Hansard, Thursday, 24 March 2016

Order. I wish to inform Members that pursuant to Standing Order No 102, I have on 18 March 2016 nominated Mr Christopher de Souza to be a Member of the Estimates Committee, to fill a vacancy that has arisen in that Committee.

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:

Mr Azmoon Ahmad;

Ms Chia Yong Yong;

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng;

Mr Ganesh Rajaram;

Mr Kok Heng Leun;

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin;

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan;

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan;

Ms K Thanaletchimi.

On 22 March 2016, President Tony Tan, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 22 March 2016.

The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below:

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member of Parliament).

I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this Parliament. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many single parents have successfully applied for a home under the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents) (ASSIST); (b) for cases where applicants had financial difficulties, how many were reviewed by HDB and what were the outcomes of the review; and (c) are there sufficient flats and temporary housing to meet the demand by single parents.

The Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents), or ASSIST, was introduced in May 2013. Up to May 2015, there were 230 applications from divorced or widowed parents under ASSIST. There are sufficient flats set aside for them each year, with 97%, or 223 of the 230 applicants, being successfully shortlisted to select a flat.

Eighty-five applicants under ASSIST had approached the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for financial assistance to purchase their flats. HDB helped over half of these applicants. Most needed help with paying the resale levy. HDB assesses the circumstances of each case and provides assistance wherever possible, for example, by incorporating the resale levy into the purchase price of the Build-To-Order (BTO) flat, so that the payments can be spread over a longer period of time. Of the remaining applicants, some wanted to buy a flat beyond their means. In such circumstances, HDB will advise them to buy a flat within their budget instead, while others were advised to defer the flat purchase until they were financially ready.

Low-income divorced or widowed parents who have no housing options or family support may be allocated public rental flats or interim rental housing. Those who have booked BTO or uncompleted SBF flats may also apply to rent a flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.

HDB reviews its policies and rental flat supply regularly to ensure that there are sufficient rental flats for such families. In 2015, about 800 divorced/widowed parents were assisted with various forms of rental housing, the majority being public rental.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I just have one follow-up question. With regard to the resale levy, I have been seeing a substantial number of residents persistently asking for help with the resale levy incorporated into their loans. There is an increasing risk of them being unable to pay the resale levy in full before purchasing the flat. What other plans does HDB have to help because these requests for resale levy increase over time?

Mdm Speaker, in terms of HDB's priority, it is to ensure that people who want to purchase a flat are buying it within their means and not add a further financial burden. For such cases, wherever possible, we will try to incorporate the resale levy just to spread it over a longer period, so that they will find the payment of the instalments much more bearable on a monthly basis. For those cases where, clearly, even with incorporation of the resale levy, they will find it unaffordable, then I think the right thing to do would be to give them financial counselling and advise them to defer the purchase to a later date.

2 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB can review the eligible income criteria for HDB rental flats, especially for families with children affected by divorce settlements; and (b) whether HDB can give special priority to families with school-going children in applications for HDB rental flats or units under the Sale of Balance Flats scheme.

Mdm Speaker, the income ceiling and other eligibility criteria for rental flats are reviewed from time to time. At $1,500 per month of income, the current income ceiling enables us to prioritise our rental flat supply for low-income households.

Nevertheless, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) exercises flexibility to allow some families with higher income to get a public rental flat, if they have no family support and no other viable housing options. These include divorced parents with children.

HDB also grants priority allocation of rental flats on a case-by-case basis to families with school-going children, for example, to accommodate arrangements for the care of these children. Even without priority allocation, the waiting time for a rental flat has been reduced substantially from 21 months in 2008 to four months in 2015.

For Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises, HDB already gives priority to families with children through the Third Child Priority Scheme (TCPS) as well as the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS).

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the answer. My follow-up question is: can HDB give priority to families who are not purchasing from the SBF scheme as a first purchase? Basically, they are second-timers.

Mdm Speaker, can I clarify with the Member again what is his follow-up question?

Madam, I have come across cases of many families where they would like to buy from the SBF scheme, but it is not their first purchase – it could be their second or third purchase. Would priority be given to these families as well?

Mdm Speaker, in HDB's planning norms, what we want to do is to allow first-timers to have a greater priority in home ownership. Second-timers have already owned an HDB flat before and so, in that instance, they will not be given priority above first-timers.

3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) granted after 30 September 2014; and (b) what are the annual number and percentage of unsuccessful LTVP+ applications since LTVP+ was introduced.

The Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) was introduced on 1 April 2012 as an enhancement to the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) scheme. The LTVP+ grants long-term stay to foreign spouses of Singaporeans whose marriages have been stable over time.

During the period 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2015, a total of 12,743 foreign spouses were granted LTVP and another 5,879 foreign spouses were granted LTVP+.

There is no separate application process for LTVP+. Singaporeans can apply for LTVP or LTVP+ for their foreign spouses through the same process. Foreign spouses who meet the criteria will be granted LTVP+. Those who do not meet the LTVP+ criteria but meet the LTVP criteria would be granted LTVP.

Since the introduction of LTVP+ on 1 April 2012, an average of 16,738 LTVP/LTVP+ applications have been received annually, of which about 88% were successful. There may be a number of reasons why an application is unsuccessful. These include the ability of the Singaporean spouse to support the family financially, or the length of marriage.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Are there plans to increase any benefit for LTVP+? I understand that they are also not counted as part of the foreign worker quota for employers.

They are not currently counted as part of the foreign worker quota requirement if they successfully apply for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Letter of Consent. There are no immediate plans to increase the benefits of the LTVP+ holders. LTVP+ holders currently enjoy a greater certainty of stay here, with longer periods of residency compared to LTVP holders. Each LTVP+ allows its holder to stay for three to five years and LTVP+ holders already enjoy healthcare subsidies at a level similar to Permanent Residents (PRs). They also enjoy employment concessions, with Letters of Consent from MOM, and, like PRs, they will not be counted in the foreign worker quota. The employers are also not required to pay the foreign worker levy for them.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether both the LTVP and LTVP+ holders are eligible to get a Letter of Consent from MOM and can look for jobs with any employer in Singapore. That is the first matter. The second question is: should they encounter rejections from employers who say that they cannot employ them, even with a Letter of Consent, notwithstanding other possible reasons, what should they do?

Because one of the feedback has been that employers still consider them as foreign workers and say that it is really troublesome to hire them. That is not very helpful when they are also trying to work to supplement their household income and working towards gaining PR status so that their citizen families – generally, the majority are citizen families – can stay intact and remain stable in Singapore.

I thank the hon Member for the feedback. From the policy point of view, it is very clear that once the person is given the Letter of Consent, he or she is not counted as part of the foreign worker quota and there is no levy imposed on the foreign workers with LTVP or LTVP+. As to why they are not employed, there could be plenty of reasons. It is important to highlight specific cases to MOM for further investigation.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have a question regarding the application process for LTVP and LTVP+. For applicants, for example, who have Singaporean children – one or two children or even more – are they regarded any differently in terms of the application process? Is the process, perhaps, expedited for such situations?

I ask because I have seen quite a few families, where the father is a citizen and the child is a citizen, and the mother had been trying but had not been able to get an LTVP. Could the Parliamentary Secretary shed some light on this, please?

I thank the Member for the question. Applications for LTVP+ are considered holistically based on a range of factors. These include the duration of the marriage and whether the couple have children from the marriage and the ability of the Singaporean sponsor to support the family.

So, it is a range of factors. It is difficult to give the Member an assurance that once you have children, you will automatically get an LTVP. The point is that it is a whole basket of factors that needs to be considered.

Coming back to the question of the "unsuccessful rate", the Parliamentary Secretary just mentioned about the financial capability of the spouse. Besides that, are there any other major reasons for the rejection?

There are many factors and they include also whether there are any adverse records of the person applying for an LTVP and, as I have mentioned, it includes the ability to support as well as the stability of the marriage. So, there are various factors.

Just a couple of supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. I understand that one of the criteria for granting an LTVP+ is whether the marriage is stable. That is a sound criterion. I would like to ask whether we can be more transparent and more definitive in terms of what is considered "stable marriage". Is it three years or two years? If that could be spelt out, it would provide a lot of certainty to the entire family.

My other question is a suggestion for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider: if there is such a criterion, whether attempts could be made so that for those who have met that criterion are automatically upgraded from LTVP to LTVP+, without the need to apply. So, I hope to get the Parliamentary Secretary's clarification.

I thank the Member for the question. There are no plans at this stage to define what a stable marriage is. It is not a very easy thing to define how stable the marriage is. One of the factors we look at is the length of years of the marriage. But there are also various factors including the record of the applicant who is applying, in terms of how many times he or she had been married. It is not easy to put out a set of criteria and say "This is the set of the criteria and this is it". But the suggestion is taken; the need for transparency is something we will take very seriously.

As for the second question, it is currently in the same process. It is considered in the same way. When you apply for an LTVP, as I mentioned during my reply just now, that is the same process for LTVP and LTVP+. So, if they qualify for LTVP+, they will be given LTVP+.

Mr Louis Ng. Last question.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for clarifying the factors for consideration when people submit their applications. I just wonder if the Ministry could share this with the applicants as well because I have seen the rejection letter and it just says, "The application is rejected." For example, if it is a financial consideration, then maybe that is something that the applicant's spouse can do to increase the salary. When we just say, "It is rejected", it is hard for us to write the appeal letter and hard for the applicants as well.

I thank the Member for the suggestion. I will take it up with the Ministry.

4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider requiring environmental audits according to international best practices to be done on firms in which GIC and Temasek Holdings have a financial interest and which firms can potentially be contributing to the haze problem.

The Minister has previously responded to the Member on the same topic. As stated earlier, the governance arrangement between the Government and our investment entities is that the individual investments are the responsibility of their respective management teams, while the Government monitors the performance of their overall portfolio. The investment activities of GIC and Temasek Holdings are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Investing in companies with environmentally unsustainable practices could negatively impact the commercial value of the investments over the long term.

GIC and Temasek have informed us that they do not have investments in such companies causing the haze.

Temasek has stated that it fully supports zero-burning policies for land clearance and would urge companies and plantation owners to support and implement responsible and sustainable practices in their operations and supply chains.

GIC has also informed the Government that the palm oil companies in Indonesia that GIC invests in have confirmed that they observe zero-burning policies for their plantations. Some of these companies are working towards certifications that require adherence to zero-burn practices. GIC's investment teams engage actively with the companies' management and highlight to them that such responsible actions are important to maintain the long-term value of the companies.

The Government will continue to monitor the haze issue and take further steps if necessary.

5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current breakdown of Employment Pass, S Pass and Work Permit holders and the resident workforce in the tech and IT sector; and (b) what are the efforts to ensure that foreign manpower is not over-represented in this sector and the efforts to promote more locals to join the sector.

Mdm Speaker, the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector employed 125,300 workers in 2015, comprising about two-thirds resident workers and one-third work pass holders who are mostly Employment Pass holders.

The Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) estimated that in 2014, there was a shortage of about 15,000 ICT professionals. With the rapid advancement and widespread adoption of technology in Singapore's push to become a Smart Nation, further demand for ICT manpower will continue to be strong both in terms of numbers and the range of skills and expertise needed. IDA estimates that by 2017, another 15,000 specialists may be required, especially in growth areas such as software and application development, network and infrastructure, cyber security and data analytics.

To help more Singaporeans benefit from the growth of career opportunities in ICT, IDA and the industry are working together to formulate the Sectoral Manpower Plan. Our objectives are to (a) sustain the global competitiveness of the sector; (b) achieve manpower-lean growth; (c) develop a strong Singaporean Core; and lastly (d) to foster a highly-skilled and complementary foreign workforce. More details will be released during the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI)'s Committee of Supply (COS).

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am also very encouraged that the Ministry for Manpower (MOM) has consistently gone after the "double weak" companies. So, I would like to ask the Minister if he has observed any "double weak" companies in the ICT sector and what are the actions against these "double weak" companies?

Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes. More details will be disclosed during MOM's COS.

I thank the Minister for the reply. For the IT sector, the Labour Movement has been receiving a lot of feedback from the ground, about concerns in terms of visuals and the proportion. And I am glad that the Minister shared that there is a two-third/one-third kind of proportion in the sector. But of course, there are specific companies, as what the hon Member Desmond Choo has shared, that they are "double weak"; sometimes even "triple weak".

So, I suggest that MOM take this seriously and be more rigorous as well as more resolute in measures against those companies which really demonstrate themselves to be "double weak" and are still recalcitrant.

Mdm Speaker, in this House, I spoke on what we call the "double weak" companies. "Double weak" refers to those companies who have a very weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to nurture a future Singapore Core. So, I agree with the Member that we ought to take this seriously. In fact, MOM has already initiated action against the "double weak" companies.

As I had mentioned, this will be an on-going process to ensure that Singaporeans – whether it is ICT sector or all other sectors, whether rank-and-file workers or professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) – will be given fair consideration in recruitment, development and career enhancement. As I have mentioned earlier, during MOM's Committee of Supply (COS), I will share more information on our action plan forward.

Minister, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) sometime ago which also talks about this. I suggested that beyond the stick approach, we should also have the carrot approach. Perhaps, your answer may be that "this will be addressed at the COS". I certainly hope so, so that we consider recognising companies which are good role models through the COS with some good announcements for them.

Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes again. On one hand, there are "double weak" companies; on the other, there are also "double strong" companies. So, please wait for my reply at the COS. [Laughter]

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is aware of companies circumventing the employment ratio of local to foreign workers by offering lower grade jobs to locals and using the quota to recruit foreigners for supervisory jobs; (b) how many companies have been found indulging in such practices in the past five years; and (c) what action has been taken against them.

Mdm Speaker, the number of Work Permit and S Pass holders that a company may employ is capped based on the number of locals it employs. In a tight labour market, companies will have to compete for local workers to be eligible for foreign workers. To help locals upgrade to better jobs and careers, the Government has put in place various initiatives to improve their skills and help them progress in their job ladders.

Employers who do not treat their local workers fairly will not only be less able to attract and retain them, but also risk violating the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations which stipulate that employers are required to provide fair employment opportunities to Singaporeans.

We wish to remind all employers that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes a serious view of all forms of employment discrimination. We partner with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to look into complaints where Singaporeans are not considered fairly for jobs or promotion, at both the rank-and-file and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) levels. If the complaints are substantiated, their work pass applications will be subjected to greater scrutiny and their work pass privileges may even be suspended.

Members of the public who are aware of such unfair practices should report them to MOM or TAFEP for investigation.

I thank the Minister for the reply. TAFEP has been doing important work in ensuring that we address the problem of workplace discrimination, especially when it comes to hiring of foreign workers. Will the Ministry consider enhancing the capabilities of TAFEP to go beyond promotional work?

Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes. Please wait for my reply at the Committee of Supply (COS).

Mr Saktiandi, do you want to wait for the COS? You still want to ask a question? Yes, please.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I just have a specific question. In the Minister's experience in dealing with the incidents over the past decade or years, could he share specific industries, for example, that have been flouting some of these rules?

Mdm Speaker, TAFEP, over the last three years, has received about 1,400 complaints. Among the list of complaints, the majority, about 70%, are nationality-related. Whenever we come across employers who may adopt some practices which treat the local workers unfairly as against the foreign workers, TAFEP would take action. For example, some of them would receive a letter of warning from MOM. Some would have their application for work pass come under closer scrutiny. In some cases, we would actually curtail their rights to employ foreign workers, including suspension. I would say, on the whole, we do our best as and when we are aware of such unfair practices.

Having said so, I also want to share with the House that we should not jump to the conclusion that simply because the local workers are made to report to foreign workers, the company has done something wrong. We have to be mindful that in our workforce today, we have two-thirds local and one-third foreign workforce. There are industries where the higher level positions are held mainly by locals. For example, if you come to our manufacturing plant, most of the PMET jobs, 70% to 80%, some cases 90%, are all held by local workers. And yet, at the production level, a vast majority, 70% to 80% are held by foreign workers.

In other words, there will be cases where we need the foreign workers to enable us to sustain operations at a higher level, and vice versa. There will be areas whereby we do need to create jobs for our rank-and-file workers as well.

Therefore, at MOM, we do not jump to the conclusion whether it is right or wrong when foreign workers are asked to report to local workers, or local workers are asked to report to foreign workers. We do not look at it as a problem. But it will become a problem if this happens not because of anything else but discrimination. That is where MOM and TAFEP will come in, take it very seriously and take firm action against them.

As I mentioned earlier, if Members of this House come across any unfair practices based on discrimination, please do not hesitate to alert TAFEP and we will take firm action.

7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence what are the punishments that have been given to the two SAF officers for their roles during a training exercise in 2012 in which a National Serviceman died as a result of an allergic reaction to smoke grenades after their conviction under military law.

Mdm Speaker, let me first describe the general approach and then answer the specifics that the Member has asked for, in relation to injuries or deaths that occur during training in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

Every injury or death to one of our Servicemen is an occasion marked by sadness and regret for the whole SAF family. Our SAF commanders know that the sons of families entrusted to them during National Service (NS) are precious. Even as they are responsible to train them to raise and maintain a credible and decisive SAF to defend Singapore, our commanders are clear that they need to do this as safely as possible.

Our safety standards are among the highest for militaries globally and I am not talking just subjective assessments. If you look at training injuries, training deaths and you compare them with similar militaries in a peacetime posture, our safety standards are credible. SAF will endeavour to do its utmost to train safely but, realistically speaking, all of us recognise that in military organisations, injuries and deaths can happen despite the best efforts. Each time an injury or death occurs, we must ensure that independent and impartial investigative processes are instituted to determine the key facts, arrive at appropriate conclusions, take the corrective measures to ensure that mistakes, if any, are not repeated. This includes punishing those held responsible for reckless and negligent acts that have led to the death or injury.

Like civilians, SAF Servicemen can be charged and punished in the civilian criminal Courts even if the acts were committed in the course of duties but amount to criminal offences under general law. So, they are not protected.

Let me cite two recent cases as examples. The names are on public record for these two cases but I shall not repeat them today, so as not to resurrect painful memories for the families involved. In 2011, a Lance Corporal was killed when a truck reversed into him. He was unloading stores from that truck. The driver of the truck was charged in the criminal Courts for an offence of causing death by a negligent act under section 304 of the Penal Code. He was tried in Court and the Court fined him $3,000 – no detention. The Company Sergeant Major involved in that accident was not prosecuted by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The Attorney-General decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in the criminal Courts. SAF charged him under military law for failing to ensure that the Servicemen kept a safe distance away from the vehicle as the supervising officer. He was fined.

A second example: in 2012, an SAF vehicle overturned during an exercise, causing the death of a passenger. The Conducting Officer who appointed a Serviceman to drive the military vehicle even when he knew that the Serviceman did not have a driving licence, was convicted in the criminal Courts and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as he was found to have committed a rash act and attempted to pervert the course of justice.

Let me reiterate that in these two cases, in all cases, prosecutions of SAF Servicemen in criminal Courts are based on findings and conclusions as determined by judicial processes outside SAF, namely, the Coroner's findings of the factual cause of death, and AGC which decides if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute Servicemen. It is then up to the criminal Courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and, indeed, deems them necessary so that our SAF Servicemen are held accountable for their actions. All these processes were applied in the tragic death of the late Private (PTE) Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron.

In the case of PTE Lee, which the Member has asked about, Mdm Speaker, a Coroner's Inquiry was held in August 2013. The death occurred in 2012. The Coroner's Inquiry is an open hearing, accessible to the public and the media. The family of the late PTE Lee and their legal counsel were also present and were given opportunities to address any questions that they might have relating to PTE Lee's death to the Court. They were also allowed to pose questions to the two SAF officers involved during the hearing.

The Coroner's full findings and conclusions are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the Court. The family has a copy of the Coroner's full findings and conclusions. Let me provide some details. The Coroner concluded that PTE Lee's death was due to "an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes." It "could not be definitive whether in the deceased's case the reaction was due to the inhalation of excessive fumes or the mere inhalation of fumes" at paragraph 77 of the Coroner's findings. In his findings, the Coroner also opined that it was clear that the deceased's allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted", at paragraph 66 of the Coroner's findings. Because of these findings and conclusions, AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted.

AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to consider taking disciplinary action against the Servicemen who had breached Training Safety Regulations (TSR). If there were sufficient grounds to deem the Servicemen criminally liable for PTE Lee's death, they would have been prosecuted in the criminal Courts, as the AGC had done in previous cases cited above.

Following the AGC's decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching safety regulations. They were also punished with penalties consistent with other Servicemen who have committed similar offences, through fines and delay in promotion. Both officers have suffered a setback in their careers. The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries.

For MINDEF and SAF, when training incidents occur, we have to rely on our judicial system to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required. It would be wrong and unfair to punish SAF Servicemen beyond the level of offence committed which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. The level of punishment has to take into account the Coroner's findings that PTE Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted.

Let me give Members some details about allergy to zinc chloride – the cause of death for PTE Lee. Allergy to zinc chloride from smoke grenades is known but rare, which is why till today, many militaries still use this type of smoke grenade, including the US military and the Republic of Korea. In the SAF's own history, we have been using this type of smoke grenades. Members of the House here who had done NS would have tested it. We have been using this type of smoke grenade for over 30 years and hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been exposed to it and this is our first and only case.

Unfortunately, there is no reliable test recommended by health experts to diagnose allergy to zinc chloride. After the safety review following this case, SAF switched to alternatives which do not release zinc chloride fumes. We did that in March 2014. While SAF has decided to do so, let me point out that there is no safety requirement internationally that precludes the use of such smoke grenades. Indeed, other militaries, as I have said, continue to use it and this underscores the fact that allergy to zinc chloride is rare so that the militaries have chosen to continue their use and accept that risk.

Mdm Speaker, this is a tragic loss of life, unexpected and unintended. The two SAF officers involved will carry with them the pain of this incident for the rest of their lives. But I do not believe that they started that fateful day intending at all to harm the soldiers under their charge. These are not the values of our SAF commanders. But regardless of their intent, over the course of an open inquiry where the family was present, all the findings presented, the Coroner's Inquiry (CI) did not find that their actions were reckless and negligent, but that the allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted". Therefore, AGC decided that the officers would not be prosecuted in criminal Courts.

As sad and tragic as this incident has been, we must do right for all involved. I feel very sad for the family members of PTE Lee and I know that all Members here feel that. Some of us have experienced losing a loved one and we can feel and empathise with the pain losing someone so young in his life. We feel very sad for them for their great loss. My personal prayers go to the family for peace and comfort, even as they continue to deal with this difficult and tragic loss of a loved one.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answers. I have a few supplementary questions.

First, the Minister mentioned about delayed promotion. Can the Minister explain to the House, normally, after an officer has been convicted under military law, what would be the time period that he would be held back for promotion?

Secondly, will the Government consider amending section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act to allow certain situations of liability instead of the current absolute waiver from liability for all claims attributable to service? I can give a few examples for consideration: the waiver can be limited to actual operations and should not apply to training, or when a death or personal injury occurred as a result of omission from observing Training Safety Regulations (TSRs), or when negligence of an officer has some causal connection with the death or personal injury. Would MINDEF amend this law at least to reduce the possible moral hazard of any officers not taking sufficient care and caution in abiding by established TSRs during training exercises?

Mdm Speaker, the Member has asked about the punishment in terms of delays in promotions. I do not have the full slate of details, but the general rule is the punishment must match the offence. The Member is a lawyer. So, it is quite self-evident that there are equivalents to determine the level of culpability, the severity of the offence and the delays in promotions and fines are commensurate. I presume that in law, in the Courts, they have to stack it against a whole range of offences that makes sense as an overall system. I have tried to give one measure in which the delay in promotion amounted to half the annual salary.

The Member has asked about the Proceedings Act. That is something which, if the Member feels strongly about, he can put up a Motion to amend the Act.

The nub of the issue is this: how much protection should we give to our security forces when they are doing their job? The Member gave examples. Members can think of their own. A policeman chasing a potential suspect whom he thinks is going to commit harm, discharges a firearm, hits someone else. If our military officer or military Servicemen who now make patrols in Changi Airport and Jurong Island, and if they see a significant threat, and they are tasked to protect that place or island, do they discharge the firearm? Do they stop the person? Or will they hold back, thinking, "If I make a wrong decision, then, I am on my own." And there is a civil suit; not trivial. Think about what happened at the Shangri-La Dialogue.

Twenty-eight defence ministers in that hotel; either defence ministers or deputy defence ministers. I went to Shangri-La Dialogue that year, early in the morning, 7.00 am, my car was diverted. They said, "Possible incident". They were not sure of the facts, possible bomb explosion because despite all the concrete barricades, a car had attempted to rush through the concrete barricade. What do you do if you were in charge; if you are meant to secure the place? You think, "Well, I am not protected if I make a mistake." Our Home Team did the right thing. And I said so in my Facebook post after that; I commended them. Think of the consequences.

In this case, the facts came out subsequently. It was a drug offence-related incident. For whatever reasons, they were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. How do the guards know? Suppose it was an explosive in the trunk of the car, gone through the barricades, crashed into the hotel. The loss of lives, the loss of reputation, the loss of confidence in our ability. You want to give our security forces the confidence that when they do their job and when they do it without recklessness or negligence, that the Government Proceedings Act protects them.

This is not the place to fully discuss this. As I have said, if the Member feels strongly, he can put up a Motion. Central to the question is what the Member talked about – moral hazard. There is less of a moral hazard because the SAF Servicemen know that if they act in a rash and negligent way, they are not protected. I have shown you the examples. The AGC can prosecute them in the criminal Courts. If you look at the cases that have been prosecuted, they have gone to jail. I have cited two; there are others. It does not give us joy when there is a fatality and our Servicemen go to jail. Because we know that they were trying to do the job, yet, somewhat enthusiastic. We send a signal that this is wrong and they get on with their lives after that. They are discharged from service.

There is always a balance to maintain. The Member says, "Why not lift it from training?" You can train at one place and expect your security forces to ramp up their capabilities when in real operations. There is a saying, "If you don't sweat in training, you will spill blood in real operations." You have to make your training realistic so that when they meet those circumstances – like the guard who fired at the car and stopped the car in time. Do you think you can get that level of proficiency if they think they are not protected during training?

This is something for the House to debate and for Singaporeans to decide. To be fair, other countries have done away with it and many of them have regretted it. There is always a balance. For this case, it is tragic, it is unexpected, it is unintended, full processes were complied with. If the Member feels that other aspects can be looked at, he can raise it. I have looked at the facts very carefully. I think we have done right by everyone. We are, of course, sad, but we need still to do what is right for the entire system.

8 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Defence (a) what are the forms of assistance schemes available to National Servicemen who suffer a recurrence of injuries sustained during his service period; and (b) whether there is a limit set in terms of the amounts and tenures.

Madam, the safety and well-being of our National Servicemen are of utmost importance to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). We make every effort to minimise the risk of injury during service. If a serviceman is injured in the course of service, we will ensure that he receives the necessary assistance and support.

We will pay for all medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the service-related injury at Government and restructured hospitals or clinics, including the cost of medical supplies and equipment. This applies as long as treatment is required, even after the Serviceman has left service or if the injury recurs.

We will also provide compensation if the service-related injury results in permanent disability. This will be equivalent to the lump-sum compensation prescribed under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). The amount is doubled for disabilities that result from military training or operations. Additional amounts are also provided for total permanent disability.

Other forms of assistance schemes available to National Servicemen include the SAF Benevolent Fund and the SAF Care Fund, which provide welfare support to injured Servicemen and their families. The amounts disbursed are based on the financial circumstances and needs of these Servicemen.

Two grants are provided under the SAF Benevolent Fund. They are the Benevolent Grant and the Welfare Benevolent Grant. The Benevolent Grant is a one-off $12,000 financial grant provided to meet the immediate needs of the families of Servicemen who have sustained permanent disability. The Welfare Benevolent Grant provides mid-to-long term assistance for injured Servicemen. This grant provides financial support of up to $42,000 per annum to defray the family's cost of living. Depending on the Servicemen's circumstances, additional assistance for education and medical needs may also be provided. Eligibility for the Welfare Benevolent Grant is re-assessed every two years and we do not set a limit on the number of renewals.

Two other grants are also provided under the SAF Care Fund. They are the Helping Hand Grant and the Care Support Grant. Injured Servicemen may apply for a one-off Helping Hand Grant of up to $5,000 and a monthly $300 Care Support Grant. Eligibility for the Care Support Grant is re-assessed every three years and we do not set a limit on the number of renewals.

9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of IDA's announcement of 15,000 vacancies in the tech and IT sector (a) what kind of jobs are these; (b) which companies/industries will these jobs be found; (c) at what level of the organisation hierarchy are these jobs set; and (d) what are the skills required for these jobs.

Madam, the 15,000 vacancies were based on the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)'s latest annual survey on infocomm manpower for 2014, which is conducted with companies to track the state of infocomm jobs in Singapore. The 15,000 vacancies in 2014 were unchanged from 2013 and translate to an average vacancy rate of 9%. These vacancies were not just from the tech and information technology (IT) sector, but also from companies in other sectors, such as banking and finance, that employ infocomm professionals.

More than two-thirds of these vacancies were for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) or technical specialists in areas, such as development, network and infrastructure, cybersecurity and data analytics. The rest of the vacancies were mainly in sales and marketing and infocomm operation job roles.

The requirements of each job type differ. Development jobs require skills in various programming languages, as well as in emerging areas like agile method and user experience. Cybersecurity, network and infrastructure jobs require relevant industry certifications. Data analytics professionals require skills, such as statistics and machine learning.

Demand for technical specialists has been growing by 6.3% annually from 2011 to 2014. We expect this growth to continue, given Singapore's push towards becoming a Smart Nation.

Madam, I will share more about the new infocomm manpower programmes at the Committee of Supply 2016 debate.

10 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs for each year between 2013 and 2015 (a) what is the total amount of monies that have been disbursed from the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF); (b) how many organisations or agencies have benefited from this Fund; and (c) to what purposes have the monies been utilised.

Madam, MENDAKI's Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund, or MMCDF, was set up to support community initiatives by Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs) in areas such as education, youth, social assistance and employability.

Nearly $10 million was disbursed through MMCDF between 2013 and 2015. Fifty-three MMOs benefited from the Fund in 2013, 51 in 2014, and 62 in 2015.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, can the Minister provide the number of funding applications received by the MMCDF Committee for 2013, 2014 and 2015? Secondly, I just want to clarify whether mosques are allowed to tap on MMCDF for their social programmes.

Madam, I do not have the figures for the three years, but I would be happy to provide the Member with the figures when I have them. Mosques do not qualify because they are not considered to be MMOs, but there have been instances where MMOs work in partnership with mosques and apply for funding from MMCDF.

11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many homes are there currently that cater for adults with intellectual disabilities and what are their respective capacities; and (b) in the past three years, what has been the average waiting time to get into such homes.

Madam, Adult Disability Homes cater to adults with disabilities requiring long-term residential care. They also provide short-term respite care for caregivers. There are six Adult Disability Homes providing 650 places for adults with intellectual disability.

Over the past three years, the average waiting time between referral to enrolment into Homes ranged between six and 12 months. The waiting time is dependent on a number of factors, including availability of a space in the home, urgency of need, caregivers' specific preferences and readiness for assimilation into a residential care environment. For those requiring urgent admission, the typical waiting time is less than a month.

Besides Adult Disability Homes, there are other residential services for adults with intellectual disabilities. These include the Adult Disability Hostel and the Community Group Home for those who are higher functioning. For adults with intellectual disabilities who, with some support, are able to live with their caregivers, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) also funds home-based and community-based care services.

MSF will continue expanding the range of home, community and institutional-based care options to meet varying needs of adults with disabilities. For example, by end-2017 there will be a new Adult Disability Home located at Sembawang Walk with a provision of 180 places.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I think all will agree with me that taking care of those with intellectual disabilities is very challenging, and to wait for six to 12 months is a very long wait. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where there is any possibility to further shorten the waiting time for such cases?

Recently, I met with a resident whose caregiver had just passed away. The family had been hunting around and could not find a home for their brother who is intellectually disabled.

I thank the Member for the question. We recognise the growing demand for adult care services due to the ageing population, shrinking family size and increased life expectancy of persons with disabilities.

Overall, we are planning to increase the number of places to 1,600 by 2018. We are also reviewing the continuum of services to our clients and caregivers so that we can care for these people with better facilities and services. So, if the Member is interested to locate one in Nee Soon South, we can explore such an avenue.

12 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many homeless cases have been identified by the Ministry every year between 2005 and 2015; (a) whether there have been studies conducted to devise solutions to mitigate this issue; and (c) what is the Ministry's strategy and approach in tackling this problem.

Madam, from 2005 to 2015, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) provided assistance and support to an average of 300 cases each year. Some of these families and individuals were able to return to their own homes or families. They may be provided with financial or other forms of assistance. For those who were destitute and lacking in family support and means to fend for themselves, MSF would typically extend housing support through the Welfare Homes and Transitional Shelters which we fund.

In 2014, MSF conducted a study on families in transitional housing to better understand the challenges and needs of homeless families. The study found that these families often experienced occurrences, such as divorce and financial difficulties. Many had sold their flats and spent their monies to clear debts or for other purposes prior to becoming homeless.

To help them regain housing stability, it is important for us to help them address their underlying issues, such as providing employment assistance and counselling to address marital and family issues. Linking the families with services, such as childcare and healthcare, can also strengthen their ability to cope and improve their employment and financial prospects. Social workers will also work with them to identify long-term housing options that they can work towards.

Homelessness is a complex issue and there are often no straightforward or quick solutions. MSF is committed to working with the Ministry of National Development, the Housing and Development Board and community organisations to identify and provide support to homeless families and individuals.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Madam, I would just like to refer to part (a) of my question where I asked for the number of homeless cases per year. I would just like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can provide the numbers because I want to look at the pattern; whether there is an increase throughout the years or it has stabilised.

Madam, I have mentioned earlier that it is an average of 300. In fact, over the last three years or so, we have seen the numbers falling slightly from about 321 cases in 2013 to 296 cases last year.

13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the grant to help families hire foreign domestic workers to care for elderly persons with disabilities; (b) how many households are currently receiving this grant; and (c) what is the Government's annual expenditure on this grant since it was introduced in 2012.

The Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant was introduced in 2012. It provides a monthly grant of $120 to support households who need to hire FDWs to care for seniors and persons with moderate disabilities. We do not have plans to increase the grant quantum at the moment, as the current grant quantum is generally adequate.

Besides the FDW Grant, these households are also eligible for FDW concessionary levy. The concessionary levy was lowered from $120 to $60 per month from May 2015, compared to the normal levy of $265 per month. Pioneers can get additional cash payouts to help with their expenses through the Pioneer Generation-Disability Assistance Scheme.

We also have other financial schemes to help defray the cost of caring for the elderly with more severe disabilities. Examples include the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE) and ElderShield, which is a disability insurance scheme.

As of December 2015, about 6,200 households are receiving the grant, with the Government providing a total grant amount of $8.4 million in 2015. Since 2012, at least 10,400 households have benefited from this grant, with the Government grant totalling $20.6 million.

We will continue to monitor the utilisation and adequacy of the FDW Grant.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am asking the question in the context of my constituency where there is an increasing number of elderly and elderly residents with disabilities as well.

My supplementary question is: will the Ministry consider waiving the concessionary levy altogether for the elderly who are aged above 80 or 85, for example?

The FDW concessionary levy for those with caregiving needs was just reduced from $120 a month to $60 a month in May 2015, which was less than a year ago. And as I said earlier in my reply, this is significantly lower than the regular FDW levy of $265. This will benefit families with children aged below 16, elderly aged 65 and above or disabled family members.

With the lowered concessionary levy of $60, families who need to hire FDWs to care for their frail elderly or persons with moderate disabilities will receive a net subsidy of $60, taking into account the monthly FDW Grant of $120.

In addition, if these frail elderly are aged 80 or above, the likelihood would be that they would belong to the Pioneer Generation, so they will also be able to receive cash payouts of $1,200 a year under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme.

In view of that, we currently do not have plans to further reduce the FDW concessionary levy or to tier it based on an age criterion. Having said that, we will continue to review the schemes to better support families with care-giving needs, including those with elderly dependants.

One supplementary question, Madam. Would a Singaporean be eligible for the grant if the elderly parent is a non-citizen?

If the elderly parent is aged 65 and above and is a Permanent Resident, they can still get the grant as long as the caregiver is a Singaporean.

The non-citizen I am referring to is a foreigner.

The grant is given if the frail elderly is a Permanent Resident and aged above 65. Having said that, this is one of the many available schemes we have to support elderly with caregiving needs.

The foreigner has to be a Permanent Resident, Mr Zainal Sapari.

14 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what are the criteria for the disbursement of the Opportunity Fund Grant to schools, including the polytechnics; (b) what type of co-curricular activities are covered by this Fund; and (c) to date, what is the number of students who have benefited from this Fund.

Mdm Speaker, the Opportunity Fund Scheme was introduced in 2006 to increase enrichment opportunities for Singapore Citizen students from lower-income households. The Scheme seeks to create opportunities for such students to access learning opportunities which they would otherwise miss out on due to their family circumstances.

Initially, the Opportunity Fund was disbursed to Government and Government-aided schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes, independent schools, Ministry of Education (MOE)-supported special education schools, and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). It was subsequently extended to the polytechnics in 2013.

The amount of Opportunity Fund disbursed to the schools is based on the total number of students and the percentage of MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) recipients in the respective schools. This top-up rate ensures that schools with larger numbers of needy students are provided with more funds to help these students.

On average, a primary school receives about $30,000, whilst a secondary school receives about $44,000. As explained earlier, the grant will be higher if the school has a relatively higher proportion of FAS recipients. The total amount of Opportunity Fund disbursed to the schools is about $16 million a year.

Similarly, the grant to ITE and polytechnics is determined by the number of students and FAS profiles. The total amount disbursed is about $2 million for ITE and about $5.5 million for the five polytechnics.

The three broad areas of usage for the Opportunity Fund are:

overseas trips, such as visits and exchange programmes with schools overseas;

enrichment programmes, such as leadership camps and creative arts workshops; and

access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), such as helping needy students to own personal computers under the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)'s NEU PC PLUS Programme.

Beyond these three broad areas, MOE does not specify the programmes for which the Opportunity Fund can be used. Schools and institutions have the flexibility to identify these programmes and decide on which students can benefit, taking into account the profile of their students.

The Opportunity Fund has been welcomed and well-used by schools and institutions. Students, particularly those on FAS, are able to benefit from the enrichment programmes and other areas supported by Opportunity Fund. On average, about 67,000 students benefit from the scheme each year.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. In light of the fact that Opportunity Fund is meant to assist students from needy families, the intent is really just to increase social mobility.

Can I just check how these funds are disbursed in the schools? Do the students apply or the schools assign the amounts that are given to the students? What is the utilisation rate by the schools of this Fund?

I thank the Member for the question. Madam, the Opportunity Fund is disbursed to the schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) on a three-year cycle. It is usually disbursed to them upfront and adjusted annually to take into consideration the changes in Singapore Citizen enrolment numbers and their FAS profile for each year, if applicable. The current three-year cycle is from 2016-2018. So, with regard to the utilisation rate for the past cycle, which was from 2013-2015, it was about 80% of the amount disbursed to all institutions.

15 Mr Leon Perera asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many allied educators are currently employed in primary and secondary schools; (b) what is the average, highest and lowest number employed respectively; and (c) how many of these educators are trained in handling students with special needs.

Madam, the Ministry of Education (MOE) currently employs more than 2,200 allied educators (AEDs) in our mainstream schools. These AEDs, comprising the School Counsellors, AEDs in Teaching and Learning or AED(T&L), and AEDs in Learning and Behavioural Support or AED(LBS), complement the work of our teachers in schools. In particular, the AED(LBS) support students with mild learning disabilities, so that they can benefit from a more inclusive education in mainstream schools.

There are currently over 400 AED(LBS) deployed to our primary and secondary schools.

All AED(LBS) are trained on a one-year customised Diploma in Special Education (DISE) training offered by the National Institute of Education (NIE). Subsequently, they undergo continuing professional development training provided by MOE to enhance their skills and competencies to support a wide range of special educational needs. Depending on the needs of each student, the support provided by the AED(LBS) can range from either individual or small group interventions, given in the form of either in-class differentiated learning support or special pull-out programmes. The AED(LBS) are part of the school team, together with a core group of teachers who receive a Certificate-level training in Special Needs conducted by NIE, with deeper knowledge and specialised skills to support the diverse needs of students with special educational needs.

AED(LBS) also work with parents and collaborate with relevant professional agencies, such as MOE psychologists and professionals from hospitals and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), in supporting these students to cope with mainstream education.

MOE will continue to recruit and train AED(LBS) to cater to special needs students in both mainstream primary and secondary schools.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed answer. I just have one supplementary question which is more pertaining to the distribution of the AED(LBS), which are the allied educators coaching children with special needs. What process is in place right now to deploy more of such allied educators to schools, if more special needs children actually manifest themselves in the schools, which may happen as the cohorts change? The reason I ask this question is because I have encountered residents with children with special needs who have felt that there are insufficient allied educators who are trained in those skills in their particular school.

Madam, our approach is to continue to enhance the mainstream schools' capacity to support students with special needs. This is in the form of also the numbers of AED(LBS) we have. Beyond that, we have a system whereby we not only work with the AED(LBS) within the school, within the schools, there are, one, a core group of teachers who are trained – at the secondary level about 20% of each school would have these trained core group of teachers. They are trained on special needs where they will go for training. At the same time, they are also expected to share with their colleagues in the school.

Within that, there is also the Student Development Team and these are led by School Leaders, Year Heads and Heads of Department where they work together with the AED(LBS), together with the core group, to see how they can take care of those with special needs. So, in essence, it is not just about the number of AED(LBS). The whole school − the teachers, even their peers − you will be very touched to see how fellow students take care of one another; how fellow students make life better for one another in ensuring that the learning journey of each and every one of them is not affected.

Beyond that, we work very closely with MOE psychologists who go to these schools very often. We are also in touch with the Institute of Mental Health team, the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) team, where they will provide assessments, take in referrals from the school. We also work with the relevant VWOs to make sure that we have a targeted approach in caring for these people.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. Can I just find out, on average, how many AED(LBS) are there in each primary school for a start? Are there plans for AED(LBS) to be present in every primary and secondary school? I know that it is probably not easy to recruit AEDs at the moment, but could MOE look into recruiting and training, for example, through the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), the parent volunteers to become AEDs in the schools?

Madam, I thank Dr Intan for the question. Currently, all primary schools have AED(LBS) and about 80 of the secondary schools have AED(LBS). So, we are continually looking at this area to see how we can facilitate the whole process. However, like what I said earlier, it is not only about having AED(LBS). We have a system in place to make sure we care for one another. And I will take back to MOE the suggestion in the Member's second question.

16 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will investigate if there are sufficient funds in each Town Council to replace their lifts when their recommended life cycle comes to an end; (b) under what conditions do Town Councils need to bring forward lift replacements; and (c) whether these warrant an increase in service and conservancy charges or a higher allocation percentage to the sinking fund.

Madam, Town Councils have the statutory responsibility to carry out proper maintenance and cyclical replacement of lifts in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, to ensure that lifts are well-functioning.

Under the Town Councils Act and Rules, every Town Council is required to set aside a minimum of 30% for 1- to 3-room flats, or 35% for 4-room or larger flats. This is 30% or 35% of the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) collected and grants-in-aid received in a separate Sinking Fund. This fund will be used to fund the cyclical works, which include the replacement of lifts and lift parts.

The recommended replacement cycle of 28 years for lifts serves as a guide to Town Councils in planning and budgeting for the cyclical work. Town Councils should, in consultation with their appointed lift maintenance contractors and their Authorised Examiner, assess whether their lifts should be replaced, taking into consideration their working condition and state of repair, as well as their performance at the regular servicing and annual lift inspections.

Town Councils are ultimately responsible for managing their finances and should take the appropriate measures to ensure that they have sufficient funds to carry out their statutory responsibilities. They can choose to contribute a higher percentage of their S&CC collections and grants-in-aid beyond the stipulated minimum to their Sinking Funds, or increase S&CC rates where necessary.

The Ministry of National Development (MND) is currently reviewing ways to help Town Councils plan ahead and better monitor their long-term financial sufficiency. For example, we are looking at having Town Councils do their own projections and put in place plans for financial sustainability. Given that lift replacement is a major Sinking Fund expenditure, we are also considering ring-fencing part of the Town Councils' Sinking Funds to cater for such expenditures.

I would like to enquire, whilst the Town Councils are responsible for lift replacements, whether MND will work on establishing a skills framework for lift technicians so that the industry is professionalised and the technicians managing and servicing the lifts will be of a higher level and calibre so that the maintenance will be up to standard.

Similarly, would MND consider implementing a quality mark that stipulates that lifts that are installed in HDB blocks are of a higher standard and quality that the breakdowns and the need for maintenance will be of a shorter cycle and the lifts can last longer and are more reliable?

Madam, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is, indeed, looking at the whole lift industry − the technicians, the people who are in charge, the authorised examiners − to see how we can strengthen the capacity of the technicians, the authorised examiners with regard to the Member's first question. So, BCA is, indeed, looking at this area to see how capabilities can be increased and strengthened.

The second point on the procurement and installation of lifts, HDB already does that. Whenever it procures a lift for installation in new HDB blocks, HDB already looks at quality in terms of the procurement process. Beyond installation, the rest of it really depends on maintenance − regular good checks and a proper inspection regime. That is beyond HDB because, as I said earlier, it is the responsibility of every Town Council. So, we hope that the Town Councils will have that in place, pay attention to this area, make sure that there are quality checks and regular maintenance done once the lifts are installed.

Mdm Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Minister. I understand that there are some lifts for which certain parts have become obsolete. This obsolescence takes place well before the recommended 28-year guideline for lift upgrading or replacement. Would the Ministry consider introducing a lift upgrading programme or considering a subsidy for this sort of lifts?

Madam, HDB is aware of some particular lift models where, perhaps, the manufacturers may no longer be operating in Singapore. Parts may not be so easy to procure. So, HDB will work with the Town Councils to assist them in looking at appropriate replacement for these lift parts, in particular.

Madam, I would like to ask the Minister whether there could be at least an internal appraisal system to rank lift companies in terms of their performance, the quality of the installations. For example, for certain companies that have a very high frequency of reported defects or repairs needed even after a new installation, that when considering which company to award the tender to, that could also be factored in as well.

Madam, as I mentioned just now, HDB already does that in its procurement and selection of lift manufacturers. So, it will and already looks at breakdown rates of different lift models, as a quality measure in selecting the new lift model for installation in new HDB blocks.

I want to emphasise what I said earlier, that the maintenance part is equally important, and what I said earlier was that BCA is looking at enhancing its regulations as well as enhancing and strengthening capabilities in this area. So, BCA will also be looking at performance-based maintenance because, today, I think many Town Councils get a lift contractor to maintain the lifts, but you have not a lot of oversight over the performance regime that is in place for the lift contractor. How exactly does the lift contractor go about doing his job? So, BCA is also looking at a performance-based regime for lift contractors to maintain the lifts well.

Order. End of Question Time. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the chair again at 3.30 pm.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.00 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm