Hansard, Monday, 1 April 2019

On behalf of the House, I wish to express our condolences to the families of the victims of the Christchurch attack that occurred on 15 March 2019. We stand united with our New Zealand friends in this tragedy. I invite Members of this House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims and to express our condolences from this House. Members, please rise.

[(proc text) The House rose and observed a one-minute silence. (proc text)]

The following question stood in the name of Dr Chia Shi-Lu –

1 To ask the Minister for Health in light of the recent case of a $50,000 fine by the Singapore Medical Council for a doctor who was tricked into conveying medical information to a patient's brother (a) what are the parameters for communication between doctors and family members, especially when a patient may not be in the position to provide consent or has given implied but not express consent; and (b) what provisions are there in a perceived urgency or emergency, or if doctors have been deliberately misled into giving the information, despite the information being given in good faith and with due concern for the patient.

2 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health in respect of the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) action against a doctor for breaching patient confidentiality (a) whether the Ministry will review the mitigating factors in the case; (b) how will this SMC ruling impact on any urgent need for doctors to transmit information over the telephone to their patients or their caregivers; and (c) whether the Ministry will be drawing clearer guidelines for the medical profession to comply with.

Question No 1.

Mr Speaker, as I would be making a Ministerial Statement later on this subject, may I have your permission to take both Question Nos 1 and 2 during my Ministerial Statement?

Yes, please. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether Singapore has received any updates on the Johor government's efforts to manage their hotspots and, if so, what are these; (b) how can the health and well-being of Singapore's residents be safeguarded against the long-term exposure to haze pollutants; and (c) whether there are plans to conduct outreach programmes to allay concerns and provide regular updates on the haze situation arising from hotspots in Johor.

4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what specific sensors are there in place in Punggol to measure the level of volatile organic compounds in the air; and (b) whether there has been an increase in the measured levels since the chemical waste dumping incident in Pasir Gudang.

Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Members of this House would be aware of the environmental pollution incidents in Johor over the last two months.

In February, the National Environment Agency (NEA) detected hotspots of fires with smoke plumes in Southern Johor through satellite remote sensing. The Department of Environment (DOE) Johor, subsequently alerted NEA to fires at two landfills in Bandar Tenggara and Tanjong Langsat, as well as a fire at Punggai in the area of an oil palm plantation. The resultant smoke plumes, blown by the prevailing northeasterly winds, affected both Johoreans and Singaporeans with intermittent burning smells over the past few weeks. While most of the fires have been put out, NEA continued to detect hotspots in southern Johor.

NEA monitors the ambient air quality in Singapore through a network of real-time ambient air monitoring sensors across Singapore. These sensors continuously measure the key air pollutants, namely, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter of both PM2.5 and PM10. The concentrations of these air pollutants are used to compute the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) over a rolling 24-hour period.

Since June 2016, NEA has introduced bands and descriptors for the one-hour PM2.5 concentrations, as a guide to help the public better assess the current air quality. The 24-hour PSI and the one-hour PM2.5 readings in the five regions of Singapore and corresponding health advisory are available to the public on the NEA website and myEnv mobile application. Members of the public can use the information as a guide to plan their activities. Between early-February and mid-March when the hotspots were detected in Johor, the 24-hour PSI readings remained within the Good to Moderate range, and the one-hour PM2.5 levels remained in the Normal range.

According to media reports, since 7 March 2019, more than 3,000 Johoreans fell ill as a result of the illegal dumping of around 20 to 40 tonnes of chemical waste into Sungai Kim Kim, a river in Pasir Gudang. Hazardous fumes caused severe symptoms, including nausea, shortness of breath and vomiting. Thousands needed immediate medical attention and many were admitted to hospitals for treatment. Some were in critical condition and had to be placed under intensive care. Young and vulnerable children were among the worst affected. The authorities closed all 111 schools in the Pasir Gudang district on 13 March 2019 for more than two weeks.

Singaporeans watched with deep concern and were saddened by this serious environmental violation, where toxic chemicals were dumped into the river, with little regard for the people who live in the surrounding areas. The chemicals detected in the air samples from Sungai Kim Kim and its vicinity contained chemicals, such as benzene, which is carcinogenic. The Malaysian media has also reported illegal dumping of chemical waste at other sites in Pasir Gudang.

According to the Malaysian authorities, they have cleaned up a 1.5 kilometres (km) polluted stretch of Sungai Kim Kim in Pasir Gudang. More than 900 tonnes of soil and 1,500 tonnes of polluted water have been removed. The Malaysian authorities have worked expeditiously to contain the problem, in view of the impact to the environment and to public health. I wish all those affected, in particular, the children, a speedy recovery. Singapore stands ready to provide assistance to the Malaysian authorities if needed.

Throughout this period, our agencies have been closely monitoring the situation and putting in place precautionary measures to guard against any potential pollution impacts arising from the illegal dumping of chemical waste. We have not detected any pollution impacts on Singapore’s air and water quality or water supply.

NEA continuously monitors the ambient concentration of a variety of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) at our air monitoring stations, including at four stations located in the north-eastern region of Singapore. These include benzene, toluene and xylene, as well as other common VOCs from industrial emissions which are also closely monitored by other environmental agencies, such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

NEA has not detected any elevated levels of VOCs. The 24-hour PSI has also been in the Good to Low-Moderate range, while the one-hour PM2.5 readings remained in the Normal range. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has also deployed its portable stand-off chemical gas detectors at the northeast region of Singapore to detect toxic chemicals and has not detected any toxic chemicals in the air.

For water quality, NEA’s continuous buoy-based coastal water quality monitoring sensors deployed along the Straits of Johor have not detected any unusual variation in the key physical, chemical and microbiological water quality parameters. NEA has also taken the additional step of collecting water samples at Pulau Ubin and its vicinity to test additional parameters, including compounds Malaysia has identified due to the chemical waste dumped in Sungai Kim Kim. These compounds have not been detected in our water samples. NEA has also not detected any anomalies in the quality of the waters at our recreational coastal beaches.

The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) online sensors have shown that the water quality of Johor River, our waterways and reservoirs in the north and north-eastern part of Singapore, as well as the water supply is within normal variations. Onsite inspections and water quality checks have also shown no abnormalities. As a precautionary measure, PUB has installed oil booms at the outlet drains and estuaries along the north and north-eastern coast of Singapore. This incident has no impact on our water supply as the chemical dumping location is outside of our Johor River catchment area, where part of our water supply comes from.

There have been no reports of unusual fish mortality at our local fish farms in the Straits of Johor. Singapore Food Agency's (SFA's) tests of seafood samples from these fish farms for compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs and heavy metals, have not detected any anomalies.

Environment pollution is a cross-border issue that requires collaboration between the authorities of both countries. These include the provision of early warnings and environmental monitoring data and guidelines. NEA and SCDF have been in contact with their respective Malaysian counterparts – DOE Johor and the Johor Fire and Rescue Department (BOMBA) – to obtain regular updates on the situation there.

We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates if there are any significant developments. We will also continue to step up our checks and enforcement to protect our environment and safeguard the health and safety of Singaporeans.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer and NEA for closely monitoring the situation in Johor. Over the last one month, residents in Yishun Town had to suffer not just the burning smell, but on two days at least, there were also pungent smells like sewer pipes bursting. Many residents have been asking me what happened. I had to approach NEA for answers. I would like to ask if it is possible for NEA to be more active or more forthcoming in broadcasting any findings so as to keep residents informed. The second question is that my residents have also given constant feedback that they saw chimneys burning in Pasir Gudang and they are worried about the long-term effects on their health. Every night, they see these chimneys burning and they are thinking, "Surely, there are gases being given out." I would like to ask the Ministry whether there is any long-term effect on the health of residents.

For the first question on whether we can give more regular updates, first of all, as I have said, on the NEA website as well as on the myENV app, we do provide readings, hourly updates, in fact, of PSI and PM2.

5. We monitor that for the five regions – north, south, east, west and central. That will also include the northeast area. If there are any significant variations, for instance, above normal levels, unhealthy levels, we would notify the public with this information.

With regard to cross-border environmental pollution, for instance, or smell coming from Johor, we work very closely with our Johor counterparts, that is, DOE Johor and also the Johor BOMBA. We also have continuous monitoring as well as our remote satellite sensing to identify smoke plumes as well as hotspots. But these, obviously, would be for the larger hotspots and smoke plumes that we can detect and, depending on the wind direction, whether they will actually travel down to Singapore. So, for the recent early February to mid-March incidents, because of the northeasterly winds, fires normally occurred in the afternoon. That is how we have spotted it. By the time it comes in in the evening when the wind has weakened or slowed down, as well as the temperatures have cooled, these smells, if there are, would be harder to dilute and disperse because it will be hard to disperse the air pollutants upwards due to the cooler temperature and then the wind does not take it away. So, by daytime, in the morning, the sun is up and the wind speed has gathered strength, it then gets diluted and dispersed away.

But let me say that there is no direct correlation or association between the smells – burning smell or chemical smell – and the ambient air quality readings. So, there may be smells but ambient air quality may be alright. And in this case, we have found throughout the period that ambient air quality based on PSI and PM2.5 has been in the normal to moderate range and PM2.5 reading is normal. The smells can be due to a variety of reasons, depending on whether it is a plantation burning or landfill burning. The other thing would be for VOCs. By themselves, there could be smell or they could be mixed with other chemicals and different smells are produced. But as I have said, there is generally no correlation between the air quality readings and the smells.

Regarding flaring – I assume that is what the Member is talking about – there are petrochemical industries in Pasir Gudang. And flaring is a common safety feature in refineries and petrochemical plants. What happens is, during routine maintenance, or when there is either a plant shutdown or startup, you need flaring to prevent the build-up of process gases. Actually, flaring will safely burn these process gases off into carbon dioxide and water vapour so that there would not be any health impact due to this flaring.

5 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the impact of the recent challenges facing Hyflux on our water supply; (b) what contingency plans are there in place, in particular, whether PUB has the operational capacity to take over the desalinisation plant; (c) what is the extent of private sector involvement in our water provision; and (d) whether any review should be done in light of what has happened to Hyflux.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. I know that many Singaporeans are concerned about what the ongoing Hyflux restructuring means for our water supply.

Water is an existential issue for Singapore. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) priority has been and will always be to ensure Singapore's water security. Over many decades, we have diversified our water sources and built up our four national taps. NEWater and desalinated water are integral to our water security, as they are weather-resilient and can supply water even during dry spells.

As part of our plan to build up our desalination and NEWater capacities for our water security, the Government has partnered the private sector to design, build, own and operate (DBOO) some of our desalination and NEWater plants. Today, we have five NEWater plants and three desalination plants. Out of these, three of the NEWater plants and two of the desalination plants, including Tuaspring, are based on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. The remaining three plants, as well as all our other water supply assets, are owned and operated by PUB.

The PPP model has been useful in allowing us to tap on private sector innovations and cost efficiencies to deliver water services more effectively. To ensure that water security is never compromised, PUB has put in safeguards as part of the PPP contracts. Even though PUB does not interfere with the business decisions made by the concession companies, PUB monitors the performance of the plants under the PPP model to ensure that the concession companies can meet their contractual obligations to PUB. Where there are issues, PUB will require the concession companies to rectify them, failing which, PUB may exercise its rights to terminate the PPP contracts and take control of the plants. We do not exercise these termination rights lightly but will not hesitate to do so when it becomes necessary to safeguard our water security.

As PUB continues to operate its own desalination and NEWater plants, PUB has the operational capabilities, experience and manpower to take over and operate the private plants, should the need arise.

Hyflux is currently involved in two PPP projects with PUB: the SingSpring Desalination Plant (SSDP) and the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Project (TIWPP). SSDP is owned by SingSpring Trust, which is majority owned by Keppel Infrastructure Trust, with Hyflux owning a minority stake. The SSDP is not affected by Hyflux's debt and business reorganisation nor is it subject to the moratorium that has been imposed by the Court.

As for TIWPP, it is owned by Tuaspring Pte Ltd (TPL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyflux. Let me briefly recap the events leading up to today. In 2010, PUB called an open tender for a 70 million gallons per day desalination plant to be completed by 2013. In its tender bid, Hyflux proposed a different business model, one of an integrated desalination and power plant. Hyflux made a business decision to build the power plant that has a capacity significantly more than what the desalination plant needed, with the intention of selling excess power to the national power grid.

Hyflux’s bid met PUB’s requirements for constructing and operating a desalination plant and was the most competitive bid among the submissions. PUB also took into account Hyflux's expertise and track record. Thus, PUB awarded the tender to Hyflux in 2011. As with other such PPP projects, PUB built in safeguards in the Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) signed with TPL.

Since 2017, TPL has been experiencing difficulties fulfilling its contractual obligations under the WPA. These include a failure to keep the plant reliably operational as required. More recently, it has also failed to produce financial evidence to demonstrate its ability to keep the plant running for the next six months. PUB gave time to TPL to try to sort out its problems, but PUB’s concerns have been growing over time. To safeguard our water security, PUB issued TPL with a default notice on 5 March 2019 to require TPL to remedy the defaults within the default notice period. If they failed to do so, PUB would terminate the WPA and take over the desalination plant. This is to ensure that a critical asset remains in safe hands and avoids uncertainty over the operations of the desalination plant. Ultimately, PUB’s actions are based on our overriding objective of ensuring Singapore's water security and that water continues to be reliably produced at the plant to meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans.

The purchase price for the desalination plant will be determined by an independent valuer in accordance with the WPA. Based on current valuation, the purchase price is negative and TPL will, hence, have to pay PUB a compensation sum. TPL itself has stated that there is a high likelihood for this. The desalination plant has been and will likely continue to lose money for the next few years. In addition, PUB would have to incur costs to make good the plant and ensure that it operates reliably for its remaining lifespan.

However, given TPL's current financial position, PUB is unlikely to recover the compensation sum from TPL. PUB has, therefore, indicated that it is willing to waive the compensation sum and purchase the desalination plant at zero dollars.

Let me be clear. PUB’s actions do not weaken either TPL or Hyflux, and do not disadvantage those who have invested in Hyflux. Indeed, it is quite favourable to TPL. TPL has, in fact, noted in its letter to PUB on 20 March 2019 that if PUB terminates the WPA, it would alleviate the pressure on the rest of the Hyflux group. It positively impacts Hyflux's value and hence the value of the Hyflux shares being offered. In its announcement on 26 March 2019, Hyflux further stated that SM Investments Pte Ltd, the prospective investor of Hyflux, had concerns over working capital requirements post-investment and that PUB’s actions should alleviate such concerns.

The current situation with Hyflux does not mean that we should dismiss the PPP model altogether as our other PPP projects are working well. The safeguards that PUB has built into the PPP contracts have worked well to ensure our water security. In fact, TPL provides an example of how these safeguards are robust and have served their purpose. That said, we are always studying ways to strengthen the safeguards and enhance our operations and will continue to do so.

Let me assure Members of the House and all Singaporeans that PUB will always act to ensure Singapore's water security. Water is an existential issue for Singapore. Water security is integral to Singapore’s national security. PUB's recent actions reinforce that. We will never allow Singapore's national or water security to be compromised.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

I thank the Minister for his answers. I have two supplementary questions for him. The first is, the Minister has said that the PPP model still works. Given that these are critical water assets and having seen what has happened and the assurance from the Minister that the Ministry is looking further into the safeguards that are currently provided, I would like to ask the Minister which are these areas that we think need to be further improved on. The fact of the matter is that it did occur here and this is an area which we know we cannot take chances on.

My second supplementary question: we would all have residents who are also investors in Hyflux. The current actions by PUB and the Government, the question that will be asked would be, "Should we bail out Hyflux and, in the process, help all residents and investors, many of whom are Singaporeans?"

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Firstly, we have to look at many areas. But there are two important areas that we always have to focus on. One is the operational ability of the company to make sure that we continue to be able to produce water, almost at will. And that has been compromised in the last few months with the inability by Hyflux or TPL to assure us that they can do so. And that is connected with the second one somewhat, which has to do with the financial ability to support it. So, we will continue to work on these two issues because they are the most important ones. They ensure that we continue to have plants that will continue to operate while under the PPP model.

The second question is whether we should bail out our investors. The financial performance of companies, as mentioned by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a previous answer, depends on many factors. It could include global business conditions, competition, performance of specific projects and also its own business decisions. Therefore, investors in search of returns must understand that returns come with some risks.

Before I answer specifically to that question the Member has asked, let me reiterate what I have said in my answer.

First, the current valuation of the purchase price for the Tuas desalination plant is negative. That is clear. In fact, while it is a current valuation and after the formalities are done, we are certain it will continue to be negative.

Second, because of this, TPL has to pay PUB. But PUB recognises its inability to do so, and PUB has indicated it will waive the compensation sum. Like I mentioned just now, it is actually a positive impact on TPL.

We can understand the concerns and anxiety of the retail investors and we are saddened by their plight. But the Government cannot use taxpayers' monies to help investors recoup their investment losses. Even if there are any proceeds from the takeover of the Tuas plant, we must remember there is an order of who gets what first. In this case, Maybank will still receive payments from TPL before all other general creditors, including PUB.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, according to a Straits Times report, Hyflux's financial woes were a direct reason explaining why the company was unable to replace poorly performing membranes promptly in early 2017, a state of affairs which affected the quality and quantity of water that was produced by the Tuaspring desalination plant (TSDP). To that end, I have a few questions for the Minister.

Firstly, as the quality of water was affected, did this compromise public safety at any point in time?

Secondly, which entity eventually paid for the membrane replacement and was any compensation paid or owing to PUB as a result of Hyflux's failure to ensure the quality and quantity of water produced by the TSDP in early 2017?

My final question is: how often has this situation developed in the TSDP? Was it just in early 2017 or was it an ongoing occurrence?

PUB conducts many, many tests on our water system to ensure water safety, including TSDP. Therefore, we are certain that water supplied to our consumers is safe to drink and for use. Even during the times when we had concerns about their operations, they were able to address these concerns. But more recently, because of the financial situation, it begs the question whether that is sustainable. Therefore, we have put in the default notice to them to say that we are concerned: one, that operationally they are not able to address the issues to assure us they can continue to produce water; and secondly, that they are financially distressed and that they have not proven that they can sustain the plant for the next six months.

There was another question.

How many times has this happened in the past? Did it just occur in early 2017 or was it ongoing?

No, this was very recent since 2017.

I would like to ask how does the Minister justify using taxpayers' monies to take over a negative-valued asset from Hyflux?

Well, we have two options. One is to assert our rights, stress Hyflux even further by asserting that right, and after the whole process, we may not get anything at the end of the process. Therefore, we have made the decision that because we are not likely to get anything from claiming the compensation, we have decided to not claim for the compensation.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: in hindsight, could more actions have been taken earlier on before it got to this stage? We do have a lot of other big projects that are under the PPP model and we do have critical assets, such as power plants, that are operated privately. In that sense, how do you monitor all these assets and make sure that they are financially okay? I was just wondering whether something could have been done in hindsight for this Hyflux case, rather than to wait until this stage.

Well, as with any DBOO plants, PUB monitors the desalination plant – in this case TSDP – to ensure that it is operating reliably and executing its contractual obligations to PUB.

And then when troubles emerge, the responsible and fair thing to do is for PUB to require TPL to rectify it, and not to immediately issue a default notice. In fact, to give them time to do so. When these things happen – it is not just in the case of TSDP, it happens in other plants, too – there is a need to give them time to rectify. If they can rectify them well and to the satisfaction of PUB, then the contract has not been violated.

PUB has been in talks with TPL regarding its defaults all this while and has given TPL as much time as possible. Our duty is to ensure water security and take all the necessary steps within its contractual rights, primarily to protect Singapore's water security. So, I think we have done that.

6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health in respect of the incident whereby blood donors' personal data are compromised (a) whether there are further updates from the preliminary investigation; (b) what follow-up actions have been carried out with the cybersecurity expert who discovered the vulnerability; (c) whether there is a framework in place to ensure that vendors comply with safeguards to prevent unsafe practices and unauthorised access to data; and (d) what measures are necessary to prevent future occurrences and to reassure future blood donors.

7 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health in light of the exposure of blood donors' personal data online (a) whether the Ministry will consider streamlining the procurement of IT services across its departments, Statutory Boards, hospitals and clinics to reduce personal data access by multiple vendors; and (b) whether there are factors causing the public healthcare sector to be particularly vulnerable to IT incidents.

8 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health in light of the cyber breach involving 800,000 blood donors (a) how will the Ministry improve its overall cybersecurity measures; and (b) how will its security framework also extend to its providers and vendors.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health in respect of the data leak of more than 800,000 blood donors' personal information from the database of the Health Sciences Authority (a) why was the data placed on a server accessible through the Internet on 4 January 2019; (b) how did the unnamed cybersecurity consultant gain access to the data; (c) why did he keep the data; and (d) whether his conduct was in breach of any law.

10 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health regarding the data leak of more than 800,000 blood donors' personal information (a) whether the Health Sciences Authority is aware of any unauthorised access to the database during the nine-week period of exposure on the Internet; and (b) whether such incidents are being investigated.

11 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there has been any compensation or payment made to the cybersecurity expert who discovered and downloaded the unsecured HSA database containing the personal information of more than 800,000 blood donors; and (b) whether it is a condition set by the said expert that his identity should remain secret.

12 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health in respect of the incident whereby personal information of more than 800,000 blood donors were improperly put online by the IT vendor of the Health Sciences Authority (a) what are the possible effects of such disclosure to the blood donors affected and what measures can be put in place to minimise these effects; (b) what structures will be put in place to ensure that such an incident can be avoided in the future; and (c) what penalties will be imposed to address any improper action by relevant parties that led to the improper disclosure.

Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I take Question Nos 6 to 12 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Members of this House have asked for further updates on the preliminary investigation of the data leak of blood donors' personal information from the database of the vendor appointed by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA).

Secur Solutions Group Ptd Ltd (Secur Solutions) is an independent vendor of HSA appointed to maintain and enhance the queue management system for blood donors.

On 13 March 2019, a foreign cybersecurity expert had informed the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) that the registration-related information of blood donors could be accessed because of a vulnerability in the server used and managed by Secur Solutions. HSA immediately worked with Secur Solutions to disable access to the server.

On 30 March, Secur Solutions issued a statement to provide more information on this incident. Investigations are continuing and a further update will be provided when available.

Members have also asked questions relating to the cybersecurity expert. The cybersecurity expert works for a company that specialises in identifying and reporting vulnerabilities of information technology (IT) systems. He was not employed or engaged by HSA or the Ministry of Health (MOH). He informed HSA on 16 March 2019 that he had deleted his copy of the data and has no intention of disclosing its contents. He had never made any request for compensation or payment, and we will not be taking any legal action against him because he had reported the vulnerability to us straightaway, and had no intention to keep, use or otherwise expose the contents of the database, and has not done so.

Members have asked what additional steps MOH and HSA can take to reduce the risk of data mismanagement.

The measures to be taken to prevent a similar occurrence will be shaped by what specific findings arise from the ongoing investigations into the incident. MOH and its agencies will also conduct a review on the lifecycle management of the data being handled by existing IT vendors.

In addition, the HSA Board has set up a Board Committee chaired by Mr Max Loh, Chairman of HSA Board's Audit and Risk Committee. The Board Committee also includes members from Government Technology Agency (GovTech). It will review HSA's current policies and processes for managing sensitive data and recommend measures.

Yesterday, the Government also announced that the Prime Minister has also convened a Public Sector Data Security Review Committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, to conduct a comprehensive review of data security practices across the entire Public Service. MOH and its agencies will extend our fullest cooperation to the work of the Committee.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu has asked if the Ministry should consider streamlining the procurement of IT services across its departments, Statutory Boards and public hospitals to reduce personal data access by multiple vendors. We agree and have done so progressively in the public healthcare family, where we are able to do so.

Minister Iswaran, I believe you had asked to take the supplementary questions after responses to the next two Parliamentary Questions (PQs)?

Yes.

I can take the supplementary questions now if Members —

I believe the request is to take them all together later. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Question No 13.

13 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the recent data leak of more than 800,000 blood donors' personal information from the database of HSA (a) what is the role of the Personal Data Protection Commission in investigating this incident; and (b) whether any review is being done to ascertain whether HSA has acted reasonably in protecting the personal data, including whether the contractual obligations between HSA and its IT vendor reasonably safeguarded the personal information entrusted to these parties.

14 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of data breaches across public IT systems (a) whether it is justifiable for public agencies to be exempted from Personal Data Protection Act; (b) what recourse do citizens have, other than to complain to agencies or seek civil action; and (c) whether there should be a tangible penalty meted out to these public agencies for public accountability.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 and 14 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the incident involving HSA, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) is investigating Secur Solutions Group Pte Ltd, which is a private company and vendor of information technology (IT) services to HSA. If found to be in breach of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), PDPC will take the appropriate enforcement actions against the company, such as issuing directions and imposing financial penalties.

The Senior Minister of State for Health has earlier outlined the review of HSA’s data security policies and practices that is being undertaken. As HSA is a Government agency, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group is also conducting an investigation into the incident.

Ms Irene Quay has asked if it is justifiable that public agencies are exempted from PDPA. Implicit in the Member’s question is the presumption that public sector agencies are not accountable for their data protection practices or not held to a high standard because the PDPA does not apply to them. That is wrong and simply not the case. Public sector agencies are subject to a different piece of legislation and other regulations. In particular, public sector agencies have to comply with the Government Instruction Manuals and the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA). Collectively, they have comparable if not higher standards of data protection, compared to PDPA, and similar investigations and enforcement actions are taken against data security breaches.

I have previously explained in Parliament why we have adopted this approach. To reiterate, PDPA does not apply to public agencies because there are fundamental differences in how the public sector operates, which requires a different approach to personal data protection when compared to the private sector. In order to enable a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of public services, personal data has to be managed as a common resource within the public sector. The considerations are different in the private sector, as there is no such expectation of a holistic approach to the delivery of commercial services across private organisations.

Citizens have the same recourse for a data breach in the public sector as with PDPA. Where citizens suspect that their data has been mishandled by a private sector organisation, they can lodge a complaint with PDPC, or with GovTech, if a public sector agency is involved. In practice, there are no wrong doors, and the complaint will be directed to the relevant agencies for follow-up. Affected individuals can also seek mediation or take civil action against the organisation or agency which mishandled the data.

The Member has asked whether tangible penalties should be imposed on public agencies for public accountability. Public officers who flout the Government’s data security rules and are found to have misused or disclosed data in an unauthorised manner, could be held criminally liable under PSGA. The penalties include fines of up to $5,000 or a jail term of up to two years, or both. It is not meaningful to impose financial penalties on public sector agencies because the cost of such penalties would ultimately have to be borne by the same public purse.

Mr Speaker, over the years, the Government has progressively enhanced security measures to safeguard sensitive data. The Government has also increased the number and types of internal IT audits to check on agencies’ data access and data protection measures. Nevertheless, recent data-related incidents have underscored the urgency to strengthen data security policies and practices in the public sector.

Therefore, the Prime Minister has convened a Public Sector Data Security Review Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of data security practices across the entire Public Service. This includes measures and processes related to the collection and protection of citizens’ personal data by public sector agencies, as well as vendors who handle personal data on behalf of the Government. While individual agencies are investigating and taking action on the specific incidents, this Committee will undertake a comprehensive review across the public sector and incorporate industry and global best practices to strengthen data security.

This review will help to ensure that all public sector agencies maintain the highest standards of data governance. This is essential to uphold public confidence and deliver a high quality of public service to our citizens through the use of data. The work of this Committee will complement our efforts to achieve our Smart Nation vision. The Public Sector Data Security Review Committee will submit its findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister by 30 November 2019.

We will take the supplementary questions for the earlier Parliamentary Questions as well as for these two. Miss Cheng Li Hui

I have two supplementary questions. It was reported that the server was also accessed by several other Internet protocol (IP) addresses. What do we know about this access? Is it by foreigners or locals and will we be pursuing any actions on them? Do they have the information on the blood donors as well? For those who failed to donate their blood due to illnesses, can this sensitive information be accessed?

On Miss Cheng Li Hui's latter question, that information was not on the server that was compromised. Only registration related information was on that server. And if I can just cite for Miss Cheng this relevant portion from the vendor's statement, it says that the information that was on that server were National Registration Identity Card (NRIC), gender, number of blood donations, dates of the last three blood donations and, in some cases, blood type, height and weight.

As for the first point, the unauthorised access is from various locations. That is still being looked into and when we have a fuller position on this and have more clarity, we will provide those answers.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for Minister Iswaran. The first is, I am glad to hear that he confirmed that the private sector vendor Secur Solutions Group is actually governed by the PDPA and that PDPC is looking into their conduct. My first question will be, is the PDPC going to wait for the outcome of the HSA investigation and then, follow on from there or is it concurrent?

The second question is, it was mentioned that the Prime Minister has now convened a cross-Government committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo to look into standards of Government IT security. Does this confirm that the Government is actually not satisfied and that the standards so far have been wanting in the public sector?

Finally, the third question, which is an interesting one, is the Minister's answer to Nominated Member Ms Irene Quay's question about financial penalties on organisations. The Minister mentioned that it was not meaningful to fine public agencies because the fine would in the end come from the public purse. But can the central Government not operate on the premise that no additional money is going to be provided to public agencies to pay fines and, therefore, the agencies would just have to cope with cuts somewhere else to pay these fines, whether it is from bonuses of Senior Management or whatever it is? Because there is still an important signalling effect, that the Government is prepared, as an organisation, to abide by the same standards it expects of small businesses.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. Firstly, on whether the PDPC's investigations would be concurrent, the answer is yes. But clearly, we would have to be informed by what is happening also in some of the other activities because they have some inter-related factors. But the answer is, the investigations will proceed concurrently.

The second question is what the establishment of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee means. I think the Member is trying to score a political point here, and I want to make it categorically clear. The Government has been working – and that is why I said so in my answer – consistently working and improving data security standards. There is a list of things that we have been doing over the years and this has been explained in the House many times in response to the Member's questions and that of many other Members as well.

The key point here is that, because there have been a series of these incidents in recent times, the Prime Minister and the Government have assessed that we need to take a holistic look again. That does not mean that what we have is inadequate or lacking. But what it does mean is that we should ensure that we put a total effort to ensure that we leave no stones unturned in ensuring the highest standards are met in the public sector when it comes to data security. If there is something that is to be learnt, whether it is from best practices in the private sector or from global companies, that is something we will be very happy to learn from and incorporate in the Government's practices.

Finally, on the point on financial penalties, and the Member makes the point about signalling effect, I would say that, first of all, in fact, I think the term "ownself check ownself" was coined by a Member of her party. So, if you fine yourself, you do ask the question, what is the signalling effect there? It is far more important that the signalling effect is that you are taking this issue seriously and holding relevant people accountable. So, that is why, in the way we go about this, the penalties are focused on the individuals, officers, who have made decisions or taken actions which were deemed to be not compliant and, therefore, there are the consequences that I spelt out.

Having said that, when you take action against an organisation in the public sector, the reputational impact on that organisation and leadership is significant. I think the Member will concede that that, in itself, is also a major signalling point, because no organisation, public or private, wants to have its reputation tarnished. Having said that, we are prepared to look at all means to ensure there is clear accountability and ensure that, in the public sector, we have the highest standards of data security. That is why this committee has been set up, and we will be open to suggestions. If the Member has interesting ideas on this, we would be happy to hear from her.

Ms Irene Quay.

The Minister reassured the House that we have the various acts to impose a high standards of responsibility on public agencies. However, upon reviewing that, there seems to be a lack of clarity in this Act regarding accountability for data breaches. The focus seems to be on misuse of data. Can the Minister clarify?

My second supplementary question is: the Minister informed the House that the public agencies have regular mandatory internal audits in place to ensure public agencies comply with these standards for data protection and security of information and communications technology systems. In that case, why are these potential lapses not surfaced during previous internal audit checks?

May I just seek a clarification from the Member, Speaker?

Yes, please.

When the Member says that the "Act" does not refer to data breaches, only data misuse, is she referring to the Public Sector (Governance) Act or is she referring to PDPA?

I am referring to the Public Sector (Governance) Act, Official Secrets Act, Income Tax Act and Infectious Diseases Act.

Yes, and has the Member also looked at Instruction Manual (IM) 8? Because when we look at them holistically, it will be clear that the issues with data, whether it is a breach or misuse, is when I can argue that there is a kind of continuum here. But let me assure Members that when you have a breach of data, you have to establish why it occurred. If it is because of misuse, there will be a certain set of actions. If it is because your systems were not in place, it has to result in a different set of actions to correct the systemic errors. If there were certain people accountable for that systemic error, then they have to be held to account as well. So, there is a flow in the way this will proceed in terms of action against Government organisations.

The second point on regular IT audits, why did they not throw up such issues in the past, I think that is an age-old question. You can have audits. It is not just in IT. You have it in financial audits, you have got quality audits, but you still have incidents. This is because it is human beings running the system and, from time to time, it can happen. What is important is that when they occur, we learn from these incidents and set them right, and be transparent about what we are doing and how we are going about it.

Mr Dennis Tan.

A question for Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong. Is the Senior Minister of State able to answer any aspect of my questions?

Can the Member elaborate on what other aspects have not been answered?

No, on my question. Not sure my question has been answered.

Mr Dennis Tan's question relates to the circumstances in which the information is placed on the server. How it is that there was access that was gained to the data and whether there was a breach of any law? Those are all matters that are covered by the investigations that are currently ongoing, and, to the extent possible, when this has been ascertained, we will provide the information.

15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how can retrenched professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) who are Singaporeans be better helped to find jobs when 76% of retrenched workers in 2018 are PMETs even though the PMET share of job vacancies has risen to 53% in the same year; and (b) whether the Ministry foresees a worsening structural unemployment in 2019.

16 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has investigated the reasons for PMETs making up 75.8% of retrenchments in 2018; (b) which sectors have been most affected by the PMET retrenchments; and (c) how many of these PMETs have received retrenchment benefits and what has been the average compensation received.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 15 and 16 together?

Yes, please.

In 2018, about 5,400 local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) were retrenched, the lowest level since 2014. This took place against a backdrop of local PMET employment growth of about 34,000. The resident long-term unemployment rate for PMETs, an indicator of structural unemployment, remained low at 0.8%. At present, there are also about 31,500 vacancies for PMETs. Maybe I should add also that the 31,500 figure is a higher level than in the past few years.

To ensure retrenched workers receive timely employment support, companies are required to notify the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, led by Workforce Singapore (WSG), of the retrenchments. Based on the 2017 survey on retrenchment benefits, around 90% of retrenching establishments paid retrenchment benefits to their workers, slightly higher than in 2016. Among them, more than 70% paid retrenchment benefits of at least two weeks of salary per year of service, as recommended in the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. This was up from around 60% in 2016.

Nearly two-thirds of PMET retrenchments in 2018 were in sectors undergoing restructuring, namely, Wholesale Trade, Financial and Insurance Services, Information and Communications and Professional Services sectors. About seven in 10 of retrenched workers who accepted assistance by the Taskforce found new jobs within six months.

To help PMETs access job opportunities, the Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative has a range of programmes that address gaps in skills or wage expectations. About 17,000 PMETs were placed last year, nearly double that in 2016. PMET placements made up 56% of all A&G placements, similar to the share of PMETs in the workforce. About 5,000 of them participated in Professional Conversion Programmes.

Nonetheless, there are PMET segments we are monitoring closely, such as mature PMET jobseekers as well as those who are long-term unemployed. Such groups receive more training or wage support under the A&G programmes. As announced at the Budget this year, we will extend the Career Support Programme for two years to continue providing salary support to employers who hire long-term unemployed or retrenched mature PMETs. WSG is also increasing capacity for Professional Conversion Programmes to help reskill jobseekers for new jobs and working upstream with economic agencies and companies to retrain workers at risk of retrenchment to take up new jobs within the company.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have a few supplementary questions.

Could the Minister elaborate which age group among the PMETs who have been retrenched for the past few years are the most affected? At the same time, which age group has benefited most with the growth of these PMET vacancies last year? And do we know the utilisation rate of SkillsFuture Credit among those retrenched, especially among the PMETs, and whether there are any plans for the Ministry of Manpower to top up the SkillsFuture Credit?

Mr Speaker, I respectfully request the Member to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) for them. I do not have the data on hand. But I have qualitatively explained that the sectors involved are those that are undergoing restructuring to the largest extent.

Members are reminded that for supplementary questions, please try to keep to the context of the original PQ. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, I have one question. I just want to know, for those employees from this group who are retrenched, how many of them are from multinational corporations (MNCs) or foreign-invested companies?

Mr Speaker, we do not track the retrenchment numbers according to whether the employer was an MNC or a local company. But I understand where the Member's question is coming from. We do have a sense as to the size of the company. So, if we use the size of the company as a proxy and, say, for example, those that employ 200 and above employees, take them as a proxy for the MNCs, although that is not quite the case. The employers with 200 and above employees, typically, in a year, would be responsible for maybe about 66% or two-thirds of all PMET employment. But for this group, their share of the retrenched PMETs is less, at about 56%.

17 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the suspension of all Boeing 737 Max aircraft flying in and out of Singapore (a) whether he can provide an update on the suspension of all Boeing 737 Max flights from Changi Airport; (b) how long is it expected to last; (c) what is the number of Boeing 737 Max aircraft serving the Singapore route and affected by the suspension; (d) what is the estimated number of travellers affected; and (e) what measures are in place to minimise the impact to travellers.

18 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the aircraft procurement plans of our local airlines are in any way affected by the accidents involving the Boeing 737 Max aircraft; (b) what is the status of our communication with the US Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing regarding the safety aspects of the aircraft; and (c) whether it is necessary to review the safety risks of other Boeing planes since Boeing 737 Max is reported to be one of the industry's most reliable passenger aircraft.

Mr Speaker, we are shocked and deeply saddened by the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 —

Are you taking the two Parliamentary Questions together?

Yes, Mr Speaker, could I take Question Nos 17 and 18 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, we are shocked and deeply saddened by the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 on 10 March 2019 and also the earlier crash of Lion Air flight JT610 on 29 October 2018. Both disasters involved brand new Boeing 737 Max aircraft during the first 15 minutes of their take-off. Our condolences and thoughts go out to the families of the victims.

In aviation, ensuring the safety of passengers and crew is paramount. This is why the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) suspended operations of all variants of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft into and out of Singapore on 12 March 2019. CAAS will only lift the suspension when it is fully satisfied that all safety concerns relating to the aircraft type have been adequately addressed. During the suspension, CAAS will not allow airlines to register new Boeing 737 Max aircraft. There is currently no evidence of safety issues with other Boeing aircraft.

CAAS has been communicating closely with Boeing and the United States' Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), as well as other regulators, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, on the safety issues of the Boeing 737 Max aircraft. Even as investigations into what caused the crash are ongoing, Boeing has decided to introduce a design change to the aircraft's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System as soon as it gets the go-ahead from the FAA and other leading aviation regulators. CAAS is closely monitoring this and will ensure that SilkAir incorporates the fix once it is available.

With the suspension, SilkAir's fleet of six Boeing 737 Max aircraft have been grounded. SilkAir had to cancel or adjust some flights, affecting about 300 passengers a day. These passengers have been offered either refunds or the option to be rebooked on other flights. If the suspension continues, more flights may be cancelled. Singapore Airlines (SIA) does not have the Boeing 737 Max aircraft.

Four foreign airlines were also operating the Boeing 737 Max aircraft to Singapore. As they have limited services to Singapore, they have been able to maintain normal operations using other aircraft types, except for Shandong Airlines which has had to suspend its operations to Singapore.

CAAS will continue to work with the Changi Airport Group, SIA and SilkAir and other affected airlines to minimise the impact on passengers.

19 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development in circumstances where low-income parents who co-own their HDB flats with their children decide to sell their flats to enable their children to be removed as co-owners so that the children can buy flats in their own names, whether HDB can allow these parents to rely on their children's income in deciding whether or not to grant a concessionary loan for a purchase of a second flat in the parents' names.

Mr Speaker, as part of credit assessment for housing loans, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and financial institutions will only consider flat buyers' incomes because they are the ones who are borrowing and will be servicing the mortgage.

For parents who co-own their HDB flats with their children and wish to purchase another flat when the children move out, they can consider right-sizing to a smaller unit that is within their budget. This may be more sustainable in the long term, compared to having their children service both the mortgage on their parents' flat as well as their own home.

Nevertheless, in the circumstance where the sales proceeds are not sufficient even for a right-sized unit, then HDB would be prepared to exercise flexibility and extend a housing loan to the parents on a case-by-case basis.

As each family may have unique circumstances, I would suggest that they approach HDB to explore the possible options so that they can sustain their housing arrangements.

20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development what measures are taken to ensure that industrial buildings are not subject to unauthorised modifications beyond the initial inspections.

Mr Speaker, building owners are required to obtain approvals and permits from relevant agencies before commencing any additions and alterations (A&A) works.

In addition, there is a monitoring regime in place for completed buildings. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) imposes the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) regime to ensure that buildings are structurally safe. The PSI has to be carried out every 10 years for residential buildings and every five years for non-residential buildings, including those for industrial use. These onsite inspections have to be conducted by the Professional Engineers (PEs) engaged by the building owners. During the inspections, the PEs must also check for any A&A works to the structure of the building and report their findings to BCA. Any A&A works not in the original BCA-approved plans would be considered unauthorised.

Stern action will be taken against parties who are found to be involved in carrying out unauthorised works. Under the Building Control Act, offenders may be liable to a fine of $200,000 or a jail term of up to two years, or both. A PE who fails to perform his duties in carrying out the PSI according to the requirements may be liable to a fine of up to $20,000.

Members of the public can inform BCA if they come across any structures that they think are unauthorised.

21 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the Gini coefficient of Singapore for each year in the past 10 years when capital income is taken into account; (b) if such data is not available, whether inclusion of capital income is likely to increase or decrease Singapore's Gini coefficient; and (c) whether the Ministry will take into account capital income when reporting Singapore's Gini coefficient.

Mr Speaker, Singapore computes the Gini coefficient based on household income from work. This data is available annually and enables the timely tracking of income inequality.

Collecting income data from sources other than work is more challenging. Such data are typically collected based on self-reporting by respondents and are more susceptible to measurement errors. This is why the Department of Statistics has thus far not included such data in its computation of the Gini coefficient.

Nevertheless, the Government will continue to explore ways to better measure and monitor income inequality. Regardless of the measurement issues, our approach remains to keep our social support measures progressive and targeted at the lower- and middle-income households.

Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the reply. I do understand that we do include capital income once every five years in terms of our calculation for our Gini coefficient. If we can do it once every five years, why not do it every year? I also understand that, for example, all the other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries do include capital income. So, why does Singapore not include this?

Mr Speaker, I should clarify. I think Mr Louis Ng is mistaken. We do have surveys of income other than work in the household expenditure survey. It is not part of the Gini coefficient computation. So, that income is covered in the household expenditure survey which is done once every five years. As I have said just now, collecting data on income other than work is always fraught with issues, not just for us but for other countries as well. But we are continuing to see how the data can be better captured.

22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance in respect of the tender awarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs to ST Marine for the construction of 12 aluminium-hulled patrol boats (a) why his Ministry's Standing Committee on Debarment (SCOD) did not extend the disbarment of companies from tendering for Government contracts to cases where the companies or their senior executives had been convicted of corruption in private sector contracts; and (b) whether the notice of award was published no later than 72 days after the tender was awarded to ST Marine as required under the Government Procurement Regulations.

Mr Speaker, corruption is an offence and is dealt with strictly under our laws. Enforcement is by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and adjudication of liability and the imposition of penalties for breach of the laws are carried out by the Courts. Companies or individuals convicted of corruption are thus penalised through the legal system. The penalties apply to cases involving both public and private sector-related contracts. The underlying rationale is because society, as a whole, is harmed by such conduct.

Debarment from participation in Government contracts is a separate and distinct exercise from Court proceedings and serves a different purpose. Debarment is an administrative procedure by the Government to protect the Government’s interests as a service buyer, against those who have caused direct harm or losses to the Government. It does not duplicate the Courts’ function of adjudication or punishment.

The grounds on which service providers can be debarred are made known publicly on the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) website and cover a variety of situations where Government interests have been harmed. These include, for example, failure of a supplier to meet critical contractual obligations to a Government agency, abandonment or termination of a Government contract due to contractor default, among others.

Specifically, with regard to corruption, CPIB can, where appropriate, recommend to the Ministry's Standing Committee on Debarment (SCOD) debarment action after a Court decision which establishes that the contractor or any of its employees, directors, partners or sole proprietor had bribed a public sector officer or another person in connection with a Government agency or contract.

As can be seen from the above, there must be a nexus to Government-related contracts before debarment can be applied. The underlying rationale is to protect against suppliers who have caused direct harm or loss to the Government as a service buyer.

In the case involving ST Marine, CPIB investigations did not reveal any connection with a Government agency or contract. Hence, the circumstances in which debarment can be recommended under the policy parameters did not arise.

In this case, the charges and convictions were against the individuals involved, namely, ST Marine's former group financial controller and six other former senior executives. They were convicted in 2017 for offences committed in the period between 2000 and 2011, the most recent act thus being eight years ago. The individuals involved ceased to be employed by ST Marine since between 2004 and 2014.

The company itself, ST Marine, which is a separate legal entity, did not have any charges or convictions against it. A new Board of Directors of ST Marine was appointed as of 15 August 2018. The Police Coast Guard tender was awarded in November 2018.

The notice of award was published within 72 days from the tender award in accordance with the Government Procurement Regulations. In the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA’s) reply to The Straits Times on 9 March 2019, MHA had clarified that the contract was awarded to ST Marine on 26 November 2018 and the notice of award was published on the GeBIZ website the next day on 27 November 2018. The date of award of the tender was initially incorrectly shown as 27 July 2018 on the GeBIZ website and this has been rectified.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the hon Minister for her very detailed response to my question. I just have a few supplementary questions to follow up.

Firstly, what would be the rationale for the SCOD when it undertakes debarment proceedings to only consider past corruption offences relating to Government contracts rather than private sector contracts? What would be the considerations to set past corruption offences involving private sector contracts at "Nil", to provide no consideration for that, and only to consider corruption related to previous Government contracts?

Secondly, is this something – I guess depending on the answer to the first question – that the SCOD will review in future to consider taking into consideration past corruption offences by the company or its senior officials and within a reasonable time for private sector contracts, and not only to limit debarment considerations to Government contracts?

Mr Speaker, I should clarify. Let us make a distinction between past convictions in relation to private sector contracts and past convictions in relation to public sector contracts.

So, past convictions in relation to public sector contracts – that is clear. For that, debarment would apply, and I had explained that the main purpose of debarment is to protect the interest of the Government by disqualifying suppliers that have caused the Government to suffer harm or loss from getting fresh contracts, for both procurement and revenue contracts, from all Government agencies.

Now, this does not mean to say that the committees or people looking at the SCOD, looking at the contracts or whoever is awarding the tender, cannot consider past convictions of private sector contracts. You can. But that is not an exercise in debarment, under the debarment policy parameters. That would be an exercise in looking to see holistically whether there is a risk to contract performance, to contract integrity, and reputational risk. So, in other words, because the Parliamentary Question was filed with respect to debarment and, hence, my response was on the policy parameters that apply to debarment.

But in terms of award of tender, the committees or whoever would be awarding the tender can look at it holistically and take into account the suppliers' track records which could include corruption convictions. But that is an exercise in relation to assessment of risk for contract performance and contract integrity, rather than an exercise of debarment.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Just some further clarifications. I understand the Minister has said that specifically with regard to the procedure for debarment, Government contracts – public sector contracts – are taken into consideration, not private sector contracts and there are other mechanisms or processes in procurement where private sector corruption in the past can be taken into account.

I would just like to sort of go deeper on this point: why can the debarment process run by SCOD not take into account past private sector corruption offences? Why is it only taking into account past public sector corruption offences? Will that be something that the Government is prepared to review, going forward?

May I enquire from the Member, when he asked if it can be taken into account, what is the actual purpose that the Member is suggesting that private sector convictions be taken into account? Is the purpose punitive? Or is the purpose some other purpose? I would be grateful for the clarification.

I should just thank the Minister for her response. Just to clarify on that, my purpose is for the purpose of debarment because past public sector corruption cases are potential grounds for debarment because of various risks that the Government may be exposed to if the tender is awarded to that company. So, why would not past private sector corruption cases also similarly give rise to grounds for potential debarment under the SCOD debarment procedures?

The Member may have misunderstood my question. My question was: in the Member's context, what is the purpose of the debarment? As I have explained, the current policy rationale for the debarment is protection of the Government interest against harm or loss. So, when the Member suggests that there should be debarment in relation to private sector contracts, what is the underlying purpose of the debarment? Is it to punish the company? Is it to protect the Government? Because if it is to protect the Government, then there is not a nexus. So, I am just trying to understand the purpose for which the Member is suggesting we should have debarment, so that I can address the question.

I thank the Minister. The purpose for which I am suggesting the debarment can be considered is essentially protection of the Government's interest because if debarment can be considered for companies involved in past public sector offences. Well, if the company has been involved in past private sector corruption offences, then, presumably, that creates a possibility that they may also expose the Government to some risk if they take on a public sector contract. So, my purpose is basically protection of the Government, and to have a debarment process that considers both Government and private sector past corruption offences because past private sector corruption offences may be grounds to suppose that there is some risk even if that company were to undertake a Government contract.

I thank the Member for his response and that actually fits into exactly the answer that I had given earlier.

So, if the purpose is adjudication and punishment, that is dealt with by the Courts. Insofar as the purpose is to protect the Government's interest by preventing the supplier from getting fresh contracts, that is where debarment applies.

If the purpose is, as the Member has clarified, to guard against risk, that is addressed by taking into account the tender assessment holistically. As I had explained earlier, that is an exercise in assessment of risk of performance, or risk of integrity to the contract, or reputational risk. So, either way, the purpose is addressed, whether it be Court, debarment or overall holistic assessment.

23 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what are the benefits and implications of the recent agreement with Malaysia to suspend overlapping claims in Singapore's territorial waters off Tuas; and (b) when was the last occasion that foreign vessels had anchored in Singapore's territorial waters off Tuas.

Mr Speaker, on 14 March 2019, Malaysia and Singapore agreed to revert the port limits to the status quo prior to 25 October 2018 and 6 December 2018 respectively. The Malaysian government vessels which have been illegally anchored in our waters since early December 2018 would have to move out. In keeping with past practice, no commercial activities or anchoring of ships would be allowed in this area. Our ships will continue to patrol and take appropriate enforcement actions within our territorial waters. If all these recommendations are implemented by 14 April 2019, then negotiations for maritime boundary delimitation in the area will start within one month thereafter. I need to stress that these measures shall be taken without prejudice to the respective maritime boundary claims of both sides.

We hope that the recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible within the agreed timeframe. This will allow the ground situation to be de-escalated, and then both sides can embark on maritime boundary delimitation negotiations.

This is a process that will take time, but both sides are committed to negotiate in good faith, and in the event that we are unable to arrive at an amicable solution on delimitation, we may mutually agree to resort to an appropriate international third-party dispute settlement procedure on terms to be mutually agreed by the parties.

Overall, the agreement is a positive and concrete step forward for both countries and is reflective of Singapore’s commitment to resolve our issues with Malaysia in a calm and rational and amicable manner, in accordance with international law, and to nurture this very important bilateral relationship whilst safeguarding our national interests.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Just to clarify, Minister. So, are there no more foreign ships right now in our territorial waters off Tuas at this point of time?

There are two Malaysian government vessels which I believe are still anchored there at this point in time. So, the terms of the agreement have not been implemented yet.

24 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs how can the Home Team draw lessons from the recent shooting incidents in Amsterdam and Christchurch to better prevent similar incidents in Singapore.

The recent attacks in Utrecht and Christchurch are sombre reminders of the threat which radicalism and terrorism continue to pose. We condemn the attacks and share the sorrow of those who have lost family members and loved ones.

The two incidents provide several lessons what countries should put in place to minimise the chances and impact of similar attacks.

First is the need to unequivocally reject and counter extremist ideology and rhetoric. They can spread widely via social media and breed hate and violence. The manifesto published by the Christchurch attacker reeked of the disdainful and derogatory language typically used in white supremacist materials. If allowed to propagate, such hateful discourse can build up a culture of hate and intolerance, and lead to violence. In Singapore, we take a firm and unforgiving stance against extremist expressions and speech to make sure that the ideologies they represent never take root. This includes working with partners, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group, to refute radical religious teachings.

Second is the importance of firearms controls. A week after the Christchurch attacks, New Zealand proposed new laws to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons. We learnt our own lessons many decades ago. Today, unlawful possession of firearms is punishable with imprisonment and caning, and unlawful use is a capital offence.