021 and FY2022.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think that looking at the data that was presented, it looks like there is an increasing number of caseloads, but a similar number of social workers.

Could I ask the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) whether they feel that there are sufficient social workers at this point, and if there is a shortfall, what are the plans to increase the number of social workers?

Mr Speaker, I think that the Member might have misheard me, because I mentioned that from FY2021, it was an aggregate total number of 20,500 cases and for FY2022, it was 18,900. If you compare these two years, actually, there was a decrease.

8 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry is considering a review of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act to explicitly prohibit greenwashing by businesses operating in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider funding community education programmes to raise awareness among consumers about greenwashing.

The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA, already protects consumers against businesses that make false or misleading claims about their products or services, including around greenwashing.

In November 2023, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) jointly developed a set of tips to help consumers better understand environmental claims made by suppliers or businesses. These can be found on both the CCCS website as well as the CASE website. The CCCS is also developing a set of guidelines to help businesses make more accurate environmental claims about their products and services.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

I thank the Minister of State for the response. I just have two supplementary questions.

My question really is on, how do we align this with our Singapore Green Plan? In terms of legislation, we are looking at businesses being a bit more ethical in their practices and being aligned with our Green Plan as well, but at the same time, they are also trying to make a living. So, that is one question – how are we going to get the legislation to move into being aligned the Green Plan?

The next question is, when we are advising our consumers, are they aware of the implication of this? Because a lot of the terms that are being used is very vague. So, I think in trying to get our population to be aligned with some of the initiatives that we are trying to do in terms of sustainability, it is important that we consider how we educate our consumers.

I thank Assoc Prof Razwana for her supplementary questions. In fact, indeed, these are all part of an overarching move for us within the Singapore Green Plan, to make both consumers as well as businesses understand. And as both consumers demand more of green supply chains and value chains, upstream as well as downstream, so too businesses have that understanding of consumer preferences as well. So, it is very much aligned.

If I can also supplement the answer to the Member's question, about both what we are trying to do upstream, in terms of consumer education, which the Assoc Prof had mentioned earlier on, as well as downstream. If you are a consumer, or if you are a business, how can you take concrete action? On the upstream, we have these consumer education tips that I mentioned, both by CCCS as well as CASE. Those are on the websites. I have just checked it out this morning. I think we can do a lot better. So, if Assoc Prof Razwana, other Members of this House and other members in the community can give us even more tips to enhance that, we would welcome those suggestions. These are more upstream.

The second upstream measure is also to develop these guidelines to better guide on the supplier side, to better guide suppliers on environmental claims that could amount to unfair practices, which are covered under the Act, the CCCS will seek public feedback on this in due course. So, we welcome the Member and also other Members to provide their feedback and suggestions on this. But, in general, we do advise suppliers to be very specific and accurate in their environmental claims and to ensure that all of these claims can be substantiated with credible evidence. So, that is on the upstream.

On the downstream, it is also important. So, if you were a consumer and you encounter what you think would be greenwashing claims made by businesses on your purchases, please do approach CASE for assistance. If there are egregious cases, where the business persistently engages in these unfair practices, CASE then can refer these to CCCS for further investigation.

On the other hand also, you might encounter some advertising which would be concerning. So, consumers may also report suppliers' advertisements which contain these potentially misleading or false environmental claims to the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS). ASAS administers the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP), and if the advertisement is objectionable under SCAP, ASAS may ask the advertiser to either men or to withdraw the advertisement altogether.

Finally, since my last oral Parliamentary Question reply in 21 March 2023 to the then Member Leon Perera, there have been four total complaints relating to greenwashing that have been presented to CCCS and CASE.

9 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health for vape users who participate in the I Quit programme (a) whether these participants have been offered immunity from criminal prosecution; (b) how many have benefited from this programme to date; and (c) what happens if the users are subsequently caught using vapes again.

Mr Speaker, the team that runs the I Quit programme does not presume that participants currently possess or use vaping products. So, participants need not worry that they will be fined or prosecuted, just for joining the I Quit programme or for turning up for the sessions. That said, I Quit participants are not immune from criminal prosecution with regard to the illegal possession or use of vaping products. If caught, they are subject to the same enforcement actions as other offenders.

A total of 112,000 participants have joined the I Quit programme since May 2014. The number is correct as of December 2023. The programme does not keep track of which participants are smokers or vapers.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you to Senior Minister of State for his response.

If I may build on his response. He mentioned that there is no presumption of guilt in terms of the usage of vaping products, but, surely he can see as well, that if an individual is currently using vaping products, the absence of some kind of immunity would potentially undermine the incentives for seeking to participate in the programme. But, by the same token, the other question that was asked was about penalties and here, I am concerned that if the penalties, were they to be caught after availing themselves to the programme, are too large. That in turn, will also discourage presumably the behaviour that the Ministry wishes – which is to encourage further cessation of usage of vapes.

Just to be clear, the question is whether there are publicity efforts to try to help those who want to give up, understand that potentially there will be no prosecution, if they were to surrender themselves? And what kind of penalties would be applied on them, were they to be subsequently identified as vapers?

Sir, for clarity, participation in the I Quit programme does not change the likelihood of prosecution or the penalties. I think Assoc Prof Lim understands that it is the current status quo. I think he is making a suggestion – that perhaps that should change, that either participation in the programme should change the likelihood of prosecution if someone confesses or comes clean, or he is suggesting that the penalties for such participants should be different as a result of their participation.

That is not the current situation, as I have explained in my answer. I thank him for his suggestion. And certainly, we want to continue to study ways to make the I Quit programme successful and improve the likelihood of people ceasing from smoking or vaping.

10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how long are passengers allowed to stay within the transit area of Changi Airport; (b) how are security checks performed to ensure passengers do not stay beyond the allotted duration within the transit area; and (c) whether the Ministry has stepped up its measures to prevent long-stay passengers at the transit area of Changi Airport, such as the incident in 2019 where two YouTubers had stayed for four days at the transit area of Changi Airport.

Passengers are allowed to stay within the transit area of the airport only if it is a temporary layover prior to a planned departure. Our security agencies conduct regular patrols and look out for people who may not have a valid reason to be in the transit area.

The Airport Police also engages the airport community, including through training, to get them to keep a lookout for suspicious behaviours and unattended items.

For example, transit lounge operators will report to the Airport Police when travellers entering the lounge do not have a valid air ticket for a departing flight. Airline staff will likewise alert the Airport Police when passengers do not turn up for their flight.

Lastly, the Airport Police works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to identify, through ICA's records, persons who may have been in the transit area without a valid reason.

Assoc Prof Lim.

Sir, just a quick clarification, that there is currently no stipulated time limit associated with staying in the area? The reason why I asked is because, naturally, if there is no fixed time that individuals are allowed to stay in the area, then it raises concerns about security, which is ultimately what inspired this question.

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Indeed, the transit passengers are allowed to stay in the transit area up to 72 hours to wait for their connecting flights. So, passengers departing from Singapore will be allowed entry into the transit area if their flight is departing within the next 24 hours.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

If for instance, there is a further delay in the flight for whatever unforeseen reason, there are some mechanisms to encourage these passengers to subsequently exit the transit area and enter into Singapore?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. These are things that depending on the scenario, we will engage the passengers accordingly and we will inform them. The airlines as well as the Airport Police and ICA will know the situation and will address it accordingly.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification with the Minister of State. So, does the ICA or the Airport Police track passengers who were, for example, scheduled to take a flight within the next 24 hours, and for some unforeseeable reasons, their flight was cancelled or postponed, and it goes beyond the 72 hours, is there a special mechanism to track such passengers?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Yes, indeed. We work very closely with the airline, the Airport Police and the community within the airport. So, I want to assure Members that we are aware of such situations if they arise and we will also work with the passengers to assure them that they can go to various places and not to worry about it.

11 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has approved Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) for use in public and private therapeutic settings; (b) how is the use of VRET being regulated and monitored currently; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to evaluate the effectiveness of VRET and, if so, when.

Mr Speaker, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) is a nascent form of psychological therapy that is not yet approved currently for the treatment of disorders in Singapore. Research is still being conducted to evaluate its effectiveness.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are other factors that the Commissioner of Police will take into consideration when determining whether conviction records under the repealed section 377A of the Penal Code should be rendered spent, in addition to whether it was a private activity and whether it was between consenting adults.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) previously informed the House that those whose records under section 377A have not been automatically rendered spent, may apply to the Commissioner of Police to have their records treated as spent.

Apart from whether the case was a private activity and whether it was between consenting adults, the other factors that the Commissioner of Police will consider will not be different from how he would have to assess other applications to render criminal records spent. These factors include the severity of the offence and the applicant's conduct subsequent to the conviction.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, could I ask exactly how many individuals have criminal records of conviction under section 377A that have not been considered spent? Second, if these people do apply for these records to be considered spent and are rejected, can I confirm whether the Police will provide reasons for the rejection?

I thank the Member for the question. In total, there have been 302 individuals convicted under section 377A. It is important to note that the large majority of these cases involved acts committed in public, committed against non-consenting victims or committed against a minor. Such conduct remains criminalised today through other offences.

We have not prosecuted anyone for private, consensual homosexual conduct between adults since 2007. We have also previously stated in response to media queries that based on our records, there are 17 persons who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private homosexual acts between adults who are still alive today, and five of these 17 individuals have already had their conviction records automatically spent after the five-year crime-free period.

The Police have not received any application from the public to have their section 377A record rendered spent, but the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sorry, Sir. I have a second question on whether MHA will provide reasons for rejection as well if these applications are rejected.

I would have to check on the specificity of this. But based on my recollection, MHA does not provide the reasons. But I will check and come back later on this.

13 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people in Singapore are currently diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); (b) what is the median age of persons diagnosed with ADHD; and (c) what financial support is available for persons living with ADHD who are (i) under 21 years old, (ii) between 21 years and 65 years old and (iii) older than 65 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, academic research has estimated the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children and adolescents to range between 5% and 8%, and among adults to range between 2% and 7%.

Children aged six years and below are eligible to receive subsidised consultations and therapy of up to 70% for ADHD under the Child Development Programme (CDP) at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital (NUH), if referred to the programme from polyclinics or from Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) general practitioner (GP) clinics. For school-going students aged seven years and above, school counsellors and special educational needs officers provide school-based interventions at no charge, in consultation with the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams when necessary. Cases requiring further medical attention will be referred by REACH to the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC), which offers subsidised consultations and therapy of up to 70%.

Eligible patients referred from polyclinics and CHAS GP clinics to public Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) for the management of ADHD can also receive means-tested subsidies of up to 70%. Singaporeans who face difficulties with their remaining bills can approach medical social workers for financial assistance, such as MediFund.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Given that an estimated 5% to 8% of children have ADHD of varying degrees in Singapore, this would be equivalent to about 38,000 to 60,800 children aged 14 and under. So, what proportion of these children have been treated for ADHD or currently undergoing treatment?

Second, ADHD symptoms typically appear between the ages of three and six years. Does the Ministry of Health (MOH) provide or fund training to parents or preschool teachers on how to identify symptoms of ADHD in children and provide guidance to their parents on how to seek professional help and financial support to get it diagnosed and treated early?

Lastly, what forms of psychoeducation are available in Singapore to help people with ADHD and their families learn about their condition, the treatment options and coping strategies, and are there any subsidies available to lower-income households for these interventions?

Sir, I thank Mr Giam for the questions. I will note that his five questions are related to the treatment of ADHD, and his original question was to do with some data statistics. So, I will try to answer the questions he has asked, partly on the basis of my prior professional experience rather than the data that I have been able to gather in advance of his Parliamentary Question.

We do not require the reporting of a diagnosis, such as ADHD. So, his first question on what proportion has been treated, we do not have the data because practitioners and parents are not required to report the suspicion of a diagnosis or the confirmation of a diagnosis. And so, we are unable to confirm a global national number on what proportions are treated. Individual clinics perhaps and, especially those clinics which are operating as part of an academic medical institution, will have institution-based or demographic-based data, but that does not represent the national database.

ADHD is one of a number of neurodevelopmental conditions that may manifest as an educational challenge or a neurodevelopmental challenge. So, parents certainly are supported in this as part of the consultations and the contact that they will have with healthcare workers and teachers around the neurodevelopmental progress and educational progress of their child. So, ADHD is not the only thing that is looked out for when a GP or community health professional looks at, for example, whether the child is reaching appropriate developmental milestones. But it is certainly one of the possible differential diagnoses in addressing whether a child is reaching the developmental milestones within an acceptably normal range. It is something that GPs, paediatricians and community health workers are trained for.

So, for parents, they are not explicitly taught the symptoms and signs of ADHD, just as they are not expected to know about pathologies and diseases. But when they engage in looking at their child, reading about developmental milestones, understanding whether their child is within that range of normality, this is actually one of the things that they are doing: is my child progressing through the normal neurodevelopmental stages? And so, if they have concerns and they approach the professionals that deal with these issues, ADHD is one of the differential diagnoses that they will be considering at the time. The financial support, as I have explained in my original reply, is available as part of the subsidy process that we have within our healthcare framework.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Can I just quickly clarify with the Senior Minister of State if the statistics that he offered for the prevalence apply to Singapore, because he referred to academic studies. So, it is not clear to me whether those were academic studies for just Singapore in particular or countries in general. And I ask this in part because my understanding is that diagnosis of not so much ADHD, but autism spectrum disorder (ASD) appear to be relatively higher in prevalence for advanced economies in general, including perhaps Singapore. So, I am just wondering whether there is this sense of comparing to other benchmark countries.

Sir, the studies that I quoted and looked at were international studies, not confined to the Singaporean population. But we have no reason to believe that they do not apply to our population base.

Ms Denise Phua.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOH would consider working closely with some very good non-profit organisations that are experts in ADHD, for example, such as SPARK and Unlocking ADHD. And I believe that the Ministry of Education and MOH are already in touch with them, and I wonder if the Government can work closer with them to study further how public education and strategies regarding ADHD can be promoted and, therefore, many more can be helped.

Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for those suggestions. Indeed, the answer is yes, we have met with them. I have met with them as well and we will continue to explore how we can raise the awareness of not just ADHD, but a wide range of neurodevelopmental conditions, so that we can detect them earlier but also provide the right type of support to the families that are dealing with these challenges.

14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the reporting mechanisms under the new workplace discrimination laws will allow employees to provide anonymous reports to the Ministry or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices against errant employers; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry has undertaken a study of such a reporting mechanism.

Sir, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) will follow up on anonymous reports under the planned Workplace Fairness Legislation on a best-efforts basis, similar to all other complaints of workplace discrimination today. TAFEP does not disclose the employee's identity to the employer. And to further reassure employees, the proposed legislation will require employers to implement processes to handle grievances by employees and protect the employees' identity. It will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees.

15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport on the rationalisation of bus routes (a) whether LTA applies quantitative criteria and conducts quantitative cost-benefit analyses; (b) if yes, what quantitative criteria are applied and what are the factors taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis; and (c) how are intangible factors, such as certain buses providing a less crowded alternative to trains, taken into consideration.

Mr Speaker, our public transport services are heavily subsidised by the Government, at more than $2 billion per year. This includes a subsidy of around $1 billion for trains and another $1 billion for buses. To keep our public transport system sustainable for all stakeholders, we had previously explained in this House that it is important to strike a balance between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.

This includes making changes to some of the existing bus services which run parallel to new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and have experienced significant reductions in their ridership levels when more commuters switch to taking the MRT. These assessments are done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account commuter travel patterns and the overall connectivity and resilience of our public transport network.

Sir, like Mr Giam, I also have residents who are affected when we make changes to existing bus services. It is certainly the more popular thing to do if we just keep all bus services intact, even if their ridership levels have fallen significantly, while adding new MRT lines and introducing new bus services and routes to serve residents from new estates.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Giam if he accepts that taking the above approach means the total costs of our public transport system will shoot up. And the cost increase will then result in higher fares for commuters and larger subsidies paid by taxpayers. This is the trade-off that we face, between providing convenience for commuters and keeping the overall costs affordable for commuters and taxpayers.

So, when we argue against changing existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines and have experienced significant reductions in ridership levels, we must also be honest in acknowledging that such proposals will come with a price tag. It is not correct to only focus on the convenience for some commuters without recognising that such an approach will end up with higher fares for all our commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to bear.

Mr Giam.

Sir, I have some supplementary questions for the Minister, and I will address his question after that.

Firstly, has the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted surveys of commuters, particularly elderly commuters, to gauge whether they prefer taking buses or the MRT for routes where both options are available, perhaps because it is less crowded and there is less walking required? And if so, what were the results and what were the reasons why one mode was preferred over another?

Secondly, does LTA factor these survey results in deciding whether to withdraw bus services that run parallel to new MRT lines?

In response to the Minister's question, I would also offer the point whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) has considered the cost to the economy, to our environment, if people avoid taking public transport and they choose to continue driving cars or taking other forms of private transport? That entails a cost as well and has MOT calculated the cost of that if, let us say, public transport is not as convenient or is perceived to be not as convenient as it was before?

Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam has not answered my question. I will still put it to him one more time because I do want to know what his position is – which is that, if we just do what is popular, we keep all the existing bus services intact, even when the ridership levels have fallen significantly, when they run parallel to new MRT lines and we keep introducing new bus services to serve new routes, to serve new residents from new estates, would that not then lead to overall cost for the public transport system increasing? And if so, then, that means that it would translate into higher fares for commuters and higher subsidies that all taxpayers have to pay. So, I would like to get a reply from Mr Giam on what his position is on my question.

Sir, in response to Mr Giam's questions, LTA would look at the bus changes very carefully. I think I have explained this to Mr Giam previously in this House. These are not decisions that we take automatically; just because there is a new MRT line that comes up, automatically or immediately you would remove some of these existing bus services. Because we understand that there is an impact on commuters.

So, therefore, we would have to look at whether there are other bus services that are serving these routes that run parallel to the MRT. So, we do not take away all existing bus services that run parallel to the new MRT lines. We do preserve some of the services. But in deciding which ones to retain and which ones to change, shorten or remove, these decisions would then have to be also based on the changes in commuter travel patterns. Because I think that is one of the most objective ways of assessing whether commuters still prefer to take this bus service or are commuters then switching to other bus services or are commuters switching to taking MRT.

So, for cases where the bus service has experienced a significant drop in ridership level because commuters are now shifting to other modes of public transport – not in the way that Mr Giam has described, in that they avoid taking public transport, I do not think that is the case because the overall public transport ridership level has not dropped. But what we see is people now switching to taking other bus services or they switch to taking MRT. And in some cases, when you switch to taking the MRT, it is actually faster for the commuter because the travelling time is more direct. And this includes walking, taking the bus and taking MRT. It is still faster than taking a direct, long trunk bus route.

Mr Giam.

Sir, I sense the Minister is trying to paint me as being a populist by calling for all buses to run parallel to the MRT lines. I never called for that. In fact, if the Minister has tracked the arguments I have made about this issue in the past two years, in my area in Bedok Reservoir, several buses were removed. I do not recall calling for the buses to be restored. But my focus was always on increasing the frequency of the remaining bus, which is Bus 228, which is still a live issue with my constituents because whenever I go down to the constituency, it is a very common feedback I get that the frequency of the bus is not enough and, because of that, they call for the bringing back of the other buses that were taken away.

But my argument to the Government has always been to increase the frequency of Bus 228. In contrast, Bus 167 was removed and now it has been brought back, possibly because of public pressure.

What was the second point that the Minister was asking me about? Does that answer the question that the Minister was asking me?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam, first of all, for acknowledging that – although not the most popular thing to do – it is necessary for us to make some changes to existing bus services which run parallel to new MRT lines so that we can reallocate the resources – the buses and the bus captains – to serve other areas, for example, new estates and new residents. They will need new feeder services. There will be new routes that will be required.

I just want to say that I did not call Mr Giam a populist. I thank him for acknowledging that point and for supporting the important principle of why we are facing this trade-off and why we need to make some of these changes.

Sir, in response to Mr Giam's point about Bus 228, indeed, we recognise that the changes do affect the commuters in the Bedok area, because when we shortened Service 22 and Service 66, which used to ply Bedok Reservoir Road, we retained Service 65 and, then, we also increased the frequency of Service 228 during the morning peak. And this is to serve commuters who travel between Bedok Reservoir Road and Bedok interchange, where there are other bus options.

Sir, I have previously mentioned to Mr Giam that if there are some specific local issues that his residents are facing with regard to how we can better improve bus connectivity and bus services, we will be happy to get his feedback and the LTA team can then assess how we can make some adjustments to better serve the commuters. So, that offer still remains.

Mr Giam.

Sir, I would like to address another point that the Minister made. He said that when there is a choice between taking MRT and a bus on a parallel route, it is faster to take the MRT in many cases. The lived reality for a lot of residents, especially the elderly, is that speed is not the highest priority. Very often, it is if they can walk less and there is a sheltered way all the way that they can take without having to get wet, they would prefer to take the bus rather than MRT. I am not saying that we do not get rid of the buses which have low ridership. But I think the fact is that we cannot just look in terms of efficiency, in terms of the speed of the trip, because different commuters have different priorities.

Mr Speaker, I think Mr Giam and I may not differ so much on that point. First, I did not say that we only look at efficiency and just because the MRT is a more direct and faster route, therefore, we remove all buses. I did not say that.

In fact, we deliberately, as I have explained, maintain and keep some of the bus routes that run parallel to MRT lines precisely because they are different commuters who require different options. But at the same time, we need to make some adjustments because the resources are finite and we do not want to have a situation where we just keep adding new bus services and new bus routes without actually reallocating some of the existing ones which have seen a drop in ridership levels. So, on that front, I do not think Mr Giam and I differ that much in terms of the approach that we want to take.

Order. End of Question Time.

Minister of State Sun, you wanted to clarify something?

Yes, thank you, Sir. Earlier, in response to Member Mr Louis Ng's Parliamentary Question, I had said that based on my recollection, for applications to render conviction records spent – where they were unsuccessful whether reasons will be given – I have since confirmed that what I said earlier is correct.

That is, we do not provide detailed reasons to the applicant and this stance is taken not just for applications to render 377A convictions spent, but for all types of applications to render records spent. [Please refer to "Determining Whether Conviction Records under Repealed Section 377A of Penal Code Should be Rendered Spent", Official Report, 16 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 123, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

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

Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) was incorporated by the IRAS Act in 1992, which set out IRAS' functions in tax administration. Over the last decade, IRAS has also taken on the complementary function of disbursing broad-based grants to businesses. These refer to grants where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum, and payouts are automatically disbursed without a need for businesses to apply.

Examples of such broad-based grants include the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and the Uplifting Employment Credit, which encourage firms to adopt progressive hiring practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, IRAS also played a pivotal role disbursing the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the Rental Support Scheme and the Small Business Recovery Grant to support our businesses to tide over the challenging economic conditions.

Sir, to give Members a sense of the magnitude of payouts that IRAS disburses annually, last year, it disbursed $4.6 billion of grants to more than 120,000 businesses. At the height of COVID-19 in 2020, IRAS disbursed six-times that amount to more than 150,000 businesses. Given the continued importance of this function, both in steady state and in crisis, the proposed amendments to the IRAS Act aim to formalise IRAS' role as a grant disbursement agency, alongside its role as tax administrator. It will grant IRAS new powers to investigate fraud and abuse and also to seek recovery of monies when there are erroneous disbursements.

Let me take Members through the key amendments.

The first key amendment grants IRAS the function of administering scheduled public schemes for and on behalf of the Government or any other statutory body. In the past, the power to disburse grants was granted to IRAS through subsidiary legislation. As disbursing grants becomes a larger part of IRAS' mandate, it is appropriate to include it as a key function in the IRAS Act.

The second key amendment enables IRAS to effectively audit and investigate cases of fraud and abuse of enterprise grants. With the increase in the number of grants disbursed, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of fraud cases. For instance, in 2022, the director and operations manager of a spa were convicted in Court for attempting to cheat IRAS into disbursing a JSS payout of approximately $50,000 during the pandemic in 2020. The duo had submitted false declarations and fake employment contracts for 28 individuals who did not perform work or receive salaries. Thanks to the vigilance of our IRAS colleagues, no disbursement was made as inconsistencies were detected in the documents provided.

As IRAS continues to enhance its capabilities to detect fraud, it currently lacks the legislative levers to investigate fraud and abuse pertaining to grants. Such cases have to be referred to the Police for investigation. To enable IRAS to be more effective in this role, we propose to amend the IRAS Act to provide IRAS with enforcement powers to investigate serious grant offences, including the power to access premises, conduct inspections, seize documents and make arrests. These enforcement powers are similar to existing powers under the Income Tax and GST Acts, where IRAS investigators are empowered to investigate tax offences.

We will also make it an offence to interfere with or refuse to comply with IRAS' investigation of serious grant offences. Those who are found guilty of the offence will be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. The amendments also set out the specific offences and punishments for obtaining or assisting another person to obtain a grant under the scheduled public schemes.

Depending on the severity of the offence, those convicted will be liable to a penalty equal to one, two or three times the amount of payout overpaid or would have been overpaid; and a monetary fine and/or imprisonment. These penalties are aligned with the penalties for similar offences under the Income Tax and GST Acts.

The third key amendment provides IRAS with the powers to recover overpaid grants as a debt due to the Government, and to impose interest on outstanding amounts beyond the prescribed payment period. These debts owed to the Government could arise from either fraud or abuse, or further data updates or data errors.

So, as I have shared earlier, most of the grants are disbursed automatically by IRAS, where Government administrative data is used to determine firm eligibility and grant quantum. This allows disbursements to be made promptly and businesses, especially our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), do not need to expend additional effort to make applications.

However, there could be errors discovered or further updates to the data after the monies have been disbursed, for instance, when a firm makes a genuine retrospective adjustment to its CPF contributions. As the eligibility assessment and grant quantum were computed based on outdated data, certain recipients might already have received more grants than they are entitled to.

When this happens, we propose that IRAS should have the power to recover the excess amounts from these recipients. As these are public funds, even if the error was no fault of the recipients, they have a responsibility to return the overpaid amounts. This can be done without penalties for recipients who are cooperative. The proposed legal powers, including the imposition of interest for late repayment, signal the serious nature of the issue and encourage firms to return any overpaid monies in a timely manner.

The remaining amendments to the Bill are operational and administrative in nature. They are to protect the identity of informers; allow IRAS to compound offences; allow service of documents by personal delivery or ordinary post; and allow a person to provide the documents and information required by IRAS for the investigation of an arrestable offence via electronic service.

Together, these powers allow IRAS to more effectively disburse the various grant schemes and mitigate the risk of fraud and abuse.

Sir, IRAS has and will continue to play an important role in the disbursement of grants and support to our enterprises. The proposed legislative amendments are necessary to empower IRAS to do so effectively. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, this Bill will allow the recovery of monies where grants are wrongly given, create offences for giving false or misleading information and allow the IRAS to exercise investigation and enforcement powers.

I have three sets of clarifications to raise.

My first clarification is on the recovery of wrongly given grant monies.

The Bill introduces offences for obtaining grants or assisting another person to obtain grants by giving false or misleading information. The Bill also allows IRAS to impose a penalty equivalent to or three times of the amount that would have been given under the grant. Can Minister clarify that if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant, is it possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender? In other words, even though only a single grant is or would have been wrongly disbursed, is IRAS entitled to recover a penalty from each and every individual prosecuted?

My second clarification is on the new offences for providing false or misleading information.

Different offences are set out under section 17F(1), section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) depending on the state of the mind of the offender, for instance, whether the offending is carried out negligently or willfully with intent to obtain the grant. The penalties and punishment that can be imposed is of varying severity depending on the section the prosecution is brought under. To provide guidance on how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised, can Minister provide illustrations on when the different provisions will apply?

The imprisonment term is three years for offences under section 17F(3) for negligently providing false information and section 17F(5) for providing false information willfully with intent. Can Minister clarify how the imprisonment term for section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) should be calibrated since the maximum imprisonment term is the same, but the culpability for offending under section 17F(5) is higher?

Lastly, on the new investigation and enforcement powers given to IRAS. With the new powers, can I check what steps will be taken to ensure that IRAS is prepared for the extended scope of powers.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, IRAS is the Government agency responsible for the administration of taxes and enterprise disbursement schemes. IRAS has been an efficient tax authority and has a consistently low cost of tax collection at less than one cent per dollar of tax collected over the past decade or so.

In recent years, this has come off quite significantly, to around 0.63 cents per for every dollar collected in FY2022, from 0.82 cents just two years ago. This perhaps is also reflective of the significant increases in IRAS' tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68.2 billion in FY2022, with FY2023 set to be another record year of tax collections, as we could soon find out in the upcoming Budget debate.

In my speech today, I will first touch on the broader picture in IRAS' role surrounding the administration of grants, before following up on specific provisions of the Bill.

IRAS today is already responsible for administering enterprise disbursement schemes and is, in fact, also designated as the Centre of Excellence for disbursing broad-based grants to enterprises. These include the administration of enterprise schemes, such as the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset. During COVID-19, IRAS also supported the administration of the Jobs Support Scheme, Jobs Growth Incentive, Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme.

As described in the explanatory statement of the Bill, the amendments aim to provide for the recovery of any money, credit, rebate or other grant under schemes introduced by the Government or a statutory body that are specified in the new Second Schedule of the Act from recipients that are not entitled to such monies. In other words, wrongly given grants.

To me, this begs the broader question, that had such recipients not cooperated with the Government in the past, were they legally entitled to retain these grants, given that these were given to them not as a result of deceit or fraud on the part of the recipients, but some form of administrative oversight or mistake on the part of the authorities?

There was the recent case of overpayments in the Jobs Support Scheme, where the wage support grants were erroneously paid to about 5,400 companies in October 2020 due to mistakes in computing the disbursements. These amounted to about S$370 million. Subsequently, it was reported that the Government has recovered over 99% of the S$370 million wrongly paid to companies, with the bulk of it recovered through offsets against firms' subsequent Jobs Support Scheme payouts, where applicable, as well as returns in cash by large enterprises.

The issue of overpayments was also an area that was highlighted in the thematic audit by the Auditor-General in its latest report, which looked at key COVID-19 grant schemes, the Jobs Support Scheme, the Rental Cash Grant and the Rental Support Scheme. This issue was also part of the discussions by the Public Accounts Committee which I am a member of.

In any case, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had updated the Committee that MOF and IRAS have taken steps to investigate and recover the overpayments, which made up less than 0.5% of total payouts across three schemes. Overpayments in relation to Government-funded entities were fully recovered.