Hansard, Monday, 1 October 2018

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 (NMPs):

Mr Arasu Duraisamy;

Mr Douglas Foo;

Mr Terence Ho Wee San;

Prof Lim Sun Sun;

Mr Mohamed Irshad;

Ms Anthea Ong;

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching;

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira;

Ms Yip Pin Xiu.

On 26 September 2018, President Halimah Yacob, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as NMPs for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 26 September 2018.

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 Arasu Duraisamy;

Mr Douglas Foo;

Mr Terence Ho Wee San;

Prof Lim Sun Sun;

Mr Mohamed Irshad;

Ms Anthea Ong;

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching;

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira;

Ms Yip Pin Xiu.

I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House.

1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Prime Minister whether he can (i) list all the components of the salaries of the Ministers and Prime Minister, (ii) state the amounts, in months of salary, paid for each component for each year from 2013 to 2017 and (iii) confirm that these components are fully included in the Ministerial salary benchmark established in the White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government" that was debated in Parliament in January 2012 and are not payments over and above the salary benchmark.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the salary structure for Political Office Holders is clearly and transparently set out in the 2012 White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government", submitted by an independent Committee after extensive consultation with members of the public and Members of Parliament.

The Committee had received more than 500 emails and letters from Members of Parliament and the public, including young people, Chief Executive Officers, small and medium enterprise (SME) owners, retirees, overseas Singaporeans, professionals, academics, as well as representatives from non-government organisations. So, there was extensive public consultation.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I display some slides on the LED screen?

Please do. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]

Thank you. The Committee set out to first determine what the appropriate level of total annual salary should be.

In 2012, the Committee recommended a norm level of $1.1 million as the total annual salary for an entry level MR4 Minister, based on a 40% discount to the market reference, to reflect the ethos of public service. The Committee then recommended how this total amount should be divided between fixed pay and variable pay. So, that was the next step.

The fixed pay comprises the monthly salary and 13th month Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance. The Committee recommended that a significant part of the total annual salary should be variable, and the quantum linked to individual performance and national outcomes. The variable components of the annual salary comprise individual Performance Bonus, National Bonus and the Annual Variable Component. And, together, these variable components constitute 35% of the total norm annual pay, and this is quite usual for executives and senior people at this level. The fixed pay is 65% of total norm annual pay.

All the components added up – fixed pay plus variable pay, including any and all bonuses – make up the norm level of $1.1 million for an entry level MR4 Minister.

I underline this point, Mr Speaker, all the bonus components form part of, and are not in addition to, the $1.1 million salary norm.

The salary structure is totally transparent. There are no hidden salary components or perks. The Prime Minister’s salary does not have an individual Performance Bonus as there is no individual who can assess his performance. But to keep to the principle of making a significant part of the Prime Minister’s total pay subject to performance, that is, 35%, the Prime Minister’s variable pay has twice the National Bonus compared to other Ministers, linking it to national outcomes, in place of the individual Performance Bonus.

The independent Committee recommended that the Prime Minister’s total norm annual salary should be two times that of an entry level MR4 Minister, that is, $2.2 million. Again, this includes all components, including his National Bonus, and there are no salary components or perks beyond this.

I have prepared a handout on the range and average of each of the variable pay components received by Political Office Holders over the past five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the handout, please?

Please proceed. [Handout was distributed to hon Members.]

If Members can refer to the handout, (Annex 1) reflects the actual variable pay components received by Political Office Holders over the past five years.

Between 2013 and 2017, for the National Bonus, the range was between 3.4 and 4.9 months, with the average over the five years being 4.1 months; for Performance Bonus the range was from three to six months each year, with the average across all the Political Office Holders over five years at 4.3 months; for the Annual Variable Component, the range was 0.95 to 1.5 months over the period and the average over the five years was 1.3 months.

All these variable components are in accordance with the framework I earlier described, and not on top of it. The bonuses can be higher than the norm in the framework, or lower, depending on the actual performance of individual Political Office Holders and the national outcomes in each year.

The National Bonus is determined equally by the four national indicators laid out in the White Paper, namely, the real median income growth rate of Singaporeans; the real growth rate of the lowest 20th percentile income of Singaporeans; the unemployment rate of Singaporeans; and the real gross domestic product growth rate.

The Annual Variable Component is always the same amount that all Civil Servants receive.

The Performance Bonus is determined by the Prime Minister who consults the senior Ministers in Cabinet in assessing the performance of Political Office Holders.

In determining the Performance Bonus for each individual, he takes into account the actual work that each Political Office Holder does in the specific responsibilities assigned to him, as well as his contributions in Cabinet when we consider broader national issues.

Many Political Office Holders hold more than one portfolio, in order to stretch them and to build depth and experience in the Cabinet.

But I should emphasise that each Office Holder receives only one salary regardless of whether he holds one or multiple portfolios.

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is not a member of the Cabinet, and has not received a ministerial salary since he retired from the Cabinet in May 2011.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has always been transparent with the salary structure for Political Office Holders. The 2012 White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government" was submitted by an independent Committee after extensive consultation with Members of Parliament and the public. The paper was endorsed in full in January 2012, after a thorough debate in this House over two and a half days with 29 Members speaking on the matter, including seven Members from the Opposition.

In determining the salary framework, the Committee was guided by the following three key principles.

First, salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country.

Second, the ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and, hence, there should be a discount of 40% in the pay formula.

Third, there should be a "clean wage" with no hidden perks.

Members of Parliament, including those from the Workers’ Party, endorsed these principles.

I quote Mr Chen Show Mao – he is in the House, "We (the Workers' Party) agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling that has its own ethos and their wages should be transparent." During that Parliamentary session, the Workers' Party had proposed their own formula based on these same principles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could I request the Clerk to distribute Handouts 2 and 3?

Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Handout 2 (Annex 2) is a Straits Times report on the 2012 debate in Parliament. The handout provides a succinct summary of the key points and conveys a flavour of the debate.

It reports that there was, I quote, "Real progress in [the] ministerial pay debate", and quoting my remarks that the "Opposition’s agreement on key points marks a breakthrough", and the "Shift in the Workers' Party's stance helps debate move forward".

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was convergence in this House on both the principles as well as the quantum for Ministers' salaries.

If Members could refer to Handout 3 (Annex 3), the formula put forward by the Workers' Party (WP) in 2012 would have resulted in essentially the same total annual salary level for the MR 4 entry level Minister as that recommended by the independent Committee.

But the WP formula would have had a higher level of fixed component of 81%, amounting to roughly $800,800, compared to the White Paper's proposal and a smaller variable component of 19%.

And this means that the WP would have paid out a higher portion of the salary – about $880,000 out of $1.1 million – regardless of individual performance or national outcomes, and even if the outcomes were not achieved.

This would have made the link between salary and performance weaker, though both the WP's and the White Paper’s proposals would have added up to the same norm annual salary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we recently carried out a second independent review of the salary structure and level.

At the Committee of Supply (COS) debate this year, I informed this House that the Prime Minister had formed a new independent Committee in 2017 to review the salary framework to ensure that it remains appropriate and valid. The 2017 Committee reaffirmed the three key principles and was of the view that the current salary structure for Political Office Holders remained relevant and sound.

Though the MR4 benchmark had increased by 9% since 2011, the Government decided to maintain the current salary structure and keep salary at the 2012 level. Significantly, no member of the Opposition sought clarification on my COS statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have answered all three parts of Mr Alex Yam’s question. Mr Leon Perera has also filed a similar Parliamentary Question for Written Answer on Ministerial Salaries, which I believe Table 1 in my handout answers. Before I proceed to the concluding segment of my reply, with your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to invite Members, in particular Mr Perera, to seek any clarifications that they may have.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for a very comprehensive reply. Just two very quick supplementary questions. One, since the revision in 2012, in percentage terms, has the average income of our Ministers increased or decreased? Secondly, on the issue of pensions, which has also appeared in the public discourse, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify once and for all, how many Political Office Holders still qualify for pension?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can confirm that the pay for Ministers currently remains the same, in accordance with the 2012 White Paper framework. Of course, it can go up and it can go down, depending on whether the National Outcomes were achieved and the individual performance of the Ministers. And that is, essentially, part of the structure of the framework that was put in place in 2012.

And I can confirm to Mr Alex Yam that Ministerial pensions were discontinued in 2012, as part of the revision of the framework, and that Ministers receive the same MediSave contributions, percentages and numbers, as Civil Servants do, under the MediSave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) Scheme for medical benefits. So, there are no hidden perks, no hidden medical benefits. There are no pensions.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply to Mr Alex Yam's question. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that the three components of Mr Alex Yam's question had been answered. The second part actually requests the Prime Minister to state the amounts in months of salary paid for the year from 2013 to 2017. What we have in the first handout is a range in the number of months. Do we have details on the absolute dollar amount that was requested in the Parliamentary Question (PQ) by Mr Alex Yam?

The second question I have is with regard to whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that in response to Mr Leon Perera's PQ filed on 10 September, whether the Government could have pre-empted some of the misinformation that occurred online had a fuller and more expansive reply been given to Mr Leon Perera in September.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered Mr Alex Yam's question as he has posed it. And the most important aspect of that answer is that all the components are within the framework of $1.1 million that was put in place since 2012. That is the most important.

I should point out that Mr Leon Perera asked the question for a Written Answer and his question was fully answered in the written form. Had Mr Leon Perera chosen to ask an Oral question, he could have expanded, he could have asked, but he chose not to. And I invite him to ask any questions for clarifications that he may have. And, of course, Mr Pritam Singh as well, who was present during the debate.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, would the hon Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that my original written PQ filed in September asked for total Bonus Months and not only Performance Bonus? Would that not have been an opportunity to, at that point, when the written PQ was answered, and also disclose and publish the National Bonus level, in addition to the Performance Bonus level, which I think was the point that Mr Pritam Singh was making? So, that is my first question.

My second question is: would the Government be publishing the quantums of National Bonus and average highest and lowest Performance Bonus on an annual basis, going forward?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member asked for what each Minister gets. For the National Bonus and the Annual Variable Component, it is the same for all Ministers. The Annual Variable Component is well-known. So, if that was what Mr Leon Perera wanted, he could have filed an Oral question and he could have followed up, and we would have provided him the answer, as we would today. So, there is nothing secret about it. It is transparent. It is open. And I am answering all the questions today.

But could I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that Ministers' salaries should be competitive, that the salary should recognise the ethos of public service and that salaries should be transparent, which was the Workers' Party's position in 2012?

I thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. My PQ did not raise a suggestion with relation to the salary, the formulation for calculating the total compensation of the salary, and I have no disagreement with those broad principles, in response to the Deputy Prime Minister's question.

I would also like to pose a question in relation to my original Written question filed in September. It was in relation to total Bonus Months. And I would like to ask the hon Deputy Prime Minister: has the figure for the National Bonus – which I acknowledge is the same for all Ministers – been previously published prior to when the Written question was filed in September? If not, then would that not have been an opportunity to also release that figure in September together with the average Performance Bonus figure?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we did publish the full information once in the first year after the framework was announced. It is in the public records. And in fact, the method of calculating the National Bonus is well-known. All the components are there. All the factors are there and it can be calculated. And I think people have made an attempt to do so; not very far off from where it actually was.

But I take it that Mr Leon Perera does affirm that he agrees that Ministerial salary should be competitive, that the salary should recognise the ethos of public service and that salaries should be transparent. Can I ask Mr Perera whether he agrees that the salary proposals that the Workers' Party had put forward in 2012 would essentially result in the same total annual salaries for Ministers as the White Paper, except for the Workers' Party's proposal having a much larger component of fixed pay?

For the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I was not present in the House. I did not participate in this debate and, in my PQ, I did not make a suggestion or a new suggestion about how the total compensation or the monthly salary should be calculated.

Mr Perera should not evade the question. I have provided him all the information there. It is there. Does he agree or not?

I think with the assumption that this information is descriptive in nature, then, clearly, there are no grounds for me to disagree that it is a description of what had been presented during the debate in 2012 which I did not participate in.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. We agree. The Ministerial salaries 2012 White Paper versus the Workers' Party's formula table that the Deputy Prime Minister had shared with the House is accurate.

There is one point which I have to make, which is an important distinction even though the result is similar, is the basis upon which the monthly component is calculated. And that was a question of principle. The principle that the Workers' Party took upon itself was to consider what would be a fair multiple, what sort of message do you send to the public with regard to appropriate salary that ultimately is derived. We chose MX9 as the point, because we felt that an entry-level Civil Servant would aspire to that position, and he would not have to be a scholar or anything of that sort. That is our political perspective at that time. The Government's perspective is to take the 1,000 top earners and then you take a percentage of their total salary and then give a discount of 40% or something of that nature.

So, that is the key difference. But the total amount, as it is accurately in the table, is correct.

The second point I would like to suggest – and this is not belabouring the issue, Mr Speaker – is the question again by Mr Alex Yam about the amount. I believe, in the context of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods that came out with a list of recommendations, it is actually more propitious for us to present all the information in an easy-to-understand manner for the public. And that would reduce the prospect of misinformation online.

I understand there is an issue with regard to Performance Bonus. A range would be sufficient. It does not need to specify what each Minister gets. But I would like to read Recommendation 9 which would be a helpful way for the Government to move forward. Recommendation 9 of the Select Committee's Report states that "Public institutions should wherever possible provide information to the public in response to online falsehoods in a timely manner. They should also seek to pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance where appropriate to inoculate the public. They should ensure that they communicate with the public in clear and comprehensible terms."

I do understand that "Factually", the Government website, put out a response to certain misinformation that was generated by Mr Leon Perera's question. His question came out on 10 September; on 11 September, certain websites got carried away with certain information or the way they interpreted that reply. And on 16 September "Factually" presents the components as the Deputy Prime Minister did. But I would suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that if we put out the dollar value, the prospect of more misinformation can be reduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh is being slightly disingenuous. I mean, Mr Perera asked for some data. And the next day, the data was misinterpreted and became the widespread basis for false information. I am delighted that Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party are all for transparency and for debunking falsehoods.

So, perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to clarify the position and I hope that the Workers' Party will help us to clarify the position by putting it on your website also, especially as Mr Pritam Singh has agreed.

So, the key facts are these: first, all salary components, including the Variable Pay, are part of the salary structure benchmarked in 2012 at $1.1 million for an entry level Minister at MR4. There are no components beyond that.

Second, the salary structure and benchmark have not changed since 2012. I reported to Parliament earlier this year that the Government had decided not to adjust salaries even though the MR4 benchmark had increased by 9%.

Third, in 2012, there was remarkable convergence in this House on the matter of Ministers' salaries. Mr Pritam Singh has just said that the Workers' Party agrees with the principles underlying the current salary structure and that the Workers' Party's alternative formula used a norm salary level that is also $1.1 million.

The proposals, Mr Speaker, Sir, are really very close to each other – in principle and in quantum.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, if there were a Workers' Party government in power today, by their own formula, the Workers' Party Minister would be paid essentially the same as what a Minister today is paid. Mr Pritam Singh would pay himself that same amount.

The subject of Ministers' salaries, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a difficult one to talk about. It is an emotional one. There are misconceptions, sometimes deliberately propagated. It is easily politicised.

Even knowledgeable, well-meaning people, who have a deep interest in politics are susceptible to this.

I read Mr Ho Kwon Ping's extensive interview with Channel NewsAsia, which was published yesterday. Among other things, he suggested pegging Ministerial salaries to the median salary of Singaporeans. He also suggested an independent Commission to decide the actual quantum. And Mr Louis Ng, in an earlier similar interview, also suggested that there should be public consultations.

Sir, from my reply today, Members can see that there was an independent Committee, not one but two. The independent Committee did have extensive consultations in 2012 and a significant part of Ministers' salaries are pegged not just to the growth of average salaries, but to the lowest 20th percentile of salaries and to the unemployment rate – issues which are important to every Singaporean.

But even Mr Ho, who is well-informed and has a deep interest in politics, has some serious misconceptions. He claimed, for example, that his salary is lower than the Ministers.

Sir, fortunately, the interviewer had checked, done the homework, and pointed out to Mr Ho that his salary, including benefits and bonus – I would not mention the figure, but it is significantly higher than that of Ministers and certainly not lower than Minister's salaries – to quote the article.

Sir, otherwise, the misrepresentation would have been carried widely and spread more disinformation.

Sir, Ministers, for example, are responsible for tourism development or air transport as just one of their many responsibilities, which contribute to the growth of the tourism industry in our region, in which Mr Ho's company operates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, so, if this is a difficult subject to talk about, why do we have to talk about this subject from time to time? Because, Sir, we need a fair, open, honest, transparent framework in place, so that we can continue to have able, committed and passionate people, with integrity, come to serve as our political leaders.

Sir, I am 64 this year and have served more than 25 years in politics. My most important task now is to help Prime Minister Lee to prepare, not just the Fourth Generation leadership, but also to make sure that we are able to have a Fifth Generation of leaders coming in, having the time to learn, to be tested, and to gain the trust and support of Singaporeans.

These are people in their late 30s and 40s. Many would be at the threshold, where they have a good chance of reaching the peak in their chosen careers and professions.

Sir, the virtues of passion to serve the people is shared by Members from both sides of the House. The PAP looks for people with integrity, who are capable, committed and caring, who are prepared to put others before themselves.

All Members of this House know that coming into politics entails many sacrifices, in privacy, continuous exposure to the glare of the public eye in their careers, in family time, not always being there to watch your kids grow.

Sir, Ministers' salaries have been studied and recommended by an independent Committee. They are fair-minded people who have the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. They have recommended a framework and a quantum that reflects all these things that we talk about – sacrifice, commitment to service, working for the good of our fellow Singaporeans. All these factors are in there.

The Government accepts the recommendations.

The Workers' Party accepts the principles and has come up with essentially the same quantum, which Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leon Perera just affirmed.

So, let us agree to agree. This is what politics is about also – not just opposing for the sake of opposing. This is a matter which, whether one is in the opposition or in government, we can agree upon – that we need a fair framework to bring in the best team, to do the best for Singapore and Singaporeans.

2 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the considerations that led to Singapore agreeing to Malaysia's request to postpone construction works of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) project; (b) whether Singapore is obligated to accept changes, if any, proposed by Malaysia to the HSR project; and (c) what is to be expected of Malaysia at the end of the suspension period if the project does not proceed eventually.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what was the basis for the agreed reimbursement of S$15 million by Malaysia to Singapore for abortive costs arising from the two-year suspension of works for the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR); (b) what are the major works which will be suspended during the same period; and (c) whether there are any ancillary works or projects relating to or incidental to the HSR which will still continue in the next two years.

Sir, may I take Question Nos 2 and 3 together, please?

Please do.

The Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) Bilateral Agreement commits the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Singapore to build the HSR Project and to start the Express Service linking both cities by end-2026. Since the Bilateral Agreement was signed in December 2016, both Governments have expended significant resources to implement the Project according to the prescribed timeline. As I explained in this House on 9 July this year, Singapore, on its part, had already spent more than S$250 million by the end of May 2018 in implementing the Project. These are costs for consultancies to design the civil infrastructure, costs for manpower to oversee and deliver the Project, and costs for land acquisition. I added that Singapore would continue to incur costs, more than S$6 million in June, another more than S$6 million in July, and at least S$40 million from August to the end of this year. We expected Malaysia to also fulfil its Bilateral Agreement obligations, as the Bilateral Agreement is a legally binding treaty between two countries.

However, on 11 August this year, the new Malaysian government, through its Minister of Economic Affairs Mohamed Azmin bin Ali, made an official request to Singapore to defer the HSR Project by three or four years. Malaysia acknowledged that it would require Singapore's consent for such a deferment.

The HSR is a major long-term bilateral project. It requires close cooperation between both Governments to succeed. The Bilateral Agreement makes no provision for project deferment. When either party is unable or unwilling to continue with the Project, it can terminate the Project and compensate the other party for costs incurred, in accordance with the terms of the Bilateral Agreement.

Minister Azmin Ali explained that Malaysia did not want to terminate the Project but needed to suspend construction for a specified period, with the intention to resume the Project thereafter. He sought Singapore’s understanding for Malaysia’s predicament. He asked us to give the Malaysian request serious consideration, which we did.

We could have turned down the request to defer the Project, enforced our legal rights on termination and sought compensation from Malaysia. This would have been fully in accordance with the Bilateral Agreement. After that, if and when Malaysia was again ready to pursue such a project, we could discuss a new Bilateral Agreement for it.

However, in the spirit of bilateral cooperation, we decided to work out an alternative resolution to the problem, especially since Malaysia reassured us that it did want to resume the HSR Project, albeit after a delay. After several rounds of discussions, both sides reached agreement to suspend the construction of the HSR Project up to 31 May 2020. This will be two years from the formation of the new Malaysian government. Beyond two years, the current cost estimates would likely be no longer valid, which would affect the viability of the project and its business case. A longer suspension period would also impact our development plans for the Jurong Lake District, which will host the Singapore HSR Terminus and many transport, commercial, residential and recreational developments. As it is, with the two-year suspension, the projected commencement date for the HSR Express Service will be pushed back by four years to 1 January 2031, as both countries will need additional time to call fresh tenders, if and when the Project resumes.

Project suspension is not without costs to Singapore. We have to pay contract breakage costs to contractors for terminating ongoing contracts and to safely wind down operations for the duration of the suspension period. For example, ongoing excavation works cannot simply be abandoned; they need to be safely wound down. The excavation must be backfilled to render the site safe, and re-excavated once the project resumes, increasing costs. These are abortive costs, which cannot be used for the HSR Project after it resumes. They are separate from the project implementation costs which we have already incurred for work done which will still be useful if and when the Project resumes. Malaysia has agreed to reimburse Singapore for the abortive costs of S$15 million, to be paid by end-January 2019. After the ongoing works have been wound down, no new HSR works will be undertaken during the period of suspension.

Malaysia also requested that during the suspension period, both sides discuss the way forward for the HSR Project, with the aim of reducing costs. Singapore is open to such discussions. We are not obliged to accept automatically any proposals offered, but we will assess any proposals from Malaysia carefully and objectively.

By 31 May 2020, we expect Malaysia to resume constructing the HSR Project, either as specified in the HSR Bilateral Agreement, or as amended if there is mutual agreement to do so. There will be no further suspension beyond 31 May 2020. If Malaysia does not proceed with the HSR Project by then, the Project will be deemed to have been terminated by Malaysia, which will reimburse Singapore for the project implementation costs incurred by us up to the point of suspension. These were the terms of the legally binding documents which Minister Azmin Ali and I signed on 5 September 2018 in Putrajaya.

This is a fair arrangement for both countries. It protects Singapore’s interests, while reasonably accommodating Malaysia’s request. It also shows that we can manage our bilateral ties on the basis of mutual respect, and resolve issues amicably in accordance with binding agreements and international law.

Singapore looks forward to continue working with Malaysia to see through the HSR Project. Both sides recognise the mutual benefits of the HSR Project, which will bring both countries closer together by improving connectivity, deepening people-to-people ties and catalysing further economic cooperation.

Meanwhile, the suspension affects many stakeholders. SG HSR, Singapore's Infrastructure Company (InfraCo) which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), has hired many staff who have worked hard on the Project. During the suspension period, they will be offered alternative job roles in LTA. I thank them for their good work and dedication to this Project. I am confident that they will continue to contribute in the LTA family, and to the HSR Project if and when it resumes.

The two HSR InfraCos, SG HSR Pte Ltd, and MyHSR Corporation, have jointly notified registered bidders for the AssetsCo tender that the AssetsCo tender has been aborted as of 5 September 2018. SG HSR and LTA have also informed all their contractors of the Project suspension, and are engaging them to discuss further details.

High-speed question from Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister has said, substantial resources were deployed for the HSR project. So, I actually had asked the Minister in Question No 55 whether with that suspension, the LTA resources can be redeployed for the Jurong Region Line so that we can expedite the project of Jurong Region Line.

If Mr Speaker permits me to reply to this question, which is ordered further down the Order Paper. I could.

Why not we come to that turn later? Mr Ang Hin Kee.

I would like to follow up with a question about the HSR staff who were deployed to alternative roles in LTA. I was wondering if the Ministry will consider deploying them, perhaps, in other countries that may agree to the arrangement whereby there are HSR-equivalent projects which are ongoing, so that the staff will be kept abreast with the developments of the same nature, dealing with high-speed trains and tunnelling works, so that they are kept abreast with the latest technology which must certainly improve over the next one or two years.

Ms Foo Mee Har may disagree. The reality is that within LTA, within Singapore, we have many Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)-related projects and the skillsets which are being exploited and applied for the MRT projects are totally applicable for HSR as well. So, within the suspension period of two years, we have enough work to keep them usefully occupied and we will do so.

Sir, if you agree, I can take Ms Foo Mee Har's question now.

If you wish, Minister.

55 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for transport whether the construction of Jurong Region MRT Line (JRL) can be expedited by deploying resources from the delayed Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project.

The Jurong Region Line (JRL) will be our seventh Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Line, after the Thomson-East Coast Line. It is scheduled to open in three stages between 2026 and 2028. It will cover 24 kilometres with 24 stations, of which, five are interchange stations. Its planning and design works have commenced since March 2014. This is a complex project, and its 10-year project implementation timeline has been carefully adopted to ensure the safety and quality of construction. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is adequately resourced to meet this challenging timeline.

First, the JRL will run along existing road corridors where there are many underground utilities and services, such as high voltage cables and large diameter water pipes. All these need to be carefully diverted before JRL construction can commence.

Second, the JRL main construction works are complex. For example, the JRL will interchange with existing MRT lines at Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang and Boon Lay. The new JRL stations will have to be built to safely and seamlessly interface with these existing stations, which are running live operations with heavy commuter loads. In particular, works at Jurong East Station will involve removal of the existing steel roof structure and the construction of a new roof above live tracks and operating platforms.

Third, some parts of the JRL have tight construction corridors. Extra care needs to be taken for works in these constrained areas, so as not to damage or disrupt existing buildings and structures. There needs to be close coordination with surrounding land and building owners. All these require time.

In short, safety in construction is our top priority. LTA does not recommend further shortening the construction timeline, even if additional resources are available, but we will try.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I just want to ask the Minister whether he has any answer for the third part of my question, specifically, whether there are any ancillary works or projects relating to or incidental to the HSR which will still continue in these two years?

That was in my answer, that during this rail suspension period, once the activities that need to be wound down are done, there will no more HSR-related works to be done during the suspension period.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

May I know the exact date of the suspension, whether there are bids received for the tender which has been suspended? About the termination few months ago, were there any bids that have been received for the open tender or the asset-owning company? And has the Ministry gone through all those who had tendered? Probably some contract sum offered is well within the budget, most likely can be considered?

Sir, there was a strong interest in the joint AssetsCo tender, but the AssetsCo tender had not closed yet – at that time. We postponed the closing date to end of this year but now that the project construction has been suspended, on the same day, we have informed all the bidders that the tender has been aborted. But the Member's question was what were the bids that we had received. So, the tender has not closed yet. The tender's closing date is end of this year.

4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the cause of the widespread electricity disruption that occurred on 18 September 2018; (b) how are our critical infrastructure protected against such disruptions; and (c) what is the impact of the liberalisation of the energy market on the reliability of electricity provision.

5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the root cause of the major disruption to power supply in Singapore on 18 September 2018; and (b) what are the follow-up actions and measures that will be put in place to minimise the risks of recurrence.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what caused the power failure on 18 September 2018 and how many homes were affected by the blackout.

7 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the findings from the investigations by the Energy Market Authority on the disruption of power supply that occurred on 18 September 2018; (b) what are the safeguards that are in place to ensure that there are no power disruptions to critical services, such as those in hospitals, lifts, street lights and traffic lights; and (c) what are the safeguards that can be put in place to prevent another similar occurrence of disruption of power supply in the future.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 7 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by tracing the timeline of events behind the electricity supply disruption on 18 September.

That evening, a total of 16 generating units were operating. At 1.17 am, a power generating unit at Sembcorp Cogen Pte Ltd tripped. Based on the Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) preliminary investigations, this was likely due to an equipment fault. This triggered an automatic response by the other 15 units that were running, to increase their supply, to meet the demand for power. This is usually not a problem, as each of the remaining units only had to increase their supply by about 5%. However, a unit at Senoko Energy Pte Ltd tripped a few seconds later, due to failure of a different equipment component. This led to a further shortfall in supply from the operating plants to meet demand, which caused the protection devices in the power system to kick in as designed and automatically disconnected electricity to about 146,500 consumers to rebalance the system. Out of these 146,500 consumers who were affected, 130,535 were households.

To restore electricity supply, EMA immediately instructed other stand-by generating units, including unaffected units from Senoko and YTL PowerSeraya Pte Ltd to provide additional electricity supply. Once these additional units came online after about 15 minutes, electricity supply was progressively restored. While power was fully restored within 38 minutes, some consumers remained affected as the electrical equipment within their premises had to be manually reset.

EMA treats its mandate of ensuring the reliability of Singapore's electricity supply very seriously and has taken the following steps in response to this incident.

Firstly, EMA has been working closely with the two generation companies and their original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to establish the root cause of their respective equipment failures, even though the units were maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. This is an important point because the generation technology is also used in other generating units in Singapore as well as globally, and what happened here could well happen elsewhere. This will take some time, as the parts have to be sent for testing overseas, but we believe a thorough investigation is important.

Secondly, EMA is also working with the industry to review its processes for handling such events to ensure they remain satisfactory. As explained earlier, the technical processes kicked in as designed, allowing for the relatively quick restoration of power. During the blackout, SP Group officers were immediately activated and deployed at key substations and control centres. SP Group also provided the public with progressive updates on its social media channels and concurrently informed the media of its updates. Nonetheless, we will review this incident carefully to see how we can further improve our responses.

Thirdly, we are reviewing our system to ensure that we continue to have sufficient capacity and contingency measures to handle any similar incidents in future. Mr Speaker, I would like to reassure Members of the House that we do, currently, have enough spare capacity in our system, as evidenced by the quick progressive restoration of power within 15 minutes of the incident. In the design of any electricity grid system, we have to balance redundancy and assurance with the cost that will be imposed on consumers. The higher the degree of redundancy, the smaller the probability of disruption, but the higher the cost at the system level.

Hence, we have adopted a calibrated approach in our system planning, with a certain level of redundancy at national grid level, coupled with a higher level of redundancy at the local level for critical systems. This system design has served us well so far, with Singapore having one of the most reliable and affordable electricity systems in the world. From financial year (FY) 2013 to FY2017, the average disruption per consumer annually in Singapore ranged from 12 to 45 seconds, while, in comparison, major cities, such as Tokyo, New York, Hong Kong and London, experienced an average disruption per consumer of between four and 34 minutes in 2015.

The reliability of electricity supply has also not been affected by the liberalisation of the electricity market. In fact, our electricity sector relies on both regulatory powers and market incentives to keep generation companies on their toes. Generation companies that do not maintain their sets will lose market share and face regulatory action by EMA. In addition to the generation companies, EMA also regulates the infrastructure planning and maintenance regime of SP PowerGrid, the national grid operator, to improve system reliability and to minimise disruptions.

For critical services and infrastructure, such as lifts, traffic signalling systems and public hospitals, these have contingency plans to deal with power outages on the national grid. For instance, public hospitals are provided with dual supply sources, each of which is able to provide backup to the hospital if the other one fails. In addition, if there is any disruption from the main power source, backup power systems, such as diesel generators and Uninterrupted Power Supplies (UPS) systems, would automatically kick in, to support all critical equipment and critical facilities. Hospitals also carry out regular and preventive maintenance to ensure that both their electrical installations and backup power systems are in good working condition. During the power outage on 18 September, hospitals in the affected areas activated their backup power supply immediately, preventing disruptions to their operations and patient care. Telecommunication exchanges, similarly, did not experience any disruption as their backup power supplies were activated.

On the other hand, passenger lifts have to be installed with an Automatic Rescue Device that will park the lift at the nearest floor and open its doors during a power failure. Furthermore, a standby generator is required for lifts in very high-rise residential buildings or those serving both residential and commercial and non-residential uses, which will provide emergency power to resume at least one of the lifts. As for traffic signals, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will work with the Traffic Police to quickly deploy resources where needed during a power outage, to assist with traffic control at affected junctions. Backup generators can also be deployed onsite to provide temporary power supply to mitigate the impact on traffic signal operations.

Beyond these sector-specific measures, EMA has been looking at how technological solutions, such as energy storage systems, can increase security and resilience at the systems level. Such technologies can also address other issues, such as the increased intermittency faced by greater deployment of intermittent generation sources, such as solar power. EMA recently completed a round of industry consultation on the regulatory framework for energy storage systems and will publish a policy paper to provide clarity on the regulatory framework by the fourth quarter of 2018.

We will ensure that we incorporate all the lessons from this incident to ensure continued high standards of reliability for our power systems.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

From the Senior Minister of State's reply, it seems that the originating cause of the power supply disruption on 18 September is due to the trip in SembCorp Cogen's generating units. So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether such trips do occur quite often to other generation companies (gencos) as well and whether EMA sees power trips at gencos as a potential weak link that needs to be addressed?

Secondly, can I also ask whether EMA carries out audit checks on gencos, including unnotified ones, to ensure that they do carry out their contractual obligations and that the regime is strictly followed?

Mr Speaker, I would say that EMA is currently investigating this incident, together with the gencos and their original equipment manufacturers. So, I would not jump the gun to draw any conclusion until the investigations are completed. But that said, we will not hesitate to take any regulatory actions against SembCorb or Senoko if they are found to be at fault, including imposing a financial penalty under section 14 of the Electricity Act, which is a financial penalty of up to 10% of the licensee's annual turnover or $1 million, whichever is higher; and also requiring the gencos to tighten their standard operating procedures (SOPs), where necessary. So, let us wait for the investigations to be completed.

As to the Member's other question about whether EMA does spot checks to keep the gencos on their toes, the answer is yes, because maintenance works by the gencos are done by the original equipment manufacturers, which the gencos have to pay for. And EMA tracks when the units are shut down, because before they can shut the units down for maintenance, they have to apply to get approval from EMA for shutting down their operations. So, because of the need for them to notify us, we then have a few things that we can do.

First, we would know whether they are doing maintenance, because they have to apply for permit to do so. Secondly, we also send our EMA teams down to do spot checks when they are doing their maintenance to ensure that actual work is done. And when the maintenance is done, EMA staff would then file a report highlighting any issues and any problems that need to be resolved, and what are the recommendations for resolving them. Third, we also do a spot check to audit their spare inventory, so we know if there are shortfalls in any of these areas that need to be ramped up.

What we also do is we use a regulatory framework to ensure that standards are maintained, by first imposing penalties if they are not well maintained and, secondly, to give them some of these regulatory incentives to ensure that they are kept on their toes. Because these companies would lose revenue if they cannot fulfil their maintenance requirements and, therefore, they will lose revenue and they will not be able to fulfil their contractual requirements when the units fail.

Secondly, the warranties will become invalid if it is not maintained according to the OEM's requirements. So, there are sufficient incentives to ensure that these companies keep the maintenance up to par, in accordance with the guidelines.

I have three questions. The first question is: during this interim period where the equipment fault is being investigated, are there any safeguards being put in place to prevent recurrences of equipment failure? The second question is: was there any link to consumer behaviour, especially extensive use of air-conditioners by residential households, due to hot weather, for example? So, is there any link in the disruption to this consumer behaviour? And the third question is: is the grid resilient enough to meet changing consumer behaviour because of climate change and other trends?

Mr Speaker, before the investigation is concluded, it would not be wise to kneejerk and impose more demands on the system unnecessarily. Suffice to say that we have enough spare capacity in the number of generators that we have to meet consumer demand. Certainly, the trip on that night was not due to excessive consumer demand, but due to equipment fault. With the OEMs now looking at the equipment, and with the equipment being sent for overseas testing, let us give it some time for things to settle. Nonetheless, EMA is exploring and also looking at it with all the gencos to see how we can strengthen our processes and our SOPs, where necessary.

8 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB flats have joined the Lease Buyback Scheme since the Scheme was first launched; (b) what is the total number for each flat type; (c) whether there have been younger applicants whose applications were rejected or approved on an exceptional basis; and (d) whether the Ministry will review and lower the minimum age requirement for each application.

9 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development (a) since 2009, whether exceptions to the rules for the Lease Buyback scheme have been exercised by HDB for applicants with unique circumstances; (b) if so, how many have been approved; (c) what have been the main reasons for rejection since the scheme's extension to 4-room flats since April 2015; and (d) whether HDB will exercise flexibility when only one of the spouse qualifies under the age criterion.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 8 and 9 together.

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, about 3,100 households have taken up the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) since it was introduced in March 2009. This comprises 830 households in 4-room flats, 2,030 households in 3-room flats, and the remaining 240 households in smaller flats.

Among those who asked for exceptions to the LBS criteria, the main reason for rejection is that they do not meet the age requirement. The qualifying age for LBS is set at the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Payout Eligibility Age of 65 to allow seniors to immediately receive their monthly CPF payouts when they take up the LBS.

That said, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has exercised flexibility for applicants based on their individual circumstances, such as ill health or financial difficulty, and has done so for about 50 households since April 2015. This includes households who did not meet the age requirement.

We thank both Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Alex Yam for their feedback and will take into consideration their views and suggestions as we continue to review our schemes.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

I thank the Minister. Are the appeals considered at branch or the Toa Payoh Headquarters level? The reason I ask is because there was an answer in the Forum Page in The Straits Times that HDB will consider some flexibility. But then, last week, I received a third rejection for my resident who is aged 65 and going blind. He cannot work because he can only see shadows. His wife is 62 years old. HDB just said that because she is 62, they cannot do the Lease Buyback Scheme. They have been trying to downsize their flat to a 2-room, but they could not get it because of the balloting system. They never got a queue number for it. So, I just want to know how it is considered.

Mr Speaker, I am not familiar with the specifics of the case, but as I have said earlier, generally, if there are any financial difficulties or medical health issues, HDB would use these as considerations for granting exceptions. We can look at the case in specific if the Member would raise it to me separately.

10 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) which repairs, replacements and enhancements will be included in the scope of Home Improvement Programme (HIP) II; (b) for precincts which vote for HIP II, whether there will be caveats related to the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) attached so as to minimise unnecessary expenditure since money has already been spent on HIP II; and (c) what are the key differences between VERS and the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme in the aspects of valuation and acquisition pricing.

11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what kind of upgrades will HDB flats receive under Home Improvement Programme (HIP) II to ensure that the flats are safe and liveable even at that age; (b) how will the Government ensure that there is sufficient manpower to carry out all the renewal works safely and efficiently; (c) how often will the Ministry conduct inspections to ensure flats and their amenities remain structurally safe and liveable throughout their lifespan; and (d) do the HIP I and II upgrades include the older rental flats.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take Question Nos 10 and 11 with your permission, please.

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, the Home Improvement Programme II (HIP II) is a second round of upgrading for our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats at around the 60th- to 70th-year mark to keep the flats safe and liveable up to the end of their lease. This will be launched in about 10 years’ time.

HIP II will be focused on common maintenance issues which occur in ageing flats. We will need to study the specific scope of works, including taking into consideration the condition of our older flats closer to the launch of HIP II. As HIP II will be a huge financial commitment for the Government, we will also need to see how to pace the works to take into account fiscal sustainability and the capacity of our construction industry.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether older rental flats are eligible for HIP I and HIP II. HDB has, in fact, upgraded older rental flats, including under HIP I, so we will similarly upgrade them under HIP II.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong highlighted the need to minimise unnecessary expenditure between HIP II and the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). I agree fully with him. The details of these programmes will need to be worked out, including when we offer HIP II and when the flats are subsequently staged for VERS and redevelopment. We will ensure that there is no wastage of public monies in planning the two programmes. As for the technical details of valuation and acquisition pricing for VERS, we will need to study this in detail and ensure that we implement VERS in a way that is fiscally sustainable over the long term. In fact, we had discussions on this at the last Parliament Sitting.

On Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on safety, we have various regulatory and inspection regimes to ensure that our HDB buildings are structurally safe, both during and after construction. This includes the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) regime that ensures that buildings are regularly checked for structural defects. For residential buildings, the PSI requires that the inspection be carried out every 10 years. That is a nationwide requirement. For older HDB blocks, HDB, in fact, adopts a more stringent inspection cycle of five years. We will ensure that such regimes remain in place throughout the lifespan of our HDB flats and will also continue to review our policies and benchmarks against other high-rise high-density cities.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Thank you, Minister. I also have a question on the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS). Do the voting rights for VERS, the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and HIP belong to the LBS tenant or HDB? And if the homes then come under SERS, VERS, what happens to the tenants under the LBS?

Mr Speaker, if I understand correctly, what Miss Cheng is asking, assuming that the flat has already been subject to Lease Buyback, and the residual lease is now with the Government, if HDB is indeed owning the flat at that point in time, then obviously the voting rights will reside with HDB.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

If the resident is still, let us say, 10 years into their lease, that would mean the voting rights belong to them?

I suppose Miss Cheng is asking in the context of a Lease Buyback situation, assuming that the resident is staying there at that point in time, then, obviously the resident should have a say in any upgrading or VERS decision.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I would like to clarify on HIP II. Some of the feedback that I regularly get about HIP I is spalling concrete, particularly. Spalling concrete continues to be an issue even though it is an essential item of improvement under HIP I. Some of the suggestions from my residents have been to consider, for future upgrading programmes, hydrostatic solutions for kitchens, so as to slow down the seepage of moisture between floors; and also shower trays for toilets to prevent the same problem. These items and solutions are cheaper when procured in bulk. This is some of the feedback that I get, and I hope the Ministry can consider these solutions for future upgrading projects.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for these suggestions. HDB, indeed, continues to take in feedback, suggestions and do its own research to see how upgrading can be done better, and we will be happy to study these suggestions that Mr Singh has highlighted.

12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health in light of the IT glitch in the computer system of clinics where patients received mislabelled medicines (a) what corrective action has been taken to ensure that the IT system is robust and secure; and (b) what measures are being taken to prevent such future incidences.

13 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health what led to over 100 clinics prescribing the wrong dosage for 800 patients and whether there were any adverse effects for the affected patients.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 and 13 together?

Yes, please.

Following a system upgrade by an information technology (IT) vendor for general practitioner (GP) Connect implemented on 1 September, some GP clinics encountered problems where some medication labels were printed wrongly. While the correct medication and the total quantity of medication were correctly dispensed, the system printed the wrong Unit of Measurement (UOM) on the label. Several clinics were aware of the error and manually corrected the dosage instruction on the label. Once notified, Integrated Health Information System (IHiS), the public healthcare IT agency and owner of the GP Connect system, investigated the incident, informed all affected clinics from 2 September, and provided support to the clinics.

IHiS has been monitoring the situation. No further errors have been reported since 3 September. Affected patients were monitored by the clinics and, to date, there have not been any reports of adverse effects.

Investigations revealed that the IT vendor had made some changes to the application code which resulted in incorrect medication labels being printed. These changes were unrelated to the upgrade. Hence, the user acceptance tests designed to evaluate the upgrade did not pick up the error. The vendor also did not report any errors from the other tests done.

Since the incident, additional rounds of testing have been conducted to ensure that existing functions within GP Connect are working as designed. The "Unit of Measurement" function is also being enhanced to prevent future errors.

IHiS is also thoroughly reviewing testing procedures prior to future software rollouts to prevent such occurrences. In addition, they will step up monitoring of software rollouts and improve their response to better support users.

Ms Joan Pereira.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, would the Ministry consider putting in place a process encouraging doctors to print out a copy of the prescription for the patient after examination and going through with him the medicines and dosages? That is the first question. The second one, could this same printout be given to the patient so that the dispenser can countercheck against the labels and instructions on the medicines?

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Joan Pereira for the supplementary questions. The suggestions are reasonable. In fact, variants of this practice are already being done in many clinics. When medications are dispensed in clinics, it is common practice for the doctors to advise patients at the point of prescribing, for example, alerting the patients to any dosage adjustments to their regular chronic medication. And it is also the responsibility of the clinic licensee and doctors to ensure that there is proper process of verifying the prescriptions during dispensing of the medicines to the patients. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to work with practitioners as well as the professional medical bodies to improve patient safety and medication safety and minimise any possible medication dispensing errors in the future.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. Just one question. Would IHiS be held accountable for this error in any way?

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for the supplementary question. As the error was executed as a result of the IT vendor changing the application code without informing IHiS, the fault actually lies with the IT vendor. I will leave it to IHiS to manage the situation with the respective IT vendor.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Would the Ministry be considering looking at new security measures or new technologies, such as block chain, for example, to ensure the security and immutability of the data so that such sensitive data, such as prescribed medicine, can be assured?

I would like to thank Dr Intan Azura for the supplementary question. With regard to this particular incident, it is a human error whereby a wrong application code was applied. Of course, we will put in place measures to ensure that such errors can be picked up early or even prevented right from the outset.

As to Dr Intan Azura's suggestion of using new technology or block chain technology to enhance the security of such a system, MOH will seriously look into it.

14 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry has been conducting audits on social enterprises managing hawker centres to prevent the use of hidden fees and charges and what level of surplus of income is deemed acceptable for these social enterprises.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) started appointing socially conscious operators to manage new hawker centres on a not-for-profit basis in 2015. As private sector operators, they have experience in food and beverage operations as well as property and lease management. This expertise could be harnessed to attract new hawkers to the trade, provide residents with a variety of good and affordable food choices, and improve the vibrancy of the hawker centres by, amongst others, ensuring that sufficient stalls are open during meal times and organising place-making programmes at the centres. This is in contrast to some existing hawker centres where stallholders operate shorter hours and, hence, do not fully cater to the dining needs of residents.

The operators have brought benefits to patrons and stallholders. They have ensured that hawkers provide clean and tasty meals to residents. The operators have also introduced interesting food concepts and options, such as prawn paste chicken rice and halal zichar, and new dining concepts, such as the "Fareground" at Pasir Ris Central hawker centre, which brings together "hipster" hawker fare, such as beef bourguignon and kebabs, to attract younger patrons to the hawker centres. Almost every stall in the new hawker centres offers at least one economical meal option, priced at $3 or less.

The operators have also implemented productivity improvements that are critical for this manpower-intensive sector. Centralised dishwashing has reduced hawkers' workload while improving the cleanliness of the centre. During my recent visit to Our Tampines Hub hawker centre, a stallholder expressed that centralised dishwashing helped him save on water charges and addressed his challenges of hiring dishwashers.

The operators have also complemented the Government's efforts to support aspiring new hawkers. One example is the Entrepreneurship Programme (EP) introduced by Fei Siong at Hougang Ci Yuan hawker centre, where new hawkers are provided with on-the-job training to help new entrants operate their stalls. They are mentored by veteran hawkers, some of whom have even shared culinary experiences as well as their recipes. Sixteen hawkers have benefited from this programme to date.

Nonetheless, we recognise that there have been concerns over costs to stallholders. NEA ensures that rentals charged and essential services that contribute to operating costs are reasonable. One key tender evaluation criterion when evaluating bids from potential operators is the rental and operating costs that the operators will charge stallholders. Operators who propose lower rentals and operating costs will be considered more favourably, and they are not permitted to vary these charges over the term of the tenancy. Before signing any tenancy agreement with potential stallholders, the operators will have to make known these charges to them. Operators must also bear the risks of rental arrears and stall vacancies. In addition, NEA requires operators to be transparent about costs. Any new charges, including optional charges for value-added services offered by the operators, are subject to NEA's approval.

These measures limit the potential profits, if any, of operators and ensure that rentals are affordable for stallholders. Today, the stall rentals, together with operating costs, at our new hawker centres are significantly lower than those in comparable food courts and coffee shops. The operators also fund their own initiatives to achieve social objectives and enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres. These include the $1 Meal Carnival at Yishun Park hawker centre in June this year to attract the community to dine at the centre, and the offering of drinks at concessionary rates for senior citizens at Jurong West hawker centre.

It takes time for a new hawker centre to establish itself. The Government will continue to refine and improve the management model, so as to provide affordable food in a hygienic environment while allowing hawkers to make a decent livelihood. With time, we expect the new hawker centres to enhance their vibrancy and grow into valued community dining rooms.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Two questions, please. Was NEA aware of the extra costs that were at the centre of the recent public concerns? The second question is, does NEA conduct regular surveys of hawkers with respect to satisfaction with management or any other management issues that they bring up to NEA?

I think the operator had explained, had come out to clarify, and we have also made clarifications that the costs are optional costs. If the Member is referring to, for instance, the Hougang Ci Yuan hawker centre managed by Fei Siong, that $600 was an optional cost and not a mandatory charge. As I have noted, all mandatory charges have to be declared upfront to the stallholders before they sign on the tenancy agreement. And if there are optional charges or any new initiatives that would impact costs, they are required to inform us and to get our approval. So, of the 40-odd stallholders in Ci Yuan hawker centre, for instance, only nine of the non-EP stallholders have taken up this optional charge.

Actually, even though we have appointed operators to manage our new hawker centres, we also have place managers that visit the hawker centres regularly, on a weekly basis, to carry out checks on defects, on cleanliness as well as to engage the stallholders. So, the stallholders can, at any time approach our place managers if there are pertinent issues.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

(Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have a follow up question for the Senior Minister of State. I agree with her that it takes time for the hawkers to establish themselves. But there are some that are still struggling among the hawker centres managed by the social enterprises. So, I would like to ask whether NEA would consider lowering the rentals for a period of time until they could pick up enough business to make it sustainable?

As I have noted, for the new hawker centres, the rentals for the stalls as well as the operating costs for essential services – general cleaning, dishwashing and so on – are made known to the stallholders so you would assume that when they signed on the tenancy agreement, they would have taken into account all these costs in their computations. In fact, even in our existing hawker centres which are tendered out, they would also have tendered based on what they understand to be the market rate, in most instances.

At this point in time, we have no plans to offer any subsidies because they actually came in knowing what the costs are. But having said that, we do understand and appreciate the concerns of the stallholders and we are keeping a close watch on the situation.

As a matter of fact, for the new hawker centres, as I have said, it takes time for them to establish their business. And I think it is not unexpected that some stalls may not do as well as others at the beginning. In fact, the turnover or the vacancy rate for these new centres are actually quite comparable to our existing centres. The footfall for some of these hawker centres have increased over time significantly. So, we are keeping a close watch.

Mr Louis Ng.

A quick point to echo what Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari has said whether we really can provide some subsidies for the hawkers at some of these social enterprise hawker centres who are really not doing well. I know they came in knowing what the rental is. But the fact now is that, in contrast to what Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had stated, some of them are really finding it hard to break even – the social enterprises. So, can we provide some help to the hawkers at these social enterprise hawker centres which really are not doing well because of very low footfall?

I think that when there are specific cases, it can be made known to us. But as I have said, we keep a close watch on the viability of the businesses in these new hawker centres. And as of now, even for the hawker centres which had some bad press coverage and apparently low footfall, they have actually improved their business significantly. The operators have been able to enhance the vibrancy of these hawker centres, for instance, providing free shuttle bus service to the nearby industries and factories as well as office workers to dine in the hawker centres, complimentary car parking, as well as discounts, lucky draws and so on to bring them in.

For instance, in Jurong West hawker centre, they have managed to bring in some popular stallholders which have also significantly increased the footfall. So, based on our understanding and survey of what is happening, we do not see that there is a need to do this. But as I have said, if there are individual stalls that face problems, we can always take a look at it.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Just a quick follow up. With regard to the social enterprises, are they sustainable? Because if they are facing problems in terms of keeping up with costs themselves and trying to get more money because, putting in all these extra costs to the hawkers, are they doing well? Is the model sustainable in that sense?

I think the earlier question was not about whether the social enterprise was doing well, but the particular individual stallholders, from Member of Parliament Louis Ng.

With regard to the social enterprise, as I have said, when they bid for the hawker centres, they know that we will consider favourably those where they offer lower rentals, lower operating costs and so on. They have to bear risks of rental arrears as well as vacancies and so on. So, again the terms of the tenure are clear, transparent.

As far as we are concerned, Ci Yuan, for instance, had actually renewed their tenancy agreement with us, because they have actually met our key performance indicators: they have been able to provide a good variety of affordable food to residents, ensure that the hawker centre is able to provide meals at all times of the day, they were able to enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres and also implement productivity initiatives. So, we have actually renewed their tenancy.

15 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what impact has the hike in water prices had on water conservation efforts and overall consumption patterns.

Mr Speaker, in Singapore, water is priced to reflect its scarcity value. We have raised water prices to reflect the rising costs of water supply, so that our water system remains financially sustainable. This will allow us to continue investing ahead of time to ensure a secure and reliable water supply, while encouraging everyone to conserve this precious resource and use it wisely.

I mentioned during my Ministry's Committee of Supply debate this year that Singapore’s daily household water consumption has decreased from 148 litres per person in 2016 to 143 litres per person in 2017. This is encouraging.

The increase in water prices is not the sole reason for the reduction in household water consumption. Our water conservation measures, such as minimum water efficiency standards and the mandatory water efficiency labelling of water fittings and appliances, are also important factors. Over the years, we have progressively expanded the mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme to cover more fittings and appliances and phased out the less efficient ones. These efforts are bearing fruit. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) household water consumption study last year showed that more than half of the water fittings and appliances used by households are water-efficient models.

We will continue to encourage the use of more water-efficient products. Starting this month, PUB will require all dishwashers sold in Singapore for household use to have a water efficiency label, so that consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. From April next year, all other water fittings with a one-tick rating will be phased out from the market. To further boost this effort, the water closet replacement project was launched, where PUB has successfully replaced non-water efficient water closets, basin and kitchen taps for some 3,700 eligible households to date. Recognising that showering contributes most to household water usage, smart shower devices will be installed in 10,000 new homes over these two years to motivate residents to watch and cut down on water usage during showers.

PUB is also keeping up its efforts in the non-domestic sector. PUB has been working closely with more than 600 large water users in the submission of their water efficiency management plans. PUB is working with companies to progressively develop and make available water efficiency benchmarks and best practice guides. These will be resources developed with the industry, for the industry. Companies have already responded positively, with a number looking to implement water efficiency projects.

Water is a scarce resource that should not be taken for granted ever. I urge everyone to do our part to use water wisely, so that we can continue to enjoy it for years to come.

Order. End of question time.

[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.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary) on behalf of the Minister for Transport, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Chapter 160 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 2009 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter 65A of the 2000 Revised Edition) and the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325 of the 2003 Revised Edition) to enhance the legal framework for preventing money laundering and combating terrorism financing", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Civil Defence Act (Chapter 42 of the 2001 Revised Edition), the Immigration Act (Chapter 133 of the 2008 Revised Edition), the Police Force Act (Chapter 235 of the 2006 Revised Edition), the Prisons Act (Chapter 247 of the 2000 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Enlistment Act (Chapter 93 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act (Chapter 130 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act (Chapter 281 of the 1985 Revised Edition) to give effect to certain recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of the President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The amendments being proposed to the Parliamentary Elections Act seek to improve the administration of Parliamentary elections. They can be grouped into three categories. The first category of amendments involves changes to processes related to election candidates. The second category improves the management of contingencies during an election. The third and final category deals with other election processes.

Let me begin with the first category of amendments related to election candidates. Clause 4 amends section 28 to simplify the computation of election deposits. The election deposit will now be based on an elected Member of Parliament's fixed monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. The clause also deletes the reference to cash payment and, in its place, provides the option for candidates to pay the election deposit by electronic fund transfer or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows. The other methods of payment currently provided in the Act by bank draft or certified cheque will continue to be available.

To facilitate smooth and orderly conduct of nomination proceedings, clause 6 amends section 31 to provide that a person seeking to be a candidate in an election may be refused entry to the place of nomination unless the aspiring candidate satisfies the requirements set out in the new section 31(2). These requirements are that the aspiring candidate must have a political donation certificate issued under section 18(4) of the Political Donations Act and be accompanied by at least six other individuals, namely, his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors. In the case of a Group Representation Constituency, additional requirements apply, including that at least one member in the group must also have a certificate from either the Malay Community Committee or the Indian and other Minority Communities Committee. These requirements are also necessary for successful nomination. With the proposed changes, election officials can focus on processing the nomination papers of those who are serious about meeting the requirements for nomination.

The next set of amendments deals with the returns on election expenses. We will streamline and simplify the submission of returns on election expenses without diluting accountability.

Clause 23 amends section 74 to remove the current requirement for election agents to submit to the Returning Officer the supporting documents for election expenses, such as bills and receipts. To ensure accountability, clause 25 inserts a new section 75A to require a candidate and the candidate's election agent to maintain the supporting documents for the return on election expenses for a period of one year after notice of the return is published by the Returning Officer in the Government Gazette. The clause also empowers the Returning Officer to require, during this one-year period, the candidate or the election agent, or both of them, to furnish any supporting document or any other information relating to the return. Any contravention of the requirements of the new section 75A constitutes an illegal practice.

To protect personal data, clause 24 amends section 75 to require the Returning Officer to redact certain personal details when the returns and statements on election expenses are open for public inspection. Addresses and contact numbers will be completely redacted. However, for accountability, the names of candidates, election agents and donors will continue to be reflected in full with their identity card numbers partially redacted. The clause also extends the period of time for which the Returning Officer must keep the returns and statements on election expenses from the current six months to one year.

Next, I will discuss the proposed amendments to section 83.

Section 83 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently prohibits certain classes of people, such as foreigners, from taking part in any election activity and also requires the persons conducting election activities for a candidate to be authorised to do so by the candidate or his election agent.

Section 83 currently defines "election activity" as including an "activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election". Clause 26 amends the definition of "election activity" mainly to elaborate that an activity which is done to prejudice the electoral prospects of other political parties or candidates is also election activity. The Bill does not make any changes to the substantive rules in section 83 on election activity.

Let me now address the second category of amendments which deals with the management of contingencies during an election. The Bill spells out various procedures to strengthen the current provisions to manage various types of contingencies, such as a riot, fire or flood, which may occur during nomination, polling or counting proceedings. I will now take Members through the key changes being proposed.

Clause 17 inserts a new section 56BA to enable the Returning Officer to deal with contingencies affecting the conduct of nomination proceedings on the day of nomination.

If a contingency arises before the start of nomination proceedings on nomination day, the new section 56BA provides the Returning Officer with the powers to change the hours of the nomination proceedings, change the place of nomination, or to do both, or abandon nomination proceedings. If the Returning Officer decides to change the hours of nomination proceedings, the new hours must enable the nomination proceedings to start and conclude within the same day.

If a contingency arises during the nomination proceedings, the new section 56BA(3) provides the Returning Officer with the powers to suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of time and continue with the nomination proceedings at the end of the period at the same nomination place or at a different place on the same date, or abandon the nomination proceedings. Should there be a need to conduct nomination proceedings on another day, the President will issue a fresh writ stating the new date for nomination as provided under existing law.

Before making a decision under the new section 56BA(3), the Returning Officer may suspend the nomination proceedings for a period of up to two hours in order to assess the situation and decide on the course of actions to be taken.

Similarly, for polling and counting proceedings, clauses 18, 20 and 21 amend sections 56C, 56E and 56F respectively to empower the Returning Officer to suspend the proceedings for up to two hours to assess the situation and decide on the course of action to be taken.

We will also be replicating various changes to deal with contingencies, which we made to the Presidential Elections Act last year. These are covered in clause 13, which amends section 49A to empower the Returning Officer to extend the time taken for sealed ballot boxes from overseas polling stations to reach Singapore; clause 19 which inserts new sections 56DA and 56DB to spell out the procedures to be taken when marked local ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported after the close of polls to counting places and when marked overseas ballot papers are lost or destroyed when they are being transported from overseas polling stations to the counting place in Singapore; and clause 12, which amends section 48A to remove the current requirement for the Returning Officer to inform candidates or their election agents in writing as to the places where the votes will be counted or the postponement of counting due to certain contingencies described in that section. Instead, the Returning Officer will publish the information in the Government Gazette.

The third category of amendments deals with other election processes.

Clause 2 amends section 9 to remove the requirement for the Registration Officer to publish in the Government Gazette the polling districts within an electoral division. Instead, the Registration Officer will publish maps or other images of the polling districts on the Elections Department's website. This will make it easier for members of public to view the polling districts compared to the current method of using text, such as road names, to describe polling districts. The Registration Officer will continue to publish in the Government Gazette a notice when an electoral division is subdivided into polling districts. The notice will provide details of the website and the physical locations where the maps can be inspected by the public.

Clause 3 amends section 11 to enable the Registration Officer to reject, without having to hold a public inquiry, a claim for a name to be included in a Register of Electors for an electoral division if the claim is clearly without merit. To safeguard claimants' interests, the grounds on which the Registration Officer may reject a claim without holding a public inquiry are tightly scoped in the new section 11(9B) as follows: (a) the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore on the relevant cut-off date for the Register; (b) the claimant was below 21 years of age on the relevant cut-off date; (c) where the claimant claims to be entitled to be included in the Register on the ground that the claimant's address has changed, the new address provided by the claimant is not the address of any premises within the electoral division, such as a P O (post office) box address.

The clause improves administrative efficiency in processing the claims specified in a new section 11(9B). For other types of claims, the Registration Officer will continue to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether to accept or reject such claims. Claimants whose claims are rejected without an inquiry have a right to appeal to the Revising Officer, appointed by the Minister, under the current section 12.

Clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe in regulations the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or a group of candidates who may enter a polling station. This will enable the number of polling agents in a polling station to be made proportionate to the number of voters allotted to the polling station instead of the current pegging of polling agents to the number of polling places in the polling station. This amendment gives flexibility to the Elections Department to design polling stations for efficient operation. To illustrate, Elections Department plans to introduce electronic voter registration or e-registration. This will result in a faster registration process for voters. With a faster registration process, the same number of voters in a polling station can be served by fewer polling places. To ensure an adequate number of polling agents for each polling station despite fewer polling places in the polling station, we propose to peg the number of polling agents to the number of voters in the polling station.

The amendment Bill also replicates relevant changes made to the Presidential Elections Act last year through the amendments in clauses 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 28(n). These relate to the notices to voters on voting procedures placed outside polling stations, the design of the ballot paper, recounting of votes, and election advertising. All these changes were elaborated during the amendments to the Presidential Elections Act last year and I will not repeat them today.

Lastly, consequential to amendments made in 2016 to the Constitution, clause 16 amends section 52 to increase the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) to be declared. Currently, the number of NCMPs to be declared is nine, minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament. The clause increases the number of NCMPs to be declared to 12 minus the total number of elected Opposition Members of Parliament.

Allow me to conclude. The amendments I have described today will improve the administration of Parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. The changes will ensure that our electorate continues to have high trust and confidence in our electoral system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Speaker, it is hard for anyone to believe that in this modern age, we still sometimes cannot have a clear definition of what constitutes a valid vote in an election.

I have seen a ballot paper with a faint squiggly cross marked inside the demarcated box rejected by an Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) on the basis that the intention of the voter was not clear. I was flabbergasted and perplexed at the same time on how the ARO could have arrived at such a conclusion. The said voter could easily be an elderly person who, for some reason, could not imprint a more forceful mark on that ballot paper but that did not mean his or her intention was not clear in any way.

I have also seen ballot papers with a tick and a diagonal line drawn across it, well within the demarcated box for the preferred candidate, being marked for rejection. The reason, a tick means "yes" but the diagonal line across it forms an "X", which means "no". So, yes and no at the same time, the intention of the voter was not clear. Yet, I have seen an "X" marked on the party logo area counted as valid. I have also witnessed symbols and expletives in the demarcated box of a ballot paper counted as valid as well.

When I asked the Returning Officer to adjudicate on the validity of the rejected votes, he said the individual ARO at the respective counting tables has the authority to decide on such a matter. Sir, in the two General Elections I contested, there were at least six counting tables in each of the counting centres. So, I am looking at potentially six different interpretations of what constitutes a valid vote, just in one counting centre alone.

How can we call ourselves a developed country when we cannot even define, in simple terms and without ambiguity, what is a valid vote?

So, while this amendment Bill seeks to issue clearer guidelines on what the Returning Officers and their assistants should look for in a ballot paper when determining the intention of the voter, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister on some of the proposed changes.

First, clause 11 of this Bill, which amends section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, introduces a new sub-section (3AA), which states that “the voter’s mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, and not elsewhere.”

Sir, to the visually impaired or elderly with poor eyesight, putting a mark squarely within the area demarcated on the ballot paper can be challenging, especially if these voters do not want any help to do so for whatever reason. I am sure many of us in this House would have come across ballot papers with the voter’s mark imprinted outside the area demarcated for that purpose. I believe the intentions of these voters were in no way unclear. However, such votes would be deemed invalid under the proposed amendment to section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

We are an ageing society and we will see more and more elderly voters in time to come. I have utmost respect for these voters who, despite their advanced age or disability, are determined to play a role in shaping our democracy, come what may. It would be sad to know that their effort and passion could be in vain with the proposed amendment. I seek more information from the Minister to address this concern. Separately, I hope the Elections Department could also look into designing a ballot paper with a larger area demarcated for the voters to mark with greater ease.

Second, clause 15, which amends section 50 of the principal Act, introduces a new sub-section (2A) to instruct the Returning Officer, when determining whether a mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the voter’s intention to vote for the candidate or group of candidates, to disregard any mark that is not made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose.

I wish to ask the Minister, does that mean that as long as a voter’s mark is made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, a voter is allowed to exercise his artistic licence elsewhere on the ballot paper and it would still be counted as a valid vote, since the Returning Officer must disregard other mark found on the ballot paper as directed under this new amendment?

If a voter were to cross out the name of a particular candidate with words like “clown”, "my hero" or "Mr Bean", and then proceed to put an “X” in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, would the Returning Officer be compelled to treat it as a valid vote under this proposed amendment to section 50 of the Parliamentary Elections Act? I hope the Minister can provide more clarity on this amendment, else it will only cause more confusion.

Voting is a serious act of civic responsibility. I believe we should not allow the ballot paper to be marked in any other way other than prescribed under the Act. There should be no other mark other than the mark left by the voter in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. Returning Officers should not be tasked to disregard any other mark found on the ballot paper but to designate such ballot as invalid, as outright invalid. Voter education is also important. Beyond showing voters where to mark on a ballot paper, the Elections Department should also educate voters on what will invalidate their votes.

At this juncture, I wish to reiterate the Workers' Party’s stand on the NCMP scheme. We oppose the scheme as we believe in the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. So, barring the amendment made to section 52(1) of the principal Act to revise the formula to determine the number of NCMP to be declared in an election, I do support the amendment Bill.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill makes various changes to the administration of the various processes related to Parliamentary Elections, such as nominations, polling and counting. I do not oppose the Bill and I concur with the various points made by my colleague Mr Png Eng Huat on the Bill, which I shall not repeat here.

I will pose several questions and request for clarification.

Firstly, clause 3 amends section 11. The new section 11(9B)(b) allows rejections of claims for eligibility without hearing, if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 on the date prescribed in section 5(4), or the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in the relevant electoral division.

I would like to ask by what means the Registration Officer will make determinations to reject such claims of eligibility. Would he or she, for example, access the relevant Government database for personal information and, if so, what safeguards are there against errors, such as laxity in updating such databases?

Secondly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription of the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed by the Minister in regulations made under the Act.

Previously, the Act prescribed what information would be reflected in such notices. For example, part of the old section 37 read, and I quote, "37(1): Outside each polling station, there shall be affixed, in a conspicuous place, by the Presiding Officer, before the commencement of the poll, a notice showing the name of each candidate in English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil, and a symbol allotted to the candidate under section 34. And two, the names of the candidates shall be arranged alphabetically in English, in the order of their surnames and, if there are two or more candidates with the same surname, of their other names."

I would like to ask what is the reason for removing these prescriptions and providing the Minister with broad latitude to determine the content of these notices. What guidelines or rules will the Minister be bound by making such a determination.

Thirdly, clause 8 amends section 39 to empower the Minister to prescribe the method for computing the number of polling agents for each candidate or groups of candidates who may enter a polling station. The reason given is to allow the Minister to ensure that the permitted number of polling agents is proportionate to the number of voters allotted to that station. I would like to ask for the reason that this change is being made. I would also like to ask if the legislative intent here is for the Minister to be able to ensure that the ratio of polling agents to voters is more or less similar across polling stations nationwide and in line with recent nationwide averages which is clearly desirable. Or is the intent that the Minister should be able to exercise this discretion by varying the average nationwide ratio of polling agents to voters significantly away from the recent averages, either by increasing or decreasing the ratio?

Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, and this is admittedly a relatively minor point, clause 12 removes the current requirement for Returning Officers to inform candidates or their election agents of the location of counting centres or the postponement of counting due to contingencies. Rather, the information will be published in the Gazette. I would like to ask why this change is necessary as this could cause confusion amongst candidates if there is some disruption to the counting process due to contingencies. Would it not be possible to automate the broadcast of a simple email or text message to election agents and all candidates upon new information being published in the Gazette?

Members are advised to keep to the contents of the debate. The NCMP scheme is not relevant to this debate. Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I agree with what my colleagues, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera have said in their speeches. I just have a few clarifications.

Firstly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription on the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed in regulations made under the Act.

The parts of section 37 which are to be removed include sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). They list out basic information, such as names of candidates in four different languages to be placed in a notice outside the station with their respective symbols, such names to be listed alphabetically, and so on.

The proposed new section 37(2) states, for example, at (a) that the notice must contain such information presented in such form or manner, as may be prescribed.

I would like to ask the Minister what exactly will be prescribed in the new regulations, which existing provisions may not be found in the proposed new rules and what will be the new additional provisions? And what are the reasons for the proposed changes to section 37? What was wrong with the existing provision? And was there any particular incident which has given rise to the proposed changes?

I next move to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a new section 56DA and 56DB after the existing section 56D. Section 56DA(7) and (8) and 56DB(1)(a)(b) relates to the postponement and abandonment of polling. Under the new section 56DA, if any ballot box containing votes cast is lost or destroyed, the counting of all votes cast at the affected polling station will be abandoned and the poll at that polling station must be restarted only if it is material to the election result.

The new provision sets out the considerations and mechanism for decision-making by the Returning Officer in respect of different scenarios. I would like to ask the Minister: why is the Government introducing these new provisions? Why is the Government suddenly concerned about these scenarios provided for in the new provisions? Are the proposed amendments due to any particular incident which happened in recent years?

I next move to clause 3. Clause 3 provides for a new section 9B(b) which allows for rejection of claim for eligibility without hearing if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 at the date prescribed in section 5(4) and the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in an electoral division.

I would like to ask the Minister for his clarifications as to what criteria consideration should the Registration Officer adopt to assist him to come to a conclusion on the eligibility of a citizen. And will the basis for a decision be recorded with sufficient details and made available to any such claimant upon demand?

Finally, I move to clause 11. Mr Speaker, clause 11 introduced a new sub-section 3AA to section 42 which provides that the voter's mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose and not everywhere. We must always strive to have a clear and unequivocal set of rules for the Returning Officers (ROs) to make the right determination with minimal chances of any dispute by any candidate and with good sense and bereft of any perverse or absurd outcome. For example, such rules must ensure, and I am going to give an extreme example, that expletives written in the demarcated box of one candidate cannot sensibly be regarded as a vote for that candidate.

The Government should also review and strengthen the process by which Returning Officers handle any disagreement by candidates or their representatives, their counting agents, in respect of the validity of a voter's mark in a ballot to enhance certainty and transparency.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, I recognise the peril that an unelected Member has in speaking on the matter of elections. So, I hope to confine my remarks to non-partisan issues.

The elections process must give the Government of the day a clear mandate to govern. I believe this Bill does reflect the Government's intent to ensure elections in Singapore are efficient, future-proof and conducted with integrity. But we should also think beyond the next general election. How will future politicians use, or abuse, these laws, and how will our history as a democracy be shaped by this Bill?

So, let me start with the problem of history. Clause 2 proposes that changes in electoral divisions may be published as maps online or for public viewing, instead of in written detail in the Gazette. This is good for efficiency. But it may unintentionally harm the historical record of changes in our electoral divisions.

The Gazette is a permanent part of our history and cannot be readily altered or destroyed. But materials that you publish online have little permanence – Internet links break, websites go down, documents can be altered or deleted without notice. We cannot even predict whether the Internet will exist in the form we are used to today. Many of us grew up using microfilm readers for research. Our children do not; our grandchildren almost certainly would not even know what microfilm is. But printed work has somehow stood the test of time.

Scholars will use the Gazette in the future to research how our electoral divisions changed, how that affects representation, how that affects outcomes in society and the economy. Let me give Members just one small example. There is a paper, "The Political Economy of Housing Prices", published in the Journal of Housing Economics in 2010 by Eddie Sue and Wong Wei-Kang at the National University of Singapore. This paper studies how electoral boundaries affect housing prices. I leave it to Members to make guesses as to whether Government or Opposition wards enjoy higher housing prices. I hope this will encourage Members to read more academic papers.

Sir, the matter of electoral divisions changing does affect a large number of voters. In an article dated 24 July 2015, The Straits Times calculated that one in five voters were affected by redistricting ahead of the 2015 General Election (GE), and nearly one in three voters were affected by the 2011 GE redistricting. So, a change that is so consequential should form a future-proof part of our historical record.

Before I move to the second issue, that of re-polling in the event of a lost or destroyed ballot box, l realise a similar debate took place during the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. There are some differences, though, so I do beg Members' indulgence.

I think this problem of clause 19 is how do we minimise the political costs and risks associated with an election. Clause 19 proposes that if just one ballot box is lost or destroyed from a polling station, then all counting of votes from that polling station must be abandoned. If the margin of victory is within that number of uncounted votes, including overseas electors, then, a new poll must be conducted for that station.

Sir, a new poll costs time and money but also creates political uncertainty. The identity of the Government may well hang in the balance of that one polling station. So, let us ask: how likely is it that an election will require re-polling, under the amendment Bill?

The Elections Department informs me there were 832 polling stations in the 2015 GE, and there were about 2.46 million eligible voters, and there are typically between two and four ballot boxes in each polling station. That is an average of 3,000 voters in each polling station. Suppose that by some disaster, one ballot box is lost from every single electoral division. How many re-polls would we have to conduct? So, I did some calculations for the last two GEs.

It turns out that in the 2011 GE, the margin of victory was slim enough in two Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) that they would have required re-polling. In the 2015 GE, it was two SMCs and one Group Representation Constituency (GRC) which would have required re-polling. Obviously, SMCs are more likely to require re-polling because the margin of victory is more likely to be within the number of votes in one polling station. A polling station, on average, will contain 11.5% of the electorate for an SMC, and about 2.4% of the electorate for a GRC.

We are accustomed, of course, to the present Government winning elections by large margins. This may not be so in the future. As margins become tighter, the risk of a re-polling event does rise if a ballot box is lost.

Now, Sir, how can we improve on this? The question is whether the lost ballot box represents a random sample of the votes cast at the affected polling station. After all, votes are generally cast into a ballot box in no particular order. Polling procedures can further improve on this by ensuring that voters who arrive as groups and who may vote similarly, such as families, are to split their ballots between the boxes randomly. This is, in any case, good practice. If the votes contained within one ballot box are actually missing at random, there is no issue in counting the remaining votes from the affected polling station. The procedures described in the Bill can apply in the event that the margin of victory still remains smaller than the missing votes from that particular ballot box.

I understand this clause was adapted from the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in 2017. But, you see, Mr Speaker, these issues are unlikely to affect the Presidential Election because a polling station contains less than 0.2% of the vote in a Presidential Election. It is a much larger issue in a Parliamentary Election.

The last point I want to make is that clause 19 also does reserve powers to the Minister to decide how these procedures are to be carried out. And, of course, this may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. When Parliament is dissolved, the incumbent Cabinet does hold office until the first Sitting of the new Parliament. Therefore, the Minister's ability to form the Government may well depend on the outcome of this single polling station. In another country, the results of a recent general election were unclear until well past the midnight hour. There were rumours of political interference there. So, I would suggest we consider reserving these powers to the Returning Officer to avoid any appearance of partiality.

The same applies, of course, to the Parliamentary Elections Act, where section 102 reserves the power to the Minister to make regulations regarding the Act. I think that we have no issue with this during the term of Government because the voters have clearly given their mandate.

But there is this particular issue arising between the time when Parliament is dissolved and until when the new Parliament first sits.

Sir, the Government must be seen to have a clear mandate to make decisions on behalf of all Singaporeans. I am not criticising the integrity of the Government or of Members here today. But this is a law for the future. We would hope that future generations would act with integrity, we hope they would act exactly as we would. But should we write laws that depend at critical moments on future officeholders acting only in the best interests of the country? I share with this Government the view that our laws should be written in the long-term interest of the country. On balance, I expect the Bill will achieve that objective, but I hope the Government will be able to address some of these concerns.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, may I, with your indulgence, offer my congratulations to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for making his maiden speech. In the same vein, and I am sure the other Members of the House would agree, we look forward to the contributions from the other Nominated Members of Parliament who have just been sworn in and will make their speeches in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of this Bill which are focused on improving the conduct of the Parliamentary Elections and to deal with contingencies that may arise during an election. The overriding aim is, of course, to uphold the integrity of the process, and make sure that public confidence in the election process is always high. And I use the word "process" in its widest sense, from the processes involving the Electoral Register to the processes involving Nomination, conduct of elections and, of course, elections expenses as well.

I have three points to make.

The first one, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in relation to deposits by candidates. I note that under clause 4(e) of the Bill, it is proposed that the deposit must be made through electronic funds transfer system, or bank draft, or certified cheque. Legal tender is removed.

Presumably, it is part of the Government's push to make Singapore go cashless. This lies in contrast with section 10(3) of the Presidential Elections Act. Members would note that the Presidential Elections Act was revised just last year. I do appreciate the Government's push to convert our society to a cashless one. I half suspect that the hon Minister Ong Ye Kung, who is in charge of this initiative, may even advocate payment using PayNow.

At this point, though, a significant part of our society still uses cash. Why is it necessary in these circumstances to remove deposits by legal tender? Would it be better not to hurry this until our society has really become cash-free, which is not the case now?

With reference to the usage of certified cheques, how is this mode impacted by the Government intent that our society stops using cheques by 2025? Would the Elections Department anticipate making further changes to this payment mode then?

I also note that there is no process outline on how the deposit would be returned. So, if you are pushing for cashless transactions, then perhaps we should provide for end-to-end such that the deposits may be contemplated to be returned to a specified account provided by the candidates via the electronic funds transfer system.

Second, on the recounting of votes, I note that clause 14 of the Bill provides that the Returning Officer must conduct a recount where the difference between candidates with the most number of votes, and the next candidate is 2% or less.

I support this amendment. In fact, in the last Elections, I had the chance to invoke the previous process as a candidate for Aljunied GRC when the candidates had to decide whether a recount was necessary. And Mr Speaker, Sir, it was almost like an episode from "The Amazing Race" because we had to make our way from the assembly area to the principal counting centre. We had to drive there and, through the process, we were not sure whether we would be too late to meet the Returning Officer. And finally, when we met the Returning Officer, we asked for a recount. Then, he took out a paper and read from the script, agreeing to our request. So, there were quite a lot of moving parts in the old process. This process is much better because the rationale behind the recounting is solely to ensure the accuracy of the vote count, given the close margins. So, it makes sense for the Returning Officer to be reposed with the power to initiate the process.

The final point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on Parliamentary expenses. Clause 25 proposes a different system where a candidate does not have to provide supporting documents, meaning bills and receipts. Instead, a statement would suffice.

May I please ask: what is the shortcoming of the current system of requiring the candidates and the election agents to provide supporting bills and receipts to the Returning Officer? The current system, in my respectful view, has good accountability. There can be public access to the bills and receipts. They can check whether the election expenses regulations have been observed by looking at the source documents and not just the statements. If there is any discrepancy or shortcoming, then there is the ability to deal with it, then and there, close to the holding of the elections. Under the proposed system, I fear that there could be unintended consequences, for example, loss of documents during the one-year period that the candidate or the election agent is supposed to hold on to these documents. So, this perhaps may loosen the form of accountability and may impact on the integrity of the process. Save for that, I support the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the initiative to introduce amendments to improve the administration of elections. I have a few suggestions and clarifications.

Firstly, I have a query about the proposed amendment to abandon the vote count at a polling station where a sealed ballot box has been lost or destroyed before the ballots can be counted. This amendment is unpalatable to many voters who strongly believe that every vote is sacred. Why should all the votes at the affected polling station be nullified due to a single loss, damaged or tampered box? This is a recommendation which a number of constituents are uncomfortable with and find difficult to accept. Why can we not proceed with the counting of the votes from the unaffected, sealed ballot boxes?

Secondly, it was proposed that should the number of votes from the affected polling station be enough to sway the electoral result for that constituency or division, voters of the affected station would be required to go through a fresh poll. However, I think that a re-poll of the affected electoral division does not necessarily ensure a fair and equitable election. This is as good as holding a by-election, especially when the national results have already been announced.

Perhaps it would be better that the re-voting exercise be held only in the event that the votes in the affected boxes could potentially sway the election result.

I would like to ask how many such incidents, including tampering of ballot boxes, had been reported since Singapore gained Independence and what other types of complaints pertaining to ballot boxes had been received? What were the measures taken to ensure the transparent and indisputable transfer of ballot boxes from polling stations to counting centres? One of the doubts raised was the possibility of ballot boxes being replaced during transfers. I would also like to ask for details about how ballot boxes from overseas are organised.

Next, I would like to ask whether the Elections Department can provide the ballot paper sample which uses black as the base colour. My concern is that it may affect voters' ability to identify the candidates or the party logos on the ballot papers. Elderly voters may have difficulties reading the ballot papers. Has a consultation been done with different age groups about the design of the ballot paper to ensure clarity of design and readability?

In addition, how would the Elections Department ensure that the Assistant Returning Officers or polling staff provide indisputable guidance to voters at polling stations? Had there been reports or complaints made in past elections, such as those about assistants prompting voters to tick for certain candidates while addressing their queries at the polling stations?

One of the amendments is that elections deposit will be based on an elected Member of Parliament's monthly allowance, rounded to the nearest $500. Will the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider reducing the deposit required further, such as by pegging against the median gross monthly income for full-time work, which is currently $4,232? This will further strengthen the efforts by the Government to ensure the building of an inclusive society. The deposit should preferably be set at a level that will not discriminate against those who have less wealth but have the qualities and willingness to serve.

Will the Elections Department consider further automating the nomination forms to make it largely system-enabled for potential nominees/candidates as well as for proposers and seconders?

I welcome the use of maps to show the boundaries to enable the electorate to know their constituencies prior to the GE. This will provide greater ease of viewing and clarity.

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank all the Members for speaking on this Bill.

I will address the specific points raised. These can be grouped into three broad sets of issues. The first set of issues has to do with the provisions related to election candidates. The second set of issues relates to management of contingencies. The third set of issues has some unrelated issues which the Speaker has reminded us that are not relevant to this Bill, but nevertheless, I will make a few short remarks, in particular, on the NCMP scheme.

Let me begin with the provisions related to election candidates.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested reducing the election deposit. The purpose of the election deposit is to ensure that only those who are serious in contesting in the elections step forward. I agree with him that we should not set the amount so high that it becomes a barrier to entry. But we also need to strike a balance. Setting at the current rate of one month of a Member of Parliament’s allowance has worked reasonably well since we first had elections in Singapore. And under the law, candidates who contest and gather more than one-eighth of the votes will have their election deposits returned to them after the election.

Mr Murali Pillai suggested that we continue to allow cash payment of election deposits. We agree. The amendments will increase the options, not decrease the options in the mode of payment. We are encouraging candidates to use electronic funds transfer to make it more convenient for aspiring candidates so that they no longer need to withdraw cash or visit a bank to purchase a bank draft and go to the Accountant-General’s Department to make the payment. The Elections Department will also return the election deposits using electronic funds transfer, and it is as per the current process, the candidate has the choice to which method of refund that they would like to use. As for cash, this is something the Returning Officer may allow when there are technical issues with the electronic funds transfer system. So, we have increased the number of choices, rather than narrow it.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested automating nomination forms. The Elections Department is looking into expanding its range of e-Services to candidates and election agents, and we will consider Mr Gan’s suggestion as part of their study.

Mr Murali Pillai spoke about possible unintended consequences from removing the need for candidates to submit supporting documents, such as bills and receipts, in their returns on election expenses. As there have not been any issues with these returns in the past, we propose to remove the need to submit these supporting documents to improve administration efficiency. But we are only doing away with supporting documents. The rest of the submissions are still required. This will not dilute accountability. The process for public inspection remains. Candidates are also required to keep these supporting documents for a period of one year, and the Returning Officer may require these documents for checks, where needed. So, the candidates still need to submit the necessary declarations and it is just that the supporting documents need not come with it, unless there is a public enquiry, a public interest in this.

Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan asked why some of the issues are moved out of the Act. That is because, in our review, we made a distinction between operational matters which can be done in the subsidiary legislation, and the legislative matters which are required in the Act. So, we are not removing the clauses that the Members have mentioned, but we are shifting them into the subsidiary legislation, so that we simplify the Act itself.

On the issue of the number of polling agents required, we have simplified this so that it is according to the number of voters, rather than the number of polling places. There is no intention to decrease or increase the number of polling agents overall, but this will allow us to better match the number of polling agents with the number of voters, and it would be an easier way for everyone to understand the processes.

The third issue raised by Mr Leon Perera is the issue of notifications. It will be done simultaneously via the Gazette and also available on the Elections Department website, so that it is easily available for everyone to check when there is an announcement to be made by Elections Department.

Next, let me touch on the management of contingencies. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about the proposed procedures should a ballot box be lost or destroyed. Let me state that if ballot boxes go missing or are destroyed, the proposed new sections 56DA and 56DB spell out the processes to handle such contingencies to maintain the integrity of the election.

Fresh polls will be conducted if the number of votes affects the election results for the electoral division. All voters assigned to the affected polling station will then have to re-cast their votes. And now, this is key. This is because when voters drop their ballot papers into the ballot boxes in any polling station, they have a choice. It will not be possible for us to ascertain which voters cast their votes in the affected ballot box. So, that is why it goes by the polling station, rather than the individual voter. And this will only be done if, as I have explained, it affects the polling results for the electoral division.

And how do we know whether the affected votes might affect the election results? This is when the sum of the total number of affected voters and the total number of overseas voters from the affected electoral division are equal or more than the difference between the votes already counted for the top two candidates. The procedure we are proposing is not new. This contingency procedure has been in place for Presidential elections. Now, what is new is the proposal to apply the same contingency procedures to Parliamentary elections as well.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira suggested to minimise the need for fresh polls by changing the polling procedures in the polling station. There is a downside to that because the current procedure is designed to allow voters to drop their ballot paper into any ballot box, so that voters can be assured of voting secrecy, as an added check. So, this has served us well, and I think we will continue this current arrangement.

There are also contingency provisions and procedures that we want to put in place. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira observed that if there were lost or damaged ballot boxes in an SMC, chances would be higher for a fresh poll to be conducted. Let me assure Members that there has been no instance in past elections of lost or damaged ballot boxes prior to the votes being counted. Consequently, there was no instance of re-polling as a result of loss or destruction of ballot boxes. And, if, indeed, ballot boxes get lost or damaged, the amendment in today’s Bill would lay out clearly in the law the steps to take to deal with such a scenario to ensure the integrity of the election process.

Members have also asked has there been any event that triggered us to review the current existing procedures. The answer is that this has always been part of our ongoing work in the Elections Department to make sure that our processes are kept afresh. As Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said, we need to think long term, we need to anticipate what may happen even though it may not have happened yet.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if providing the Minister with powers to decide how a re-poll is to be done will be a conflict of interest. Now, let me assure Members that the new section 56DA spells out clearly the procedures to be undertaken by the Returning Officer when a ballot box is lost or destroyed after the close of polls in Singapore. This includes informing the candidates of the affected electoral division, publishing a notice in the Gazette that the Returning Officer has abandoned the counting of the votes cast at the affected polling station and, if there is a need for a fresh poll, to specify the date, hours of the poll and location of the polling station. The provision in section 56DA(8) is to provide the Minister with the powers to prescribe other operational details in the regulations, if required, such as the notice to be placed outside the polling station.

In response to Member Mr Dennis Tan, we are thinking ahead of possible contingencies, rather than being triggered by any recent or past occurrence.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked for the grounds of rejection. The Registration Officer will reply to the claimant, and if the claimant so chooses, he or she may make public the reasons for the rejection. So, it will not be the Registration Officer who makes public the reasons for the rejection, but it is made available to the claimant, and he or she can make the necessary public announcement if they so choose to.

I will now touch on other points raised by Members.

On the design of the ballot paper, we share Mr Png Eng Huat’s and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern for the elderly. And this is, indeed, the reason why we have recently refreshed our polling paper design. The use of black as the base colour was introduced at GE2015 to help focus voters’ attention on the box to mark their voting choice. The background for the parts containing the candidate’s photograph and symbol remain white, so that these parts are clearly visible, and in clear contrast to the voters. The Elections Department took in the views of voters of different age groups when coming up with the new ballot paper design.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the adjudication process. We have very clear adjudication rules and process set up, and the Elections Department routinely conducts training for all the Assistant Returning Officers (AROs), the Group Assistant Returning Officers (GAROs), so that they can do their job professionally. But we should also put in context, such as how many of these votes actually go into adjudication. Actually, the answer is very few, but notwithstanding that it is very few that really require adjudication, we constantly make sure that training of our AROs and GAROs are all done systematically and professionally. And they are not partisan to any particular party. They will adjudicate based on their professional judgement on how best this is to be done.

Election officers are trained to adjudicate based on whether the voters' choice is clear, according to the law. Now, with the amendment to only consider markings in the demarcated area of the ballot paper, we will remind voters to mark their choices with an "X" for the candidate, or, in the case of a GRC, the group of candidates they are voting for, in the demarcated area of the ballot paper. And Mr Png Eng Huat may like to help us to remind voters to mark the "X" in the demarcated area, rather than to exercise their artistic talent in the polling station.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if there had been previous cases of tampering with ballot boxes during an election. The answer is no. There is a rigorous process to ensure that there is no break in the chain of custody of the ballot boxes from the polling stations to the counting centres, and from the counting centres to the Supreme Court where the ballot papers are retained in safe custody for a period of time before they are subsequently destroyed. For transparency, the process is open to observation by candidates and their agents. When sealed ballot boxes are transported from polling stations to counting centres, candidates and their polling agents may also board the buses to observe the process.

For overseas votes, there is similarly a secured chain of custody. Sealed ballot boxes are transported back to Singapore by two election officials and they are kept at the Supreme Court. They are then transported from the Supreme Court to the counting place to be counted. After counting, the ballot boxes are then transported back to the Supreme Court to be kept together with the local ballot boxes for six months before they are destroyed.

On Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s and Mr Png Eng Huat’s comments on election officials, let me first emphasise that the elections are administered by public officers who have been trained to do their election duties according to the law, in an impartial and transparent fashion. Election officials are not allowed to influence voters on who to vote for. Each voter decides for himself who to vote for. Where election officials have to communicate with voters, for example, in the case of visually handicapped voters, to guide them on using the stencil, they do so in an audible voice so that candidates, agents and other election officials around them can hear the conversation.

I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for welcoming the use of maps to show the boundaries of polling districts. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if the move to an online-only publication of polling districts will adversely affect historical records and, hence, future research. I would like to assure Assoc Prof Theseira that the Elections Department will maintain a proper archive of the boundaries of polling districts and electoral divisions. Members of the public can also continue to view electoral boundaries interactively using the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) OneMap. They can also inspect or purchase these maps in hardcopy at the offices of SLA and the Elections Department. As with other public records, the maps would also be kept with the National Archives in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, let me just make a few comments that are not entirely relevant to today's debate, and that is the issue of the NCMP. We have gone through this debate previously in this House. We had also debated this during the Constitutional amendments.

May I make a humble suggestion? If the Workers' Party feels that it is not in its Party's manifesto or beliefs to support the NCMP scheme, then we have two choices in front of us. One, it is for the Workers' Party candidates, during elections to publicly declare that he or she will not take up the NCMP seat even if offered. The second option is for the Workers' Party to impose a rule on all its Members to not take up an NCMP seat even if it is offered and this will be the Workers' Party's guideline. I think with these two options, the Workers' Party can take its pick on what it wants to do. But it would be rather disingenuous to say that we oppose the NCMP scheme and, at the same time, to take up the NCMP seats. So, I leave it to the Workers' Party on the choice that it wants to make going forward, and I am sure that enlightened Singaporeans will understand why and what the Workers' Party wants to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, this Bill makes changes to improve the administration of Parliamentary elections while ensuring the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the election process. They are part of the continuous improvements to strengthen election administration and to improve services to voters and candidates.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members to give your support to the Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a point of clarification. On the response of the hon Minister in relation to the payment of deposit, Members of the House will recall that the hon Minister said that in legal tender is in addition to the other modes prescribed. I just want to point out that in relation to the amendment Bill, under the old section 28(2), it reads the deposit may be paid but "Any sum required to be deposited under subsection (1) shall be paid in legal tender or by a bank draft or a certified cheque". That has been deleted and replaced by the new proposed provision, which reads "The deposit of the sum required under sub-section (1) must be made through an electronic funds transfer system designated by the Returning Officer for that purpose, or by a bank draft or a certified cheque, or in such other form or manner as the Returning Officer allows".

So, may I seek a clarification from the Minister, is the hon Minister relying on the catch-all provision at the end that the Returning Officer would allow legal tender as well? If that is so, then my concerns will be addressed.

The answer is yes, the Member's interpretation is correct.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. Actually, my clarification is on the similar point that Mr Murali Pillai raised. Because I think earlier, the Minister in his round-up speech, said that the Returning Officer could allow the election deposit to be paid in cash if, for example, the electronic transfer failed. So, is that the only circumstance when cash would be accepted, meaning that there were some problems with the Internet or electronic transfer? Because it does seem to set another barrier for candidates who may be raising money up to the very last minute and may not be able to do the funds electronically. So, I would ask the Minister to give some indication that the Returning Officer should accept cash, unless there is a very good reason why – and I cannot think of any – why cash should not be accepted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to both Mr Murali Pillai's and Ms Sylvia Lim's questions, yes, we would hope that the primary mode would go towards e-payment and transactions. But in extenuating circumstances, as the Member has mentioned whereby the electronic payment system failed, then we are able to accept cash. Or if you are talking about last-minute crowd-sourcing, so if there are extenuating circumstances, I think candidates can let the Returning Officers know and they will exercise the discretion.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Meaning that actually the failure of the electronic transfers is not a prerequisite, that means to say, there could be other circumstances why they could not do the electronic transfer?

Yes.

Mr Png Eng Huat, is your question pertaining to the NCMP?

No.

Please proceed.

Sir, I want to ask the Minister just a question. Would the Minister, in the interest of transparency, make the adjudication process training public, so that at least we, as candidates, would know how AROs adjudicate such invalid votes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the training is best done by the Elections Department. I do not think that there is anything secret about it. We train thousands and thousands of public officials on how to do it. There is nothing that we need to hide. The rules are very clear.

So, with today's amendments, it will be even clearer because, first, we have improved on the layout of the ballot paper, where it is black contrasted with white, and the white boxes where people are supposed to mark are clearly contrasted against all the other areas that are printed in black. And I think the Elections Department would be happy to share with Mr Png Eng Huat how we train our officers.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Gas Act was passed in 2001 to establish a regulatory regime to ensure a competitive, secure and reliable gas supply to the industry and the public. The Gas Act was last amended in 2007 to enhance market access and strengthen safeguards for critical infrastructure.

Singapore's energy markets have evolved significantly since. Our reliance on imported natural gas has grown, with over 95% of our electricity generated from natural gas, up from 77% in 2010. To meet this demand in a secure and competitive manner, we have built a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal to supplement our piped natural gas (PNG) supply. The LNG terminal has also enabled new business opportunities in a variety of ancillary services, such as trading, bunkering and break-bulking, which have enhanced the dynamism of our gas market.

Against the backdrop of these developments in our energy markets, it is necessary to update the Gas Act to ensure that it remains effective and relevant. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) are, therefore, proposing to update the Gas Act in four key areas: first, to enhance gas supply security and the regulation of safety of gas-related activities; second, to enhance protection of critical gas infrastructure and deterrence for serious offences; third, to facilitate competition in the gas market; and fourth, to clarify and improve procedural and technical provisions in the Gas Act.

In finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation in June earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.

Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill, starting with the first area, which is to enhance gas supply security and the regulation of safety of gas-related activities.

Singapore relies heavily on imported natural gas as fuel for power generation and as industrial feedstock, and any gas supply emergency can adversely affect our economy. The first amendment, in clause 14 of the Bill, introduces a new part VIIIA to the Gas Act, where in the event of an imminent or actual severe gas shortage, EMA, with the Minister's approval, is empowered to issue directions to require any person to take measures specified by EMA to address or alleviate the severe gas shortage, or prevent it from occurring or continuing. These directions may include empowering EMA to reallocate gas from users who can use alternative fuels to those who have no alternative fuel supplies. These directions may also include requiring relevant parties to enter into, modify or terminate contractual agreements. Persons who comply with the direction will be protected from legal liability, if doing so results in breach of an existing contractual obligation.

The Bill further defines that a "severe gas shortage situation" occurs when there is a shortage of natural gas imported into Singapore that results in gas importers being unable to fulfil their contractual obligations to end-users and where the extent, and likely duration or uncertainty of the period, of the gas shortage is likely to threaten the security or stability of gas or electricity supply in Singapore or result in a severe loss of industrial or economic output.

Mr Speaker, in moving this amendment, I am mindful that the power to issue any direction is broad and can affect the commercial arrangements of the parties concerned. The amendment is worded as such to provide EMA with the flexibility to react to the wide range of potential threats that may emerge. I would like to assure this House that before exercising this power, EMA would have explored alternative solutions to prevent, address or alleviate the severe gas shortage, such as procuring gas from alternative sources and leveraging existing market mechanisms and other regulatory levers. In addition, parties can seek compensation for losses or damage suffered as a result of complying with EMA's directions. The compensation will be determined by an independent panel set up under the Gas Act.

The second amendment, in clause 3 of the Bill, amends section 3 of the Gas Act to enhance EMA's regulation of gas-related activities. Presently, EMA's regulatory functions under the Gas Act include "protecting the public from dangers arising from the production, processing, storage, conveyance, shipping, supply or use of gas". To cover the broader value chain of gas-related activities, clause 3 of the Bill expands these regulatory functions to include protecting the public from dangers to health arising from such gas-related activities, including the import of gas, which is presently not included. This strengthens regulation over a broader spectrum of gas-related activities and expands EMA's regulatory control over technical requirements for gas imports to include thresholds for harmful substances, such as sulphur compounds and heavy metals.

The third amendment, in clause 8 of the Bill, expands the scope of "designated gas licensees" under Part VIIB of the Gas Act. These are licensees who require EMA's approval for changes in ownership, and board and chief executive officer appointments, in view of their strategic importance to our gas system. Presently, the only designated gas licensees are the gas transporter licensee, that is PowerGas Ltd, which is responsible for the operation of the gas transmission system, and its agent licensee, that is, SP PowerGrid Ltd. We are including the LNG terminal operator, that is, Singapore LNG Corporation Pte Ltd, as a "designated gas licensee", in view of its critical role in ensuring energy security. To allow flexibility to designate gas licensees as the gas industry evolves, the amendment will also empower the Minister to specify other gas licensees as "designated gas licensees", going forward if the need arises.

The fourth amendment, in clause 22 of the Bill, amends sections 33 and 34 of the Gas Act to expand the scope of the Special Administration Order (SAO), to provide EMA with greater flexibility to deal with unforeseen emergency scenarios.

Presently, an SAO can only be issued in relation to the gas transporter and LNG terminal operator licensees. The amendment will expand the scope of the SAO to cover any gas licensee. This will bring the SAO provisions in the Gas Act in line with those in the Electricity Act.

MTI and EMA have also incorporated feedback from the industry to make it clear that the SAO can be issued in relation to some, and not necessarily all, of the affairs, business and property of licensees. This will enable the SAO to be tailored to the gas-related business of licensees whose business include non-gas related parts, as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

The fifth amendment, also in clause 22 of the Bill, amends section 34(6)(b) of the Gas Act to allow licensees to apply for a Judicial Management (JM) order under Part VIIIA of the Companies Act once EMA's consent is obtained. The Gas Act currently prohibits a gas licensee from applying for a JM. The intent is to ensure that critical licensees are not unilaterally placed under JM and dissolved. However, this restricts non-critical licensees from applying for a JM even though their restructuring or exit would not adversely impact our energy security and system stability. Hence, the amendment allows JM of a licensee if EMA's consent is obtained.

Mr Speaker, let me now elaborate on the second key area of update – enhancing protection of critical gas infrastructure and deterrence of serious gas-related offences.

The sixth amendment, in clause 6 of the Bill, introduces a new section 32B to the Gas Act that makes it an offence to damage any submarine gas pipeline. Submarine gas pipelines within Singapore's territorial waters convey imported natural gas to our gas network. Damage to these pipelines can disrupt Singapore's gas and electricity supply and result in high economic losses. Presently, damage to any submarine gas pipeline is an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act that carries a maximum fine of only $50,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years upon conviction. This is too low to effectively deter damage to submarine gas pipelines. In view of the higher costs of repairing submarine gas pipelines vis-à-vis land-based gas pipelines, a higher maximum fine of $2 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction will be imposed. This is a calibrated increase compared to the $1 million fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years for damage to land-based gas pipelines.

The seventh amendment, in clause 5 of the Bill, amends section 32A of the Gas Act to rationalise the different offences currently provided in the section, which include offences relating to damage to land-based gas transmission infrastructure. Such infrastructure is critical in ensuring the flow of gas to businesses and households. The amendment also seeks to extend the reach of the section by making a person who causes or permits another person to damage land-based gas transmission infrastructure guilty of an offence. There is no need for the former to have any particular relationship with the latter.

Finally, the distinction between damage in earthworks and non-earthworks related situations is removed as it is strictly not relevant to assessing culpability. The penalty for offences under this section remains unchanged as a maximum fine of $1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction.

Beyond enhancing protection of critical gas infrastructure, there is a need to effectively deter the dishonest consumption of gas and tampering of gas meters. The dishonest consumption of gas presently carries a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of up to five years upon conviction. However, in cases where the dishonest consumption of gas is carried out on a large scale and the value of gas dishonestly consumed is substantial, the existing penalty can be disproportionately low compared to the value of gas consumed and ineffective as deterrence.

Hence, the eighth amendment, also in clause 7 of the Bill, amends section 47 of the Gas Act to mandate that the Court imposes an additional fine equivalent to three times the value of gas dishonestly consumed, on conviction for dishonest consumption of gas and meter tampering offences. This amendment takes into consideration that the cost of the gas that is dishonestly consumed is borne by all paying consumers. This enhances deterrence by ensuring proportionality between the penalty imposed and the value of gas dishonestly consumed.

The ninth amendment, also in clause 7 of the Bill, expands section 47 of the Gas Act to specify that it is an offence to do anything that compromises or affects the ability of a meter in registering the quantity of gas supplied to any person or premises. This amendment will enable EMA to prosecute persons who use novel or unconventional methods to tamper with meters, with a view to dishonestly consume gas.

Mr Speaker, let me move on to the third key area of update to the Gas Act that aims to facilitate competition in the gas market.

Part IX of the Gas Act presently empowers EMA to regulate anti-competitive practices and conduct in the Singapore gas market. To facilitate competition in the gas market, the 10th amendment, in clause 15 of the Bill, introduces a new section 72A to the Gas Act that enables EMA to issue guidelines to inform the gas market regarding practices and conduct that are anti-competitive. This amendment is consistent with the Competition Act, which similarly allows the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) to publish guidelines to guide market behaviour. To ensure that the industry’s views are incorporated, EMA will consult the industry when formulating these guidelines.

Mr Speaker, the final key area of update seeks to clarify and improve technical provisions in the Gas Act.

First, clause 20 of the Bill amends section 93 of the Gas Act to enable regulations to be made to specify the procedures for submission of appeals to and consideration of appeals by the Minister regarding EMA’s regulatory decisions. This will enable regulations requiring the facts, issues and grounds of appeal to be set out clearly when appeals are made and enable the Minister to reject appeals that do not meet these requirements. Confidential and sensitive information submitted in appeals will also be safeguarded. This will facilitate consideration of appeals by the Minister and bring the Gas Act in line with existing appeal provisions in other Acts, such as the Telecommunications Act.

Second, to better reflect EMA’s functions in ensuring the security and reliability of our gas supply, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Gas Act to clarify that EMA’s regulatory functions include arranging for the secure operation of the gas transmission system, which EMA already performs.

Third, clause 21 of the Bill amends section 96 of the Gas Act to broaden regulations that may be made under section 96(2)(o) relating to the conversion of a gas pipeline network to convey natural gas. The broadened regulations will enable EMA to require relevant parties, such as building owners or managers, to submit updated plans and other information to the licensees carrying out the conversion works. It will also allow regulations to be made to provide for termination of supply of gas to any premises if the conversion is not carried out successfully, on safety or other grounds. Clause 21 also amends section 96 to enable EMA to recover costs for services provided in connection with its regulatory functions, without having to prescribe the costs as fees.

Last, clause 19 of the Bill inserts a new section 92A to provide for various moneys collected by EMA under the Gas Act to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Mr Speaker, in summary, the proposed amendments to the Gas Act that I have elaborated on in my speech are necessary to ensure that the Gas Act remains effective and relevant against the backdrop of changing energy markets and business models. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Mohamed Irshad.

Hon Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and hon Members of Parliament, I support this Bill as it strengthens and tightens the Gas Act to safeguard our future.

Today, I wish to speak on three areas, mainly, energy security, energy sustainability and energy resilience. On energy security, almost every Singaporean knows that we are a vulnerable and small nation with almost zero natural resources. But not as many may realise the extent to which we rely on imported fuel to meet our energy demands. Imported natural gas account for 95% of our energy generation. For our security, I feel it is important that we should not be beholden to any country to meet our energy needs.

So, we have to take this Bill very seriously for now and our future generations as, without the natural gas, our power generation will be disrupted and Singapore will be in total darkness.

All this while, Singapore has been buying gas and piping it from Malaysia and Indonesia through our strong bilateral relationship, and we have enjoyed this facility for a very long time. That dependence has been reduced over the years from 100% to 77%. And with the opening of the Singapore natural gas terminal in 2014, I am glad to see Singapore diversifying our sources of supply to include LNG. This is an important step in reducing our reliance on PNG and I would like to congratulate the executives for their far-sightedness to build the terminal to strengthen our energy security.

And, from what I understand, the existing six contracts for PNG from our neighbours will expire between this year and 2029. In this regard, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share with us if these contracts will be renewed or will we make the switch to LNG upon expiry of these contracts?

Also, with the expected increase in worldwide demand for LNG, how are we looking to stabilise the market price fluctuations and deliver a reliable and stable service and, more importantly, keep an affordable price point for Singaporeans?

On a related point, I commend the Singapore LNG Corporation on expanding its capacity over the years. I understand that there will be a second terminal that will strengthen Singapore’s position. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary when this second terminal will be ready.

Singapore is in a unique situation, located in the Straits of Malacca, with important shipping access that serves all major shipping lines. Singapore’s strategic geographical location allows for easier access to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Southeast Asian countries. Globally, Singapore is also well-known as the financial and commodity trading hub of Asia.

I would like to make a proposal that our Government consider making Singapore an important LNG hub of Asia to attract gas producing countries to utilise Singapore as their storage farms for Asia and to establish an LNG hub for Asia in Singapore as how Rotterdam is for Europe.

On energy sustainability, in my work with Singaporean youths, I have met many who feel strongly in preserving the environment. As part of this, many support switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Towards this, I commend good initiatives, such as the JTC's SolarRoof project, Treelodge@Punggol, deployment of Solar Photovoltaics (PVs) in reservoirs across Singapore and building Singapore’s first micro-grid living lab in Pulau Ubin. I believe we should make a stronger push about going into solar energy. I would like to seek further understanding on the timeline to go into large-scale implementation for solar PVs.

We should also encourage more green practices. For example, in Japan, Toyota has come up with a green coating to coat buildings to keep them cool by as much as 30%. Such green innovation ensures the efficiency of cooling down our buildings which will translate into great cost savings in electricity bills for the consumers.

I would like to laud the proposal to expand EMA’s functions under the Gas Act to deal with dangers to health concerns arising from the import of gas.

On energy resilience, our world is unpredictable. Our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded us repeatedly that we have to take the world as it is, and not as we wish it to be. We are not immune to cybersecurity attacks or major energy disruptions. About two weeks ago on 18 September, we faced a major blackout that affected over 146,000 residential and commercial customers. The incident emphasised the need for Singapore to be energy-resilient. Although the disruption was due to a partial loss of electricity supply from two power generation companies, we cannot take it lightly.

In that light, it is important that all Singaporeans are equipped with the skills and knowledge to remain calm and resilient in any such emergencies. Perhaps carrying out an awareness campaign or public education drive is something that can be considered. It is a strength to know what to do if the lights are out.

At the core of that resilient spirit, Singaporeans must not take our energy supply for granted and must give credit where it is due and to commend the Government, MTI and EMA for ensuring the energy supplies of Singapore and for taking all possible steps to mitigate any shortage or disruptions over the years.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and the wider efforts to strengthen our energy security and resilience.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the queries and support for the Bill. Let me address Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Mohamed Irshad's questions on our energy supply, sustainability and resilience.

As a small country without any natural resources, Singapore imports nearly all of our energy needs. This makes us vulnerable to supply risks. Prior to 2013, we were completely reliant on Malaysia and Indonesia for our natural gas supply, which is transported to us via pipes.

As the Member has noted, our piped gas contracts are set to expire over the next decade or so. As all of our gas supply is handled commercially, whether our piped gas contracts are renewed will depend on commercial negotiations. And we welcome renewals or new contracts for piped gas. In October 2017, EMA lifted its moratorium on new piped gas contracts to facilitate this.

To enhance our energy security and competitiveness, the Government has pursued diversification of our gas sources as a strategy. To that end, the Government has built an LNG terminal, which has enabled us to procure natural gas in the form of LNG from a wider range of sources, such as Australia, the United States (US) as well as Trinidad and Tobago. We have also adopted a Competitive Licensing Framework to procure LNG on a tranche-by-tranche basis. This will provide Singapore with the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities in the global gas market, including more competitive price indexation and contract terms, while diversifying our gas sources to reinforce our supply security.

To further strengthen our energy security, we have also added capacity to the LNG terminal ahead of demand, providing us with spare capacity to cater for any potential disruption in our piped natural gas supply. The terminal today has a peak throughput capacity of 11 million tonnes per annum, sufficient to meet demand for the near future. The Government will continue to plan ahead for our next phase of LNG infrastructure development. We are currently exploring several options to see which best meet our long-term LNG needs and further improve our energy security.

As I have highlighted earlier, the proposed amendment in clause 14 of the Bill will further enhance EMA's ability to deal with a wide range of potential risks that may emerge. It empowers EMA to issue directions to require any person to take measures to address or alleviate the severe gas shortage or prevent it from occurring or continuing.

Beyond meeting our domestic energy requirements, we have been taking steps to capitalise on our strategic location to develop Singapore as a regional gas hub. Our LNG terminal can conduct storage and reloads, and we have spare capacity available for trading. We have also been working with the industry to build a strong supporting ecosystem, with players, such as consulting firms, law firms, shipbrokers, price reporting agencies and other services providers. All these and more have established their presence in Singapore, adding to the depth of the ecosystem. Thanks to the efforts of Enterprise Singapore in building the LNG trading community, there are now more than 45 companies with an LNG trading or business development presence here. And to further increase dynamism in our gas market, EMA has also formalised the spot LNG import framework in October 2017. So, interested parties can now import spot LNG, subject to a market-wide cap of 10% of our long-term contracted gas sales agreements. In summary, there is actually a whole-of-ecosystem approach to looking at our energy resilience.

Let me now address the Member's queries on our energy sustainability. Singapore is exploring other ways to broaden our energy options. Among the renewable energy options, solar PV has the greatest potential for wider deployment in Singapore. But even then, there are challenges to adopting solar energy at scale, for example, competing uses for limited land, and the intermittency of the electricity generated by solar PV due to high cloud cover and urban shading.

Despite these challenges, we have grown the amount of solar PV deployed from 10 megawatt peak (MWp) in 2012 to more than 160 MWp today. This is just a start. We are planning to raise our solar generation capacity to 350 MWp by 2020 and to one GWp beyond 2020.

We are also investing in research and development to increase the efficiency of solar PV and the accuracy of forecasting solar power output in our tropical climate. This includes testbeds on utility-scale energy storage systems that could facilitate greater deployment of solar PV in Singapore while ensuring that our power system's security, reliability and stability are not compromised.

Let me now address the Member's queries on our energy resilience, including his question on the safeguards we have for critical services. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, had spoken about this during question time, but if I may just share again.

In the design of any electricity grid system, we have to balance redundancy and assurance with cost imposed on consumers. The higher the degree of redundancy, the smaller the probability of disruption, the higher the cost at the system level. So, we have to find the balance, and we have adopted a calibrated approach in our system planning certain level of redundancy at national grid level, together with a higher level of redundancy for critical systems at the local level. Critical services and infrastructure, such as lifts and traffic signalling systems, have contingency plans for power outages that might happen on the national grid. For example, passenger lifts must be installed with an Automatic Rescue Device, so that if there is a power failure, the lift will be parked at the nearest floor and open its doors. For lifts in very high-rise residential buildings or those serving both residential and non-residential uses, a standby generator is required to provide emergency power to resume at least one lift's operations.

As for our public hospitals, these are provided with dual supply sources. So, if one of the supply sources fails, each is able to provide backup to the hospital. In addition, if there is any disruption from the main power source, there are backup power systems, such as diesel generators and Uninterrupted Power Supplies (UPS) systems, and these will automatically kick in to support critical equipment and critical facilities. And our public hospitals also carry out preventive maintenance, regular maintenance, to ensure that both their electrical installations and power system backups are in good working condition. During the power outage on 18 September, hospitals in the affected areas activated their backup power supply immediately, and this prevented disruptions to their operations and patient care.

The Member also spoke on the importance of having a well-equipped public to respond to emergencies, and this is well-noted. EMA is working with the industry to review processes for handling events, such as the recent power outage, to ensure they remain satisfactory. During the blackout, SP Group officers were immediately activated and deployed at key substations and control centres. SP Group also provided the public with progressive updates on its social media channels and concurrently informed the media of updates as well. But as with every incident, we will review carefully to see how we can further improve our responses.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member who spoke on this Bill and the valuable comments he provided. In summary, this Bill will ensure that the Gas Act continues to remain effective and relevant in enhancing gas supply security and strengthening safeguards for such critical infrastructure. Sir, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan Wu Meng.] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Electricity Act was passed by this House in 2001 to establish a competitive electricity market framework and provide for the safety, technical and economic regulation of electricity generation, transmission, supply and usage. The Electricity Act was last amended in 2006, mainly to enhance the regulation and licensing of the transmission of electricity.

Since then, the electricity sector has evolved with the increased proliferation of new technologies and business models. There is a need to update the Electricity Act to ensure that it continues to remain effective and relevant amidst the changing energy landscape. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) are, therefore, proposing to update the Electricity Act in four key areas: first, enhancing the security, reliability and competitiveness of our electricity supplies; second, enhancing protection of critical electricity infrastructure and safety of electrical works; third, clarifying procedural and technical provisions in the Electricity Act; and fourth, aligning regulatory provisions in the Electricity Act with similar provisions in the Gas Act for consistency.

Similar to the Gas (Amendment) Bill, in finalising these amendments, MTI and EMA sought feedback from industry stakeholders and members of the public through a public consultation in June earlier this year. MTI and EMA have carefully considered all feedback received and incorporated them where relevant.

I will now outline the key provisions of the Bill, starting with the first area of update, which is to enhance the security, reliability and competitiveness of electricity supplies.

The first amendment, in clause 6 of the Bill, introduces a new section 20A, which allows EMA to direct the electricity transmission licensee and an electricity licensee to effect a connection between their respective electrical equipment, if this is necessary for network expansion in the public interest or to ensure the security and reliability of electricity supply to the public.

The transmission licensee operates the grid that transmits electricity generated by electricity generation licensees to consumers. When installing new transmission infrastructure to meet electricity demand, the transmission licensee may, in certain situations, need to connect its electrical equipment to that of other electricity licensees, to increase transmission capacity and supply for the entire system.

The direction will, in the first instance, require the transmission licensee and the electricity licensee to effect the connection and then agree on terms for maintaining the connection, including compensation to be paid by the former to the latter for loss suffered by the latter resulting from the connection. If both parties are unable to come to agreement on the terms, they can request the Minister to appoint an Appeal Panel under the Electricity Act to determine the terms, including compensation. The terms determined by the Panel will become effective and binding on both parties as an agreement from the date of the determination.

Mr Speaker, I would like to assure this House that before a direction is issued, EMA will seek to meet with the licensees and explain the need for the connection. EMA will also facilitate discussions to reach mutual agreement on the terms of connection. A direction will only be issued if both parties cannot agree on the terms of connection despite these efforts.

The second amendment, in clause 3 of the Bill, amends the regulatory and licensing provisions in section 6 of the Electricity Act to enable the Minister to specify other electricity-related activities that need to be regulated and licensed, beyond the activities presently stated in that section. This aligns with similar regulatory provisions already in the Gas Act.

The third amendment, in clause 8 of the Bill, will allow licensees to apply for a Judicial Management (JM) order under Part VIIIA of the Companies Act once EMA's consent is obtained. The Electricity Act currently prohibits an electricity licensee from applying for a JM. While the intent is to ensure that critical licensees are not unilaterally placed under JM or dissolved, this restricts non-critical licensees from applying for a JM even though their restructuring or exit would not adversely impact our energy security and system stability. Hence, this amendment allows JM of a licensee if EMA's consent is obtained. This is similar to the amendment to the Gas Act.

The fourth proposed amendment, under clauses 5 and 15 of the Bill, amends the Electricity Act to reflect the right of small contestable consumers, that is, consumers whose average monthly electricity consumption for the preceding continuous 12-month period is less than four megawatt hours, to revert to purchasing electricity at the regulated tariff if they cannot, or do not wish to purchase electricity from electricity retailers or directly from the wholesale electricity market, or if their electricity retailer is unable to retail electricity to them for any reason. This is currently not clearly stated in the Act.

Mr Speaker, I now move on to the second key area of update to the Electricity Act – enhancing protection of critical electricity infrastructure in Singapore and the safety of electrical works.

The fifth amendment, in clause 23 of the Bill, amends section 85 of the Electricity Act to rationalise the different offences currently provided in the section, which include offences relating to damage to land-based electricity transmission infrastructure. Such infrastructure is critical in ensuring the flow of electricity to businesses and households. The amendment also seeks to extend the reach of the section by making a person who causes or permits another person to damage land-based electricity transmission infrastructure guilty of an offence. There is no need for the former to have any particular relationship with the latter. This is similar to the amendment to the Gas Act.

The amendment further prescribes a maximum fine of $1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years for all offences under the section, regardless of the type of electricity infrastructure involved and whether or not the damage is earthworks-related. This is in line with the penalty provided in the corresponding section in the Gas Act and will allow the Courts broader scope to determine appropriate penalties for such offences by considering such matters as the seriousness of the damage and its effects, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

The sixth amendment, in clause 22 of the Bill, amends section 82 of the Electricity Act to expand enforcement against persons carrying out electrical works without valid electrical worker licences, to include firms that provide electrical work services to consumers using workers who are not licensed electrical workers. This will better protect the interests of consumers when they engage firms to carry out electrical works at their homes or premises and enhance safety by ensuring that only licensed electrical workers are employed to carry out electrical works.

Mr Speaker, let me now move on to the third key area of update – amendments to clarify and improve procedural and technical provisions in the Electricity Act.

Clauses 9 to 14 of the Bill amend Part IVA of the Electricity Act to bring controls on ownership, acquisition and divestment over electricity licensees in line with those in the Gas Act. This includes enabling the Minister to specify other electricity licensees as "designated electricity licensees" if the need arises.

Clause 21 of the Bill amends section 80 of the Electricity Act to harmonise the scope of duties of persons carrying out earthworks with those in the Gas Act, which are currently broader.

Clause 29 of the Bill amends section 103 of the Electricity Act to enable EMA to recover costs for services provided in connection with its regulatory functions without having to prescribe the cost as fees.

Clause 28 of the Bill inserts a new section 100A to provide for various moneys collected by EMA under the Electricity Act to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Mr Speaker, finally, on the last area of update, let me highlight the key amendments to align specific provisions in the Electricity Act with similar amendments to the Gas Act, for consistency. As the justifications for these amendments have already been mentioned in the Second Reading speech for the Gas (Amendment) Bill, I will only mention them briefly here.

First, clause 16 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to enable EMA to issue guidelines to signal to the market certain practices and conduct that are anti-competitive.

Second, clause 24 of the Bill amends the Electricity Act to make it an offence for any person to damage any submarine electricity cable belonging to, or under the control or management of an electricity licensee. Similar to the Gas Act amendments, the offence will carry a maximum fine of $2 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years upon conviction.

Third, clause 25 of the Bill amends section 87 of the Electricity Act to mandate that the Court impose an additional fine equivalent to three times the value of electricity dishonestly consumed, on conviction for dishonest consumption of electricity and meter tampering offences. It will also be an offence to do anything that compromises or affects the proper operation of a meter in duly registering electricity supplied to any person or premises. These are similar to the amendments to the Gas Act.

Last, clause 27 of the Bill amends section 98 of the Electricity Act to enable regulations to be made to specify the procedures for submission of appeals to and consideration of appeals by the Minister regarding EMA's regulatory decisions, similar to the amendments to the Gas Act on this.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act are necessary to update the Electricity Act and ensure that it continues to remain effective and relevant, going forward. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has never been a time when our world is more dependent on electricity as our world is today, and it will become even more so in the future when we become a Smart Nation. The massive power outage we experienced earlier this month is a reminder of how we should not take electricity for granted and how critical it is to secure and protect our power supply and transmission connections. The Bill will empower EMA to direct the expansion of the electricity transmission network to ensure the security and reliability of supply when necessary, including for emergency situations like this. However, the recent blackout highlighted how centralised our operations are and the associated vulnerabilities.

I urge the Ministry to consider expediting the setting up of independent sources of electricity island-wide to provide backup power for critical installations, such as water pumps, elevators, traffic and street lights. In the event of a prolonged outage, these power sources will ameliorate hardships and reduce accidents.

I am aware that EMA is looking into the potential of micro-grids. These are small electricity networks which are usually connected to a centralised national grid but that can also operate independently. So far, these are only being tested at the Singapore Institute of Technology and Pulau Ubin. Would MTI and EMA make it a priority to extend these testbeds to more areas and institutions?

In different parts of the world, the building of micro-grids is gaining momentum as governments realise their potential in adding to energy security. They can be found in Amsterdam in The Netherlands, California and New York in the United States (US), Higashi Matsushima in Japan, just to name a few. A network of small, independent electricity grids also offers an alternative in the event of cyberterrorism targeting the national grid. In the US, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed earlier this year that state-sponsored hackers had infiltrated the electricity grid. A leading cybersecurity firm had also cautioned about cybercriminals posing a threat to utility operators. Hackers had caused an equipment shutdown at a Saudi Arabian oil and gas plant and a smelter in a German steel mill to overload and destroy itself.

Next, I would like to request that EMA draws up guidelines to guide staff on how to disseminate information and updates to the public in the event of outages. During the recent blackout, hotlines were inundated and some people were unable to get their calls through. Good communication is important in reducing anxiety and panic among members of the public who have no idea how long the outage would last.

Finally, may I ask the Ministry how are the rates of the regulated tariffs decided upon? It is not easy for consumers to decide which electricity retailers to choose from. The Open Electricity Market is a very new concept for most Singaporeans and many of my elderly residents may get quite confused. They cannot understand how a retailer can sell electricity at a more competitive price than the wholesale market. Would MTI be able to provide them advisory services as this would be very useful for the senior citizens to make an informed choice? Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the queries and support for the Bill. Let me first address Ms Joan Pereira's suggestions regarding our communication and contingency plans during a power outage.

We had discussed this earlier during the round-up speech for the Gas (Amendment) Bill and we very much agree that we can continue working on ways to improve by learning from best practices around the world, as well as experiences near and far.

Let me also address the Member's question on microgrids and cybersecurity. As the Member rightly noted, microgrids can operate independently during an emergency. And we are also studying various aspects of microgrids, because these can allow for easier integration of various energy technologies. So, for example, the upcoming microgrid at the Singapore Institute of Technology's campus in Punggol will be the first urban microgrid in Singapore that will integrate various types of energy technologies, including renewable sources and energy storage. There is also an ongoing microgrid testbed at Pulau Ubin which is studying the real-world impact of renewable energy on grid system stability and reliability. These testbeds will provide useful insights to help EMA in planning for future grid designs, as well as the main grid to ensure resiliency. We will continue to explore where such microgrids would be suitable for deployment in Singapore.

As for cybersecurity threats to our electricity transmission system, I would like to assure the Member that the Electricity Act already gives EMA the mandate to address such threats, and EMA takes such threats very seriously. For example, under the Electricity Act, EMA is able to go after persons who hinder or prevent the grid from being used or operated in the manner in which it is intended for. The amendments to the Electricity Act make clear that this includes through wireless means, in addition to physical means. Furthermore, the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act also includes offences relating to cyberattacks or hacking, such as the unauthorised access to computers or computer systems, and unauthorised use or interception of computer services.

We have also formulated a cybersecurity governance framework for the energy industry in close partnership with the Cyber Security Agency (CSA). The energy industry's Critical Information Infrastructures (CIIs) also adopt best practices in security management. So, for example, the computer systems in CIIs are isolated from the Internet. In addition, there are regular industry-wide exercises and sharing sessions to ensure the sector's resilience and readiness in emergency responses to cyberattacks. We will continue to work with CSA and the industry to ensure the robustness and relevance of our cybersecurity governance framework.

I will now address the Member's queries regarding contestability and the Open Electricity Market (OEM).

The Member asked about how the regulated tariff is determined and why retailers can charge less for their electricity packages. The regulated tariff, charged by SP Group and approved by EMA, is set based on a fixed formula that reflects the long-term costs to produce and deliver electricity in Singapore. SP Group is required to supply electricity to all consumers and has to bear the risk of an uncertain consumer base as it does not tie down its customers to any contract or impose early termination charges.

On the other hand, retailers are able to set their prices based on their own business strategies to adapt to shorter-term factors, such as prevailing market conditions and level of competition.

We do share the Member's concern over ensuring that all households, including our senior citizens, and small businesses are able to make an informed choice on their electricity supplier.

To this end, EMA uses regulatory measures, as well as community outreach.

As the regulator, EMA requires retailers to present and seek households' acknowledgement of the Consumer Advisory and Fact Sheet on the key contractual terms, such as payment terms, contract duration, security deposit and early termination charges. EMA also requires retailers to safeguard all security deposits collected from households.

For community outreach, EMA will also embark on education and awareness campaigns to inform consumers about the OEM and what to look out for when switching to a retailer. EMA is also working closely with various grassroots organisations to ensure that senior citizens are kept informed as well, especially seniors who are not so literate or not literate. This is one of the reasons why the nationwide rollout of the OEM from 1 November 2018 will be done in zones, so that EMA and retailers can focus their resources to help consumers better understand their options before making a decision.

Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise that consumers who do not wish to switch to a retailer can remain with SP Group and continue buying electricity at the regulated tariff. As a consumer, you do not need to switch, there is no deadline to switch, and you can take time to consider your options and whether to switch.

The proposed amendment to the Electricity Act today also clarifies the right of small contestable consumers to revert to buying electricity at the regulated tariff, if they cannot, or do not, wish to purchase electricity from a retailer. This amendment covers all households.