Hansard, Monday, 10 May 2021

1 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health how is it that a shipment of the Sinovac vaccine arrives in Singapore before the vaccine has been approved for use by HSA.

2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of the vaccine evaluation by HSA for Sinovac; and (b) whether the advance purchase agreement for Sinovac is still valid.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of the new COVID-19 cluster announced on 14 April 2021 (a) whether a review will be done on the quarantine requirements and controlled itineraries for incoming business travellers; (b) whether there are special measures for workplaces to manage short-term visit pass holders to protect other employees; and (c) whether this incident will result in a review on allowing workers to return to offices, particularly those from overseas.

4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health as Singapore continues to see instances of foreign arrivals and visitors infected with COVID-19 (a) what is the Ministry's position on arrivals from countries with high numbers of COVID-19 cases; and (b) how will the Ministry strengthen our upstream measures to prevent COVID-19 spread from imported cases.

5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health from the COVID-19 cases emanating from overseas arrivals in the past six months (a) which are the three countries that accounted for the most number of cases; (b) what recourse can Singapore take with their respective Governments to address this; (c) at what point will Singapore suspend travellers from these countries; and (d) what other enhanced measures can the Ministry take to ensure imported cases of COVID-19 variants do not emerge in Singapore.

6 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider a temporary travel ban from countries considered extremely high risk due to the emergence of highly virulent mutations of the COVID-19 virus.

7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the current rate of COVID-19 vaccination; (b) what more can be done to further encourage vaccination amongst those who have not registered; and (c) whether there are any concerns on the possible efficacy of the vaccines against the new variants of the COVID-19 virus.

8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government will more proactively tighten travel and arrivals from countries with sharp emergence of COVID-19 infected cases and more infectious variants; and (b) whether there is a need to step up Stay-Home Notice measures and testing regimes for visitors from these locations.

9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many Singapore citizens have completed the full COVID-19 vaccination; (b) how many suspected adverse reaction cases have been encountered when administering the vaccination regime compared with the performance of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in other countries; and (c) whether there are plans to re-vaccinate all Singapore residents after a stipulated period after the full vaccination regime has been completed.

10 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) when did the Ministry detect the first cases for each of the seven reported COVID-19 variants; and (b) whether the eight local cases of COVID-19 variants are related to the imported cases.

11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Health (a) how is the quota system for foreign arrivals by country determined; (b) what is the breakdown by profession of the imported COVID-19 cases; (c) why has there been no action taken throughout these months despite the thousands of imported cases that have come into Singapore; and (d) what is the possibility of Indian residents gaining entry via Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

12 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health in the light of recent cases where migrant workers who have recovered from COVID-19 are subsequently found to have been re-infected, whether this has any implications for the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination.

13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether children under 16 years of age can be included in the COVID-19 vaccination programme.

14 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health in light of the recent infections of individuals who have been vaccinated, what are the key areas that the Ministry will be reviewing for its COVID-19 vaccination programme to ensure the vaccination remains effective for the population.

15 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many claims have been made under the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Programme; (b) what is the nature of the injuries claimed for; and (c) how many claims have been allowed to date.

16 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health with the resurgence of COVID-19 infections and the appearance of the virus variants in various countries, whether our current measures are adequate to protect and keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe.

17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have been tested positive for COVID-19 despite having taken two doses of the vaccine or have had prior COVID-19 infection; (b) how many people in Singapore have taken one and two doses of the vaccine respectively as of April 2021; (c) whether the Government is planning for the third dose of the vaccine; and (d) what is the progress on approving the use of other COVID-19 vaccines in Singapore besides the current two approved vaccines.

18 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether there are current studies by the health authorities to ensure that the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines do not have the rare blood clot risk seen in other vaccines in use in other parts of the world.

19 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health (a) what strategies has the Ministry put in place to address COVID-19 vaccination-related misinformation transmitted through online channels and closed-messaging platforms; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to put up information on adverse vaccination cases recorded in Singapore so as to address the inadvertent dissemination of misinformation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to address Oral Question Nos 1 to 19, as well as Written Question Nos 19 to 23 in today's Order Paper through the Ministerial Statements which will be delivered at tomorrow's Sitting, Sir.

Yes, I give my consent. That leads us on to Question No 20, Mr Darryl David.

20 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government has any plans to ensure the sustainability of our local print news industry amidst the shift towards digital news and increased competition from international news brands.

21 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what has been the impact of changes in the overall media landscape on our local print news industry; and (b) what will the Government do to support our local print news industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Minister Iswaran, can we seek your permission to address Question Nos 20 and 21 in a Ministerial Statement to be delivered by Minister Iswaran later today, please.

I give my consent. That leads us on to Question No 22, Mr Murali Pillai.

22 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the aggregate dollar value of the subject matter of corruption cases investigated or prosecuted in 2020; (b) how much has been seized or forfeited as proceeds of corruption for the same year; (c) how do both figures compare with the preceding two years’ figures; and (d) what steps have CPIB identified to beef up its digital capabilities in the fight against corruption and to deal with operational issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the Parliamentary Question (PQ) from Mr Murali Pillai to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), on behalf of the Prime Minister, please.

Corruption is not tolerated in any form in Singapore. It undermines public trust and erodes our social fabric. CPIB does not compute the aggregate dollar value of corruption cases prosecuted as corruption does not always involve money. It pursues all corruption cases regardless of the types of gratification, the quantum of the contracts or amount of bribes involved.

Singapore has a hard-won international reputation as a country committed to the rule of law and zero tolerance for corruption. The strong political will to take firm action against all forms of corruption and a society that abhors corruption have contributed to a clean and incorruptible Singapore. Businesses have the confidence that their investments can thrive here because our rules are transparent and applied fairly. Singaporeans can fulfil their potential through their own efforts and hard work in our meritocratic society.

Corrupt offenders bear the full brunt of the law and face severe punishments. In addition, CPIB spares no effort to disgorge criminal gains and unexplained assets of those convicted of corruption offences through its rigorous asset recovery efforts. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, the total value of forfeitures imposed by the Courts for CPIB cases were about $2.4 million, $3.8 million and $2.2 million respectively.

The pandemic underscored the importance of digital transformation as some of CPIB's initiatives on this front had minimised disruption to its operations and service delivery. Some examples include the Electronic Reporting of Corruption Complaints and the Electronic Bail platform which provides bailors and bailees with safe and convenient access to bail extension services virtually. CPIB also launched a Digital Investigation Paper project where documents can be digitally and securely prepared, transmitted and accessed.

CPIB will continue to take bold steps to transform itself and develop its operational readiness to meet emerging challenges in a post-COVID-19 future. To stay ahead of the curve, CPIB has invested in state-of-the-art digital infrastructure through collaboration with strategic partners such as the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and other agencies. Some examples include the setting up of a new Command Centre that enhances situational awareness and the upgrading of digital forensic analytics capabilities.

In the prevention and outreach arena, CPIB has co-created public education resources with students from Institutes of Higher Learning such as Nanyang Polytechnic, and schools such as St Joseph’s Institution. Some initiatives include an e-book on actual corruption cases and its consequences on the society and a Game Web Application incorporating anti-corruption materials for young adults.

Singapore's clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted as it is not immune to the virus of corruption. Singapore must keep fighting corruption wherever it exists and in whatever form it takes. There is no room for complacency and it requires the constant vigilance and resolute determination of the Government, the Public Service and the community to continue to keep corruption at bay.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive answer to my PQ. Hon Members would have also read CPIB's annual report 2020, which was presented to Parliament on 21 April 2021. Sir, with your indulgence, please allow me to state that what CPIB has achieved last year and the preceding years with a lean team of just 200 people is commendable.

The work to detect and investigate cases of corruption is complex. In most crime cases, there will be an identifiable victim; for example, a person who has been cheated of his monies or whose valuables have been stolen. For corruption, the paradigm is different; not a win-lose situation but a win-win situation involving the giver and the acceptor of bribes.

As a result of its work and the support of Singaporeans, Singapore has established a strong brand and culture of being intolerant of corruption. Singapore, Singaporean businesses and Singaporeans enjoy a good reputation overseas for the same reason. For this, all of us in this House owe the men and women of CPIB, past and present, a debt of gratitude.

Sir, my supplemental question is two-fold: as CPIB nears its 70th anniversary next year, what steps will it take to entrench the anti-corruption culture in Singapore, especially amongst our younger generations of Singaporeans who may not be as familiar with our past problems with corruption? Next, may I seek an update, if any, on the hon Minister's announcement recently that the legislative levers the CPIB uses, in particular, the Prevention of Corruption Act, are being reviewed to keep them relevant in the fight against corruption?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mr Murali for his trust in CPIB as a tenacious and effective agency against corruption. Indeed, for the past 69 years, CPIB has been unwavering and relentless in its efforts to fight corruption. Other than the political will to fight corruption, heavy punishments and effective anti-corruption laws, as well as public support are all very important factors contributing to the low corruption in Singapore.

While the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) has and continues to serve us well, CPIB will regularly and proactively review the provisions to make sure that the Act is able to keep pace with, if not, stay ahead of the evolving threats.

To the Member's question, I can share the following areas which CPIB is working on with respect to the PCA review. First is to ensure that the punishment for PCA offences are in line with those of other economic crimes. Second, to conduct comparative studies on international legislation to assess, amongst other things, if there is a need to have separate punishment for corporate bodies. Third, to review the need to expand the current extraterritorial provisions by examining past cases where CPIB is not able to take action on foreigners performing outsourced law enforcement functions where the corrupt transactions were undertaken overseas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my reply earlier that Singapore's clean and corruption-free reputation should not be taken for granted. Indeed, we must not let our guard down. Low crime does not mean no crime. Likewise, low corruption does not mean no corruption.

Corruption if embedded and becomes endemic in our society will alter the fundamental DNA of our societal ethos that has been painstakingly built up over the past many decades. This threat will then diminish the trust and confidence that Singaporeans and others have in one another and in our system, eroding the work ethics and tearing our social fabric apart.

So, to Mr Murali's comment, yes, indeed, in some of these corruption cases, it is a win-win situation for the person providing the bribes and for the person receiving the bribes. But the victims are actually the whole society and our own ethos of what we stand for as a nation and as a people. The damage goes beyond what may be transacted between the two perpetrators.

This is why while CPIB has done well in its work all these years, as a society, we need to maintain our vigilance. The threat is always evolving, especially with technological advances and evolving corrupt practices. It is thus important to ensure that the DNA of incorruptibility is ingrained in every Singaporean, young and old. CPIB has been educating our youths and working with them to co-create public education resources for the youths, by the youths. Some of these initiatives were mentioned in my earlier response.

Ultimately, businesses must remain fully confident that they can plant their investments here in Singapore because our rules and processes are fair, coherent and transparent; thereby, creating quality jobs for fellow Singaporeans. Our people must always believe that they can succeed because of their honest and hard work. This brand of incorruptibility is also what allows Singapore and Singaporeans to stand tall amidst the global competition, even beyond our shores.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Christopher de Souza –

23 To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what caused the flash floods in and surrounding the Bukit Timah-Dunearn Canal and Ulu Pandan Canal on 17 April 2021; (b) whether the overflow of water from the canals onto the roads and the park connectors, respectively, can be prevented; and (c) what engineering measures will be put in place to mitigate against such overflows in the future such as to make the areas safe for residents, pedestrians and motorists during heavy downpours.

Question No 23.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 17 April 2021, the Sumatra squall, coupled with convergence of surrounding winds arising from the influence of typhoon "Surigae" near the Philippines gave rise to intense and prolonged rainfall across Singapore. The highest rainfall that day was at Ulu Pandan with 170.6 millimetres of rain. This is the highest daily rainfall recorded in April since 1980 and is equivalent to 110% of Singapore’s average rainfall for the whole month of April, falling in a single day. This rainfall resulted in flash floods occurring at Bukit Timah and Dunearn Roads near Sime Darby Centre and a stretch of the Park Connectors along Ulu Pandan Canal.

With your permission, Deputy Speaker, may I display some slides on the LED screens.

Please do. [Slides were shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

This is a map of the stretch of roads that I mentioned in my reply. Just a bit of landmark, Sime Darby Centre is the block marked in black.

The water levels in Bukit Timah Canal were very high due to the intense and prolonged rain, impeding discharge from roadside drains along Dunearn Road and Bukit Timah Road into the canal. This resulted in floods of around 150-millimetre depth at Dunearn and Bukit Timah Roads, and around 50-millimetre depth on the pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the roadside drains. All affected roads remained passable to traffic and the flash floods subsided within 30 minutes. PUB Quick Response Teams were on site directing traffic and assisting affected residents by issuing inflatable flood bags and portable flood barriers to prevent floodwaters from entering their homes.

The Public Utilities Board (PUB) had completed the upgrading of the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal – this is the stretch marked in blue – between Bukit Timah Road and Clementi Road in September 2019 at a project cost of $300 million to alleviate flood risks along Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road. Members who have been on the Rail Corridor hike would not miss this impressive infrastructure. It is somewhere after you have crossed Bukit Timah Railway Station and another 500 metres or so, you will come to this stretch, which opens up to the area at Old Holland Road.

So, it is impressive because it is large and deep. And I think it has helped significantly on this day of 17 April, because the flood on this day is nowhere near the earlier floods that we had seen along the same stretch of roads when lesser rain fell.

Water level sensors on this stretch – the sensor is placed where the yellow triangle is located – installed along the upgraded stretch of Bukit Timah Canal from Jalan Kampong Chantek to Sixth Avenue, just upstream of the expanded Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal, showed the section of the canal was 50% full, 50% full, on 17 April with no flash floods along that stretch despite the heavy rainfall.

PUB started the upgrading work on the remaining section of Bukit Timah Canal between Rifle Range Road and Jalan Kampong Chantek – this is the stretch marked in red – where the localised flash flood occurred, and is expected to complete it in 2024. When completed, we expect the top water level in this section of the Canal to be lower by over one metre for the same rainfall intensity experienced on 17 April.

Another stretch, which is along Ulu Pandan Canal, a low-lying 300-metre stretch – as marked in red – of the Park Connector next to the Ulu Pandan Canal was also flooded on 17 April even though major roads – the major roads are Clementi Road in grey, Clementi Avenue 6, Commonwealth Avenue West and the Ayer Rajah Expressway – served by the Canal did not experience flooding. PUB will raise this low-lying section of the Park Connector when PUB reconstructs the Ulu Pandan Canal in tandem with future developments.

Since 2011, the Government has invested almost $2 billion in drainage works and will invest another $1.4 billion over the next five years to enhance our flood resilience. Drainage design standards were also raised in 2011 to cater for higher intensity rainfall, as part of PUB's broader efforts to address the impact of climate change.

It is, however, not practical to expand our drains to accommodate every extreme rainfall event as this would require massive land take and much higher costs. PUB will put in place cost-effective measures to minimise flood risks and better manage flood events. For instance, PUB is currently upgrading its rainfall forecasting radar technology, which will help improve prediction of locations where heavy rainfall might occur and enhance response time to potential flash floods.

PUB also works closely with LTA and Traffic Police during heavy storms to monitor road conditions and notify motorists of flooded roads to avoid through electronic road signages, online and social media platforms and radio broadcasts. Members of the public can be alerted on flash floods by subscribing to the National Environment Agency's and PUB's weather forecast and water level SMS alerts or access the mobile app, "myENV", for updates on impending heavy rain and the water level in drains at designated locations.

No supplementary questions? Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

24 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will look into the process of empanelling specialist doctors to the approved list of insurance companies; (b) what is the Ministry's stand on the violation of medical ethics in the scheme where insurance companies basically reward patients for choosing their panel of doctors; and (c) whether these insurers will be allowed to challenge the opinions of specialists after they had rendered treatment to their patients.

25 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (a) whether it will be made transparent to the public, the criteria for inclusion of specialists into an insurer's panel for its Integrated Shield Plans; (b) whether there will be a more controlled rate of premium increase for such plans to safeguard the public's ability to sustain such plans as they age; and (c) what is the expected timeline for the Committee to complete its review and recommendations.

26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether empanelling of specialist doctors for Integrated Shield Plans will result in anti-competition; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered the possible impact on patients having to switch doctors mid-treatment due to this practice of empanelling doctors.

27 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last five years how many Singaporeans relinquished an existing Integrated Shield Plan; and (b) what is their median age; and (c) of the above, how many did not later purchase a new Integrated Shield Plan and how many were subsequently admitted to public hospitals.

28 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health what measures are there to protect Integrated Shield Plan policyholders in the event of an Integrated Shield Plan insurer exiting the market.

29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry has studied the regulation of private health insurance in overseas jurisdictions and the possible learning points for Singapore, in particular the feasibility and implications of requiring Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers to accept policyholders intending or forced to switch from another IP provider, such that existing covered conditions are not permanently excluded from future coverage.

30 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry actively tracks and compares the itemised bills of Integrated Shield Plan (IP) patients who use public and private healthcare institutions respectively; (b) what strategies has the Ministry embarked on over the last 10 years to address the problem of overtreatment by some doctors; and (c) what role does the Ministry envisage patients playing to address the problem of over-treatment.

31 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health what proportion of Singapore residents are current policyholders of an Integrated Shield Plan (IP) for (i) standard IP for public hospital Class B1 coverage (ii) Class B1 coverage (iii) Class A coverage and (iv) private hospital coverage.

Sir, all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are covered under our national MediShield Life (MSHL) health insurance scheme. MediShield Life is universal, covers pre-existing conditions and provides basic protection against large healthcare bills.

Excuse me, Senior Minister of State, to confirm, are you taking Questions Nos 24 to 31?

I beg your pardon, Sir, yes. Can I take Questions Nos 24 to 31 together?

Yes, please proceed.

If I may continue, Sir, MediShield Life can be used in both public and private healthcare institutions, and coverage is sized to be sufficient for subsidised care. The Government provides means-tested subsidies for MediShield Life premiums and MediSave can be used to pay for premiums to keep them affordable.

Individuals may choose to purchase an Integrated Shield Plan, or IP plan, which provides additional benefits beyond MediShield Life to provide more coverage for private healthcare services. MediSave can be used to pay for IP premiums, subject to withdrawal limits, to help defray the cost of private insurance. Currently, less than 1% of Singapore residents have a Standard IP plan, 10% have a class B1 IP, 20% have a class A IP and 40% have a private hospital IP.

In addition, some individuals may also purchase riders on top of their IP plans, if they prefer additional coverage and can afford the premiums. Riders commonly cover the deductible and co-payments portion of the bill. Riders are fully private insurance products that must be paid by cash and MediSave withdrawals are not allowed for rider premiums. Less than half of Singapore residents have riders.

Let me just summarise this part. In essence, MediShield Life is universal, it is sized to cover the bulk of the large hospital bills for subsidised care. IP plans stay right on top of this, to provide for private hospital bills. And riders go even further on top of the IP plans, to cover for the deductibles and the co-payments. So, you can see it as a three-tier thing.

MOH does track and monitor the bills from both public and private healthcare institutions. Private healthcare costs have been rising rapidly in Singapore. Between 2007 and 2019, private hospital bills among IP cases grew at 4%, twice as fast as unsubsidised bills in public healthcare institutions. In both private and public hospitals, investigations, surgeon fees, treatment services and operating theatre facility fees were key drivers of cost growth for private patients.

In 2016, the Health Insurance Task Force (HITF) comprising members from the Singapore Medical Association (SMA), Life Insurance Association (LIA) Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), MOH and MAS had recommended various measures, such as panelling and Fee Benchmarks, to help contain claims and healthcare cost escalation. MOH has been working to implement the HITF recommendations. Fee Benchmarks have been rolled out since 2018, along with appropriate care guidelines.

One of the recommendations from the HITF was to introduce a minimum co-payment requirement, as IP riders that fully covered deductibles and co-payment had contributed to rising private healthcare cost. The co-payment ensures what we call "skin in the game", to encourage patients and their doctors to make careful and deliberate decisions on the choice of treatment and the type of care they need.

MOH, therefore, introduced a minimum 5% co-payment for all new private riders in 2018.

The IP insurers have also extended this requirement or alternative claims-based pricing from April 2021 to their existing policyholders with riders. While this is not a requirement imposed by MOH, the Ministry supports the move as it will help to encourage appropriate care. To provide some assurance to policyholders who were concerned with potentially large co-payments, MOH therefore allowed insurers to apply a $3,000 co-payment cap for treatment from panelled doctors with negotiated fee arrangements with insurers. This would mean that bills above $60,000 are capped at $3,000 co-payment. To put things in perspective, less than 3% of inpatient bills in private hospitals today exceed $60,000. So, the vast majority of inpatients bills do not actually hit the $3,000 co-payment cap.

This co-payment cap could not be applied to all claims, as it would negate the effect of co-payment once the $3,000 cap was reached. Let me explain.

Take for example, if the co-payment applies to all claims, policyholders may choose a treatment which costs $100,000 instead of another equally effective treatment at $70,000. This is because the policyholder would pay the same amount of $3,000 for either option once they breach the $60,000 limit, where the $3,000 co-payment cap has been reached. The additional costs would then be borne by the insurer and this eventually translates to higher premiums for other policyholders. Therefore, the cap was applied to panelled doctors, where there are established fee arrangements to ensure that appropriate and cost-effective treatment is provided.

Some have raised concerns with regard to the use of panels. Questions have been raised on whether limited panel sizes are in the best interest of the patients and whether such practices are anti-competitive in nature or if there are medical ethical concerns around such practices.

The use of panels was recommended by the HITF. Internationally, panels have been used by some countries to keep healthcare costs more predictable, to reduce variation in practices and charging. These practices do not contravene the Competition Act as any decision to empanel doctors is made by individual insurers independently with the doctors, on mutually acceptable terms. Such practices do not restrict insurers from competing with one another on their prices, insurance products, or choice of doctors. Nevertheless, MOH has encouraged insurers to make their panel selection criteria more transparent, a move which is also supported by LIA in its "Panel Good Practices Guide" to all insurers.

On the issue of medical ethics, the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines stipulates that doctors should have the best interests of their patient at heart when treating them. This includes prescribing appropriate and cost-effective care that best meets the needs of their patients. Access to medical care and clinical judgement should therefore not be influenced by empanelment nor any other financial constraints or pressures inherent in any health system. Should doctors find that the conditions of being on a panel would impose constraints on their ability to care for patients, they may decide for medical ethical reasons to not participate in such panels.

We want to emphasise that patients can make claims for all treatments covered under their IP, regardless of whether the specialist is on the panel or not. Nonetheless, some doctors have expressed concerns that IP panels do not have an adequate number of specialists, restricting referrals to the appropriate specialist who may not be on the panel, and therefore, limiting the continuity of care. Patients have also raised concerns that the doctor they are comfortable with, or are familiar with, is not on the panel of their IP insurer and they may not enjoy the additional panel benefits such as the $3,000 co-payment cap.

To address this, MOH has encouraged all insurers to grow the size of their panels and some have already increased the number of specialists on their panels by more than 40% since August 2019. Today, more than 70% of private specialists are on at least one IP panel.

Some have asked insurance panels to be expanded to include all doctors, so long as they do not have a poor track record with the Singapore Medical Council, or SMC. However, some doctors may choose not to be empanelled as they may already have a sufficient pool of patients. So, the doctors do have a choice to not be on panels. This is especially the case for areas where there are very few specialists locally. Hence, MOH encourages IP insurers to enhance their pre-authorisation processes, to give approval for hospitalisation or treatments and their associated costs beforehand. With pre-authorisation, insurers are able to assess treatments for medical necessity and fee arrangements and appropriateness, including for doctors who are not on their panel. And patients can also have greater peace of mind knowing that at least a significant portion of their bill will be covered by their IP. With pre-authorisation, the risk of runaway bill sizes would then be minimised. Hence, some insurers have extended the co-payment cap to pre-authorised claims for treatment by non-panel doctors to provide policyholders with greater assurance, and we certainly encourage more to do so.

While policyholder benefits may differ, depending on whether they see a panel doctor or a non-panel doctor who is pre-authorised, these benefits should not differ to the extent of prohibiting patients from seeing non-panel doctors or influence patient choices in an undesirable way.

MOH recognises that some policyholders may wish to switch insurers, whether for more competitive premiums or for better benefits, such as access to more panel doctors, but are unable to do so because of pre-existing conditions. IPs are commercial products, and their features and pricing are, ultimately, determined by private insurers. MOH will study whether IP insurance can be made fully portable, including looking at examples abroad. However, insurers may potentially need to increase the premiums significantly for all policyholders to price in the increased risk they assume for portable IP that covers pre-existing conditions. This is why MediShield Life is designed as a scheme to cover all Singaporeans for life with no exclusions and covers all pre-existing conditions to give reassurance to all Singaporeans should they choose to relinquish their private IP plans, for whatever reasons.

Over the last five years, about 5% of IP policyholders relinquished their IP per year on average. This could be because they may have opted for different coverage, after considering the cost of the premiums, their financial resources and their different healthcare needs. Their average age was 34. Data on the number of policyholders who did not subsequently purchase a new IP or were later admitted to public hospitals is not available.

Consumers should understand their IP terms and conditions when choosing their IPs. Insurers offer policyholders enhanced policy benefits, such as the co-payment cap, lower deductibles or a longer period of pre- and post-hospitalisation coverage for panel treatments. All this must be made known to the policyholder prior to policy purchase and at least 30 days before any changes in policyholders' benefits. Policyholders must be properly advised at the point of purchase or renewal about their coverage, so they can make informed choices about their IP and choice of doctors and care setting.

Some have asked if insurers can simply use MOH's Fee Benchmarks to determine all insurance payouts. As Fee Benchmarks are designed to be reasonable ranges of fees for the large majority of cases, insurers can, generally, take reference from the benchmarks for most payouts. Doctors do charge below and above the benchmarks, depending on the nature and the complexity of the cases. However, insurers also need to take into account the medical complexity and specific clinical circumstances, and deviate from the benchmarks for justified and exceptional cases. According to LIA, between 5% and 15% of IP claims for surgeon fees were approved above the upper bound of the Fee Benchmarks, depending on the insurer.

Claims scrutiny by insurers may have been perceived as challenging a doctor's professional judgement. Insurers scrutinise claims to ascertain whether treatments were medically necessary and charged appropriately. This actually protects the interests of policyholders who may otherwise see their insurance premiums rise should claims be paid out indiscriminately. MOH recognises that this is an important process for the integrity of the healthcare system and is a common practice internationally. It is, nonetheless, important that the process be handled professionally and efficiently by each insurer. Insurers should not make the process onerous and ask for unnecessary information unrelated to the claims, imposing a heavy administrative burden on the doctors. The questions and information sought for common conditions can be standardised and streamlined so it will not be perceived as questioning the decisions and judgement of the doctors. If a particular claim is justified, insurers should pay according to the policy benefits. We will be looking more into this issue.

Dr Tan Wu Meng has raised concerns with the risk of IP insurers exiting the market. To ensure that insurers remain financially sound and are able to meet their obligations to policyholders, MAS exercises regulatory oversight over the insurers' financial standing, risk management and governance. This is accomplished through measures, such as establishing regulatory capital requirements and setting corporate governance and risk management requirements and guidance, which are, in turn, reinforced by regular onsite inspections and close engagement with the boards and senior management of insurers. MAS also takes action against insurers whose practices are found to be wanting or where there are breaches of MAS' regulations.

An insurer may decide to exit the IP market because of commercial reasons or due to insolvency. In the event that an insurer exits the IP market, the insurer or the liquidator will seek to arrange for the IP policies to be transferred to another insurer for continuity of coverage. MAS will ensure that the existing insurer and the insurer taking over the IP policies properly account for policyholders' interests.

The various initiatives covered above will take time to bear fruit. However, we are confident that these measures will help to keep healthcare costs more sustainable. Looking ahead, the refinement of various IP features will continue to be a multilateral effort between MOH, hospitals, doctors and the insurers. To support these efforts, MOH appointed a 12-member Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee (MHIC) in April this year to provide a platform for healthcare providers, payers, consumer representatives and the Government to work on these issues related to health insurance. The MHIC comprises representatives from the Academy of Medicine, Singapore (AMS), the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee (FBAC), the Life Insurance Association (LIA), the Singapore Medical Association (SMA), private hospital representatives and with MAS as an observer.

For a start, the Committee will prioritise four specific workstreams. First, panels and pre-authorisation, including streamlining the processes I spoke about earlier; second, issues pertaining to improving transparency across the board, including providing more detailed and itemised information about healthcare bills and publishing data on claims and premiums, so that insurers, providers and policyholders can make better informed decisions; third, establishing a claims complaints process supported by AMS and LIA so that stakeholders have an avenue for recourse should they feel unfairly treated, such as where insurers or patients may wish to raise concerns about over-servicing or over-charging, or if doctors have concerns about certain insurer practices; and, fourth, examining the issues from a patient and consumer-centric viewpoint to ensure that the patient and public interests are best safeguarded. On this particular last issue, CASE will be leading a sub-committee to the MHIC to deal with the matter comprehensively.

As these issues are complex, some time will be required for the Committee to develop and agree on practical solutions. Processes within the institutions, hospitals and clinics may also have to be adjusted to make it more seamless and streamlined. The Committee has already begun its work with the first meeting held on 27 April. MHIC will share its recommendations progressively as they are ready and is working towards a first round of recommendations in the next few months.

The issues surrounding IPs are multi-faceted and require thorough discussions as well as careful balancing of various considerations, to find solutions that best benefit policyholders and patients. With continued healthy dialogue through the MHIC, MOH will work together with all stakeholders towards developing sustainable solutions for policyholders, payers and providers alike.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the extended comments on this issue. The recent public exchange between the Singapore Medical Association and the Life Insurance Association of Singapore has put into focus the role of the regulator, namely, MOH. Even as I acknowledge the Senior Minister of State's establishment of the MHIC, which has been set up to look into some of these issues, I have, nonetheless, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, would MOH, as the regulator, be amenable to setting up a database transparent to both doctors and insurers to allow parties to compare and assess their bill sizes with a view to better manage medical inflation in the public interest?

The second supplementary question is in conjunction with the first, which is, together with the establishment of the database, would MOH, as regulator, consider setting up an independent panel of assessors under its purview which would be accessible to patients, doctors and insurers to resolve disputes about fees and the necessity of medical procedures?

Sir, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. In fact, these two items are already being done.

The first, on the database for bill sizes, when we have the Fee Benchmarks Advisory Committee, in fact, the database on fees that are charged across a diverse range of procedures across various institutions are already available for the Committee, which comprises practitioners and insurers, to collectively deliberate on what the kind of benchmarking ought to be. So, yes, the database is available and I think that will provide some scrutiny by the relative stakeholders to ensure that, whether it is payouts or benchmarking, they are considered fair to the policyholders and to the payers as well.

The second issue on independent assessment, as Members have heard from my reply earlier, we will be setting up a Claims Complaints Panel that comprises the insurers plus also the Academy of Medicine of Singapore who are specialists in the respective fields. So, that provides some degree of independence from the professional side or of both the stakeholders to really look at any areas, whether it is insurers or doctors, which have got some unhappiness over the way payments are done or the way a certain case is being assessed by either party. So, yes, there will be an independent panel that is going to be in the works.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let me thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Limiting the choice of doctors for patients and insured individuals, personally, I feel that, definitely, this is to the disadvantage of the patient. I cannot understand how this is not anti-competitive. Limiting choice to the patient will limit the patient's ability in terms of choosing the right doctors, unless you are telling me that the panel itself comprises more than 50% of all doctors in Singapore, to make sure that each insurer must have a certain percentage of doctors on it.

Secondly, if the purpose of the empanelment is to control fees, do the Fee Benchmarks not do that already? With the Fee Benchmarks in place, can we then remove the panel completely? That is something that we have to consider.

Last of all, I also wish to echo the question by the Leader of the Opposition whether MOH will be coming up with a ranking of the insurers because MOH will be seen as a neutral party, that is, in order to protect the consumer.

Sir, I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for his questions. The issue of whether the limited size of panels of certain insurers, as I have said in my reply, it will be very difficult to say that we make the panels include 100% of all doctors, because doctors have a choice not to be on panels as well.

I think the more important way to look at this is how can we make sure that care is accessible to our patients, whether the mechanism is empanelment or otherwise? I think the key is to make sure patients have access to any doctor they want to see, which is why I think the better way to go for is to look at pre-authorisation. With pre-authorisation, the doctor puts in his diagnosis, gives a certain quote on the treatment cost that is needed and the insurer has a chance to see whether this cost is fair and whether the type of treatment that is proposed is reasonable for the kind of diagnosis that is being put forth. In that sense, the patient can then have access to any doctor, subject to a pre-authorisation, if they are not on the panel.

This is a mechanism that is already available today. But, what we need to do is to make sure that the process is much more streamlined and seamless, so that there is not too much administrative burden on the clinics and the patient does not have to wait too long for this process to be completed before they can have access to care by a different doctor, by a different specialist.

In terms of ranking of insurers, I think what is important is to have information on how each insurer price its policies and what benefits it has transparently so that patients or policyholders themselves can make a comparison and take a look.

It is very hard to say which insurer ranks number one or which is ranked at the bottom because they may have product differentiation that meets different persons' needs. And for a person where the product meets his needs, it could be number one, as an insurer, but if the other product meets the other person's needs better, that could be number one in the other person's eyes. I think it is very hard for MOH to decide from one person to the next which is the best product to suit the person's needs. What we should do is to put more information so that patients and policyholders can make the right informed choices.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his detailed answer. I would like to raise supplementary questions along two themes: patient voices and patients' ability to negotiate in the market.

On the issue of patient voices, Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Senior Minister of State assure us that MOH's proposed dispute resolution mechanism will actively involve the patient's perspective and the journey experienced by patients, whether as existing policyholders navigating the IP system or potential policyholders or former policyholders who may feel excluded.

My Clementi residents who are on Integrated Shield plans (IPs), some of them, they tell me of the challenges involved in making a claim, despite having been with the same firm for many years, despite the full support of the doctor looking after them, whether the doctor is in the private or public sector.

On the second question, Mr Deputy Speaker, that of the bargaining power of patients, policyholders and consumers. The Senior Minister of State earlier spoke about the scenario of what happens if an IP insurer exits the market. He said that there would be a negotiation or discussion between the agencies and the insurance provider about ensuring that patients are covered. But I ask the Ministry, in the event of an IP insurer exiting the market, is there a mechanism to ensure that patients who already have existing conditions will be appropriately covered and recognised in a way that does not disadvantage them if the insurer exits the market?

I furthermore would like to ask MOH, whether MOH would consider establishing some kind of regulatory backstop to protect patients? Because once you have a mechanism in policy to protect patients when an insurer exits the market, to allow these patients to transit in a way that is non-discriminatory, not unfavourable, to another insurer, I put it to the Ministry that that can be the beginning of a mechanism to allow patients to transition between insurers.

And I suggest to the Ministry that once patients have the option of transiting with the potential for having pre-existing conditions covered to some extent, as is the case in other regulatory jurisdictions like Australia, there is better bargaining power for the consumer and that leads to a better functioning market as well.

Sir, I thank Dr Tan for his clarifications and questions.

His first question pertains to patient voices should there be a dispute by the policyholder against the insurer and what mechanisms are there today to address some of these grievances. Actually today, FIDReC, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre already has a mechanism in place to address any policyholder's concerns pertaining to whether it is policy terms or unfair treatment by an insurer. So, FIDReC is a mechanism that is already available.

But we do feel that with better patient and public education, that will raise the awareness of consumers' rights and when they think that their rights, under the policy terms, have been violated. So better patient education, better policyholder education is another important thrust to get this done.

We welcome the fact that CASE will be forming a sub-committee under the MHIC to further study this issue, and also to look at how they can better represent the voices of consumers, policyholders and patients.

The second issue is about what would happen if the insurers were to exit the financial sector. If an insurer fails and undergoes winding up processes under the Insurance Act, the appointed liquidator is required to endeavour as far as possible, and reasonably practicable to sell, or transfer the whole or part of the insurance business to another insurer before considering other options.

The Policyowners' Protection Scheme, or PPF Scheme, is also in place which aims to provide coverage for policies which are commonly purchased by consumers, and/or cause significant impact of destruction to policyholders should the insurer fail. This would include accident and health policies such as IP plans, which will be fully covered under the PPF scheme, in an event that the insurer fails. The PPF Scheme does not merely provide compensation of crystallised claims when an insurer fails, but also seeks to ensure continuity where possible for the effective policyholders in the event of an insurance failure.

For example, you could also fund a transfer or run-off of the IP portfolio business to another IP insurer to ensure continuity of coverage for the affected policyholders, if necessary. In Singapore, what is useful for Singaporean citizens, is to always know at the back of their minds that they have a safety net called MediShield Life. Should all else fail, MediShield Life will be here to cover you universally with no exclusion on all your pre-existing conditions for life.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I just have one supplementary question, which is whether this method of empanelling doctors will impact patients, who may need to change doctors halfway during their treatment for whatever reasons?

Sir, I think this is also in the same vein as expanding the panel of doctors. Which is why in one of the work streams that the MHIC endeavours to do, as one of their earliest priorities, is to look at how they can further expand and streamline the pre-authorisation process. Once we can get a more seamless and streamlined, pre-authorisation process, it effectively opens up access to care by all doctors. And the patient, then do not have to really worry so much about whether doctors are panelled or non-panelled.

The difference, of course, is in some of the benefits of panel and non-panel doctors. But today, any IP-insured patient can actually have access to non-panel doctors through pre-authorisation. So, at the moment, there is actually no restriction of care, but there is some friction in the process. With pre-authorisation, hopefully we can make this much more seamless and reduce a lot more anxiety for patients going for treatment, when they have to go beyond a panel to access a specialist outside the panel.

So, I hope that will help Members understand that the MHIC will prioritise this as one of the key streams they want to work at.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, private hospitals house less than 17% of hospital beds in Singapore and the Senior Minister of State just replied to my question and said that 40% of Singaporeans hold an Integrated Shield Plan for private hospital coverage. This points to a rather high proportion of voluntary downgrading by patients, meaning that they are eligible to seek treatment in private hospitals but end up going to public hospitals.

Does the Senior Minister of State think that Singaporeans are over insured for private insurance, which they do not use? And secondly, other plans to better educate Singaporeans about their options of different Integrated Shield Plans, so they do not get all the information from insurance agents who are trying to sell them private hospital plans?

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. I think the second question is easier to answer. We will just put as much information as possible, whether it is on MOH website, whether it is on the LIA website. And of course, CASE can play a stronger role in patient and policyholder education as well.

But I think, for his first question, he is conflicting two different numbers together which do not quite necessarily gel. Just because there are only 17% of hospital beds, it does not mean 40% of people cannot buy insurance for private sector. It does not mean that everybody who buys a policy, gets sick and gets admitted to the hospital all at the same time.

So, it is a choice to buy, it does not necessarily mean that they will necessarily have to consume. It does not necessarily mean that the size of the number of beds we have should then limit the amount of policy coverage a particular segment of population goes for. I hope that helps him to understand why the numbers should not necessarily be conflicted together.

Dr Tan Wu Meng, please make it a very short supplementary; then, we will move on to the next topic.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his further clarifications. I want to put on record as a declaration that I am a medical doctor, looking after patients in the public sector, for avoidance of ambiguity. I thank the Senior Minister of State again and I very much support any further analysis of this issue by the Ministry and look forward to updates in due course.

Mr Alex Yam, next question, please.

32 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many deaths and injuries have resulted from accidents involving migrant workers transported in lorries since the implementation of stricter measures on 1 August 2011; (b) whether the Ministry will impose additional measures to ensure the safety of migrant workers being transported to and from work on their employers' vehicles; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider requiring employers to transport their workers in mini-buses or buses with compulsory seat-belting.

33 Ms Janet Ang asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many accidents involving migrant workers transported in open lorries have occurred in the past five years; (b) how many of such accidents have been fatal; (c) whether it is legal to carry passengers in vehicles not intended for ferrying people and, if so, who takes responsibility when accidents happen; and (d) whether regulations can be improved to protect the safety of migrant workers during their daily commutes.

34 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will review the safety regulations to enhance the level of safety of migrant workers being ferried in mini-lorries or to require that they be transported via buses.

35 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether there are any plans to review the carriage of workers at the back of lorries or goods vehicles and, if not, whether LTA intends to introduce any new safety measures to enhance the safety of workers being carried at the back of such vehicles.

36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether any study has been done to find out what are the estimated additional costs (as a percentage and in absolute quantum across the industry) as a result of regulations prohibiting the transport of workers in lorries and goods vehicles; (b) if yes, what are the findings of the study; and (c) what measures can be taken to assist with the increased costs associated with such a prohibition.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 32 to 36 together, as well as Dr Wan Rizal's Parliamentary Question1 scheduled for a subsequent sitting?

Please do.

Last month, there were two unfortunate accidents involving lorries that were transporting workers. The first occurred when the lorry ferrying 17 workers collided into a stationary truck along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) and resulted in two fatalities. The lorry driver has been arrested for careless driving causing death. The second incident involved a lorry ferrying nine workers but fortunately, there were no fatalities. Three days ago, there was an accident between a Police van and a lorry ferrying 11 workers. Seventeen people, including five Police officers, were conveyed to the hospital with minor injuries.

We are deeply saddened by the accidents and would like to offer our deepest condolences to the affected families. The accidents are currently being investigated by the Traffic Police (TP). The party or parties found responsible will be dealt with based on our laws.

Members have raised concerns on the use of lorries to ferry workers. Internationally, practices are varied. Countries such as Canada, Thailand and the United States of America allow for passengers to be ferried in the rear deck of goods vehicles travelling on roads, albeit with safety precautions and some restrictions.

From a road safety perspective, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. But there are very significant practical and operational issues – on top of just cost considerations – which is probably why internationally, it is not an uncommon practice.

I want to assure Members that we take seriously the safety and well-being of all workers, including our foreign workers, without whose contributions, Singapore would not be what it is today.

As far back as 2008, a Workgroup co-chaired by MOM and LTA conducted a thorough review of the safety of workers being transported on lorries. The Workgroup included members from industry associations, the National Safety Council of Singapore, TP and other Government agencies. Over more than a year, the Workgroup studied the issue extensively and consulted widely, including industry groups, safety experts and transport operators. At that time, companies – especially small and medium enterprises in the construction industry – had strongly urged the Government to allow them to continue ferrying their workers in lorries. The industry associations also provided strong feedback that switching to dedicated bus transport would lead to significantly higher business costs. Other practical challenges were also highlighted. For instance, while lorries can have dual use for transporting workers and equipment, buses cannot and this will result in significant productivity loss. Other proposals such as using vans with smaller capacities or lowering the cap on deck capacity were also considered, but there were concerns about driver fatigue and therefore, safety, as more trips would have to be made to ferry workers from one site to another.

The Workgroup studied the various feedback carefully and laid out a set of recommendations to preserve workers' safety and livelihoods. As a result, the Government implemented enhanced safety measures for lorries ferrying passengers in 2009 and 2010. These include fitting higher protective side railings and canopy covers, and higher penalties for non-compliance – up to five times more.

The Workgroup's recommendations aimed to protect not only the workers' safety, but also their livelihoods, which was a difficult challenge. Since then, we have continued to review and refine our regulations. For example, since 2015, all S Pass and Work Permit Holders are required to pass the necessary theory and practical driving tests before they can obtain a Singapore Class 3 licence that will allow them to drive light goods vehicles, including those which transport workers in the rear decks.

Over the last decade, the number of persons on-board lorries who were injured or killed in road traffic accidents has been on a downward trend. In 2019, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 8.1 per 1,000 lorries, which is lower than the injury rate of persons on-board all motor vehicles at 8.4 per 1,000 motor vehicles. In 2020, traffic volumes were lower due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the injury rate of persons on-board lorries was about 4.5 per 1,000 lorries, compared to 5.6 persons on-board all motor vehicles per 1,000 motor vehicles. For this year up to March, the injury rate of persons on-board lorries is about 1.5 per 1,000 lorries, comparable with that for persons on-board all motor vehicles. Data for the full month of April 2021 is not yet available.

The number of persons on-board lorries who were killed in road traffic accidents has also been on a downward trend. From 2011 to 2015, an average of nine persons on-board per year were killed in road traffic accidents. This dropped to 2.6 per year from 2016 to 2020, or 2.5 if we exclude 2020.

That said, declining injuries and fatalities from such accidents should not make us complacent. One life lost is still one too many. Back in 2008, the Workgroup had thoroughly considered how to prevent this and many of the suggestions raised by the Members today were previously studied by the Workgroup. For example, the Workgroup found that retrofitting seat belts in the rear decks of lorries could result in other safety risks. This is because commercially available lorries are not designed for seatbelts to be installed in the rear deck and the floorboards in the rear deck might not be sufficiently strong to keep the seatbelts anchored in the event of an accident.

Compared to 10 years ago, regulatory changes at this time will cause even more acute pain to the industry, given that the industry is being severely affected by COVID-19. Worker supply has been disrupted leading to severe manpower shortages. Projects are already delayed and productivity has been affected because of safe management measures. Further regulations will likely have impact on the completion of various building projects, from BTOs to MRTs to nursing homes and hospitals, spell the demise of some companies and the loss of workers' livelihoods. We cannot simply ignore these considerations.

Notwithstanding the improvements made over the years, one fatality and, in fact, one injury, is still one too many. We appeal to all road users to drive safely and responsibly. The Government will continue to conduct public education so that lorry drivers and owners are reminded of the rules. LTA has also been stepping up enforcement to catch errant owners and drivers. The Government will continue to refine our policies and regulations to further minimise such situations involving our workers.

We have brought down the accident rates of lorries over the years and will continue to strive to do so. We note the concerns regarding this issue and understandably so. But this is an issue with multifaceted considerations and wider ramifications, including on workers' livelihoods. We will continue to review the safety rules, engaging the various stakeholders along the way, to see how to enhance these measures further.

Meanwhile, I urge all employers to do their part to ensure the welfare and safety of their staff. Members of the public can also call LTA's hotline to report any non-compliance with safety regulations.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response. We often quote trade-offs and costs as part of our decision-making matrix, but for the families in the recent accident who have lost their sons in Singapore, that cost would surmount all other costs that we talked about.

The Senior Minister of State spoke earlier about the Workgroup from way back. It has been over 10 years already. Would the Ministry consider, therefore, reconvening another workgroup to re-study new proposals as well as improvements in vehicle designs over the last 11 years that could potentially have new solutions to improve safety on board lorries?

In terms of other safeguards, there have been substantial studies internationally on the constraint of speed and how that would impact results out of accidents. So, therefore, would the Ministry also consider safeguards such as constraining speeds of lorries for the time being, until new solutions can be found, to perhaps 40 kilometres per hour, so that it significantly improves survivability as well as safety at this speed?

In terms of seat belt, I hear what the Senior Minister of State has said, that the design of the lorries and so on and so forth, but we have done that for the SAF; we have introduced seat belts on our five-tonners. Over and above that, will the Ministry also consider requiring owners and operators to tie down the equipment that they transport together with the workers because it is often these free-flying projectiles in an accident that cause a significant amount of injuries?

I thank the Member for his questions. Let me reiterate again that passengers' safety is very important, we agree with that. As I have said earlier, every fatality and every injury is one too many. We do want to continue to strive to enhance and preserve the safety of our workers when they are using the roads or when they are being ferried. But as I have also noted in my answer earlier, this is a multifaceted issue with many ramifications. Indeed, even as we consider all these issues, we need to be also mindful that we need to find a balance and calibrated approach in order to preserve the safety of our workers as well as their livelihoods.

With regard to the further questions on the various measures that could be taken, firstly, about re-convening the workgroup, as I have said, we have been monitoring the situation since the last review, as well as refining the measures. In 2015, they actually introduced the requirement of not just getting the foreign workers to take a basic theory test but also to pass our Class 3 driving licence if they want to drive the Class 3 vehicles.

And we are currently undertaking a review of the measures with the view of looking at how we can enhance these measures further, in order to improve safety for workers. We will need some time to engage the various stakeholders and we will take into account all the suggestions and proposals put forth. We look forward to working with the tripartite partners, the industry and unions on this to find the way forward; a sensible and sustainable way forward.

Regarding speed limits, presently, such light goods vehicles already have a speed limit of either 60 kilometres per hour or the posted vehicle speed for that area, whichever is lower. This is already well below the speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour on the expressway. So further reducing this speed is not recommended by the experts because when you increase the speed differential between the lorries and all the other motor vehicles on the expressway, it can lead to other safety issues. For instance, the increased tendency for overtaking manoeuvres which can increase the risk of accidents.

With regard to the study that the Member talked about, it is a Swedish study, which talks about the impact of the vehicle on passengers if an accident were to occur and that it would be less likely to cause serious and fatal injuries, if vehicles were travelling at a speed of below 40 kilometres per hour. So, that is really about the impact on the passengers. But here, we also need to consider the increased potential of the risk of accident in the first instance if we were to increase the speed differential.

But having said that, as I have said, in the review that we are undertaking, we will consider all views and suggestions. As what the Member said, there may be other areas that we can look into.

With regard to tying down equipment, actually under the Act as well as guidelines issued by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, the employers are already required to safely tie down the equipment or goods, or load the equipment or goods safely, so that these will not be a danger to the passengers. That is already a requirement. In fact, there are actually guidelines about loading the goods safely. If, in fact, the lorries have goods or equipment, then the deck space allowable for ferrying the workers would be correspondingly reduced. I think I have covered the Member's queries.

Ms He Ting Ru.

First, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for her commitment towards safety for our migrant workers. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that there will be a consultation with various stakeholders. I would like to know whether the question I asked, about studies to be done, about how much costs will be increased by increasing any safety measures, whether there are any studies done, whether such studies will be done, so that we can have a more informed discussion. Because every time we bring this topic up, we hear the counter-argument, saying there will be increased costs. So, we need to actually understand how much costs will be increased by, before we can have a meaningful conversation about whether or not there need to be further safety measures put in place.

The second point that I want to ask a supplementary question on is, the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier as well that ferrying workers at the back of lorries is actually something that is done in other countries. But I note that this is not the case in all other countries. So, I would like to know whether a study can also be done into those countries that outlaw this sort of practices and to find out how, what sort of ways they use to overcome some of the costs and practical and operational issues that the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier.

I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have noted, when we did the last study there was strong feedback from the industry regarding the significant business costs. But, actually, in addition to that, I also mentioned that this, really, is not just about costs, it goes beyond costs. Because on the ground, there are significant real practical and operational challenges on top of just cost considerations.

But having said that, if we were to estimate the additional costs as a result of prohibiting the transport of workers in lorries and goods vehicles, then we will need to have an understanding of the options that the industry will pivot to, whether it is buses, minivans, goods-cum-passenger vehicles or even other options. And we will need to, really, undertake the detailed study and consultation with the industry. So, it is something that we can consider as part of the review.

With regard to international practices, as I have also said in my reply, international practices are varied. Indeed, some of these countries that do allow, we think that our challenges are not unique and they probably have similar challenges. But I agree that even as we undertake a review, we will consult the stakeholders and industries and we will also look at various practices as well as technologies like the Member Mr Alex Yam said earlier.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note from the hon Senior Minister of State's speech that the Government is looking at the safety of migrant workers being transported in lorries very seriously. The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned about projects being delayed in the course of this pandemic. There is a sense out there in the public, whether rightly or wrongly, that construction projects are being hurried to catch up with lost time. May I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what can be done in partnership with MOM to emphasise the safety message with the construction companies as well as the drivers?

I thank the Member for his question and for highlighting the fact that we need to continue to step up our outreach and engagement to the companies as well as to the drivers. TP, for instance, actually have regular safety talks to the drivers to raise road safety awareness as well as to adopt safe driving habits and we will need to continue to work together – LTA, together with TP and MOM – to reach out, step up public education, sustain public education and to remind them to comply. For instance, for the companies to comply with the rules and the safety rules and requirements that have already been put in place for workers' safety and to remind drivers of their obligations and responsibilities when ferrying workers.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak, next question, please.

37 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has done any study to ascertain the impact of a disposable carrier bag charge on vulnerable households, especially the elderly; (b) how will such a charge impact residents who use such bags to dispose of their daily household waste in HDB flats; (c) how will the charge apply to home deliveries from supermarkets; and (d) whether supermarket employees, including those who pack groceries for deliveries, receive training to use minimal packaging.

38 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the current global economic crisis, whether the Ministry will (i) consider deferring the implementation of the charging model for disposable carrier bags and (ii) assess the potential impact of such additional charges on the lower income groups.

39 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry plans to allow only the use of biodegradable plastic bags to replace the current plastic bags; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider incentivising the use of such biodegradable bags to balance the need of residents to bag their trash before they are disposed into common rubbish chutes in our high-rise environment.

40 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when will the Ministry complete the public consultation on developing an appropriate disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets; (b) what measures is the Ministry considering to take to lower the impact of this charge on lower income families; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider charging per bag from the third bag and providing lower income families with a reusable shopping bag each.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 37 to 40 together?

Please do.

Thank you. In 2020, about 200,000 tonnes of disposables such as carrier bags and takeaway containers were thrown away in Singapore, sufficient to fill 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Excessive consumption of disposables is unsustainable and can be avoided if all stakeholders work together to change mindsets, habits and behaviour. Implementing a charge for single-use carrier bags at supermarkets is one of the recommendations submitted by the Citizens' Workgroup on Reducing the Excessive Consumption of Disposables to change social behaviour. Many jurisdictions overseas have already implemented disposable carrier bag charges with positive results.

For example, bag charges in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Taiwan and the Netherlands have reduced consumption of disposable bags by about 60% to 90%.

A disposable carrier bag charge is not new to Singapore. As part of the Plastic ACTion business initiative started by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Singapore, retailers such as Uniqlo, Watsons, H&M and The Body Shop have committed to a bag charge and collectively achieved over 60% reduction in single-use bags. NTUC FairPrice has also piloted bag charges and received positive response. Last year, their year-long "No Plastic Bag" initiative at 25 supermarkets and convenience stores resulted in more than 15 million plastic bags saved.

In developing an appropriate model for a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will study overseas examples and consult key stakeholders and members of the public. For example, the amount to be charged; whether the charge will apply per transaction, or per bag from the first or third bag; implementation timeline; and how the charge proceeds will be used. We will take into account our local context, such as the current practice of reusing disposable carrier bags to bag rubbish for disposal. We will also look into any possible impact of a charge, especially on the more vulnerable groups such as low-income households, and will consult MSF and social service agencies on the possible mitigation measures to address the impact.

We will also consult supermarket operators on other details, such as how the charge could apply to home deliveries and training supermarket employees, including those who pack groceries for deliveries, to minimise packaging use. We aim to complete our consultations by the end of the year.

Plastic waste generated in Singapore is either recycled or sent to our waste-to-energy plants for incineration and not landfilled directly. As the environmental benefits of using biodegradable plastic bags do not apply in Singapore, we have no plans to encourage their use over conventional plastic bags. Every type of packaging material results in different environmental impacts such as carbon emissions and water consumption. Rather than substituting plastic disposables with disposables made of other materials such as biodegradable plastics, the more sustainable approach is to reduce the excessive use of disposables altogether.

The disposable carrier bag charge is intended to discourage the excessive use of disposable bags and to promote the use of reusables. However, this measure alone is not a silver bullet. We must address this issue on multiple fronts, from enhancing public education and awareness, to behavioural nudges, to working with producers and retailers to use less packaging upstream. All of us must play our part to catalyse a mindset and behavioural shift towards a greener and zero-waste Singapore.

Mr Louis Ng, may I ask for your clarification to be kept short. Thank you.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the good news. Could I just ask whether while limiting the current disposable charge only to supermarkets, can we also explore other retail outlets, including the e-commerce platforms as well?

We will only be looking into requiring a disposable bag charge in supermarkets to start with because we need to, first of all, develop a model that is workable and then, to look into the impact and any unintended consequences before we consider if this could be expanded further. In fact, in jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Taiwan, they do take a phased approach too.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you. I would like to ask whether any studies have been done to show that our households, on average, how many plastic bags do they use per month or per year? What is going to be the impact on the average household?

There was an SEC study in 2018, regarding the number of plastic bags that is taken out from the supermarkets; most people frequent supermarkets. I think in 2018, it was about 820 million, which is about 146 bags per person per year.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just have one clarification. Instead of charging for plastic bag usage, whether the Ministry has considered and explored incentivising "Bring Your Own Bag" initiative instead.

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I have noted, charging for disposable carrier bags in supermarkets is not a silver bullet. We need to do this on multiple fronts. Actually, NEA has supported, say, Zero Waste SG, for instance, in their initiative to reach out to F&B and other retailers to incentivise people to bring their own reusable containers and bags. This is one way to also shift mindsets and behavioural change. But I think we need to approach this from multiple fronts and we have seen other countries implementing disposable carrier bag charge as well as some of our retailers with positive response; and so we are actually working on this front now.

Next question. Dr Tan Yia Swam.

41 Dr Tan Yia Swam asked the Minister for Law (a) in what ways are press reports of on-going trials of sex crimes regulated; and (b) what protection is there for medical professionals whose reputations are affected by media coverage of on-going trials of sex crimes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has previously assessed whether the names of accused persons should not be published until they are convicted. In this, we look at the practice in other jurisdictions. Broadly speaking, there are two possible approaches.

The first approach leans in favour of protecting the identity of accused persons if and until they are convicted, and some rules to grant anonymity to accused persons in specific types of cases.

If you look at examples, you have the Republic of Ireland, where accused persons charged with rape offences are granted anonymity until they are convicted, unless a judge orders otherwise. In Switzerland, accused persons may be granted anonymity if the court is satisfied that they could be exposed to serious danger to life and limb, or other serious prejudice. In New Zealand and Australia, where for jury trials, the court may prohibit the disclosure of an accused person's identity if it is satisfied that such a disclosure would create a serious risk of prejudicing a fair trial. That is one approach.

The second approach is to lean in favour of just having open court proceedings and all matters are out immediately. There is no general power to the courts to grant accused persons any sort of anonymity to protect their reputations. For example, in the United Kingdom, the general position is that legal proceedings should be held in public and there are some rules, exceptions which restrict media reporting of some criminal cases, which prohibit the disclosure of identity of accused persons. But the primary aim of those provisions is to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims, and to avoid substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings, if such a risk exists.

The downside in this second approach is that, of course, the reputation of accused persons is often irreparably damaged by the publicity from media coverage of an on-going criminal trial, even if they are acquitted at the end of the day. I think Dr Tan's question probably arises from the trials of doctors for sex crimes, but it applies to all accused in a variety of cases.

Our approach has been to lean towards the United Kingdom example but both approaches have their merits and downsides. After assessments, we decided to keep our approach, which means that in general, accused persons are publicly tried and the verdict is publicly announced. That also allows unidentified victims of serial offenders, for example, to come forward and seek help.

But I emphasise that our position on this issue is not set in concrete. We can also see the merits of shifting to some version of the first approach. So, we will keep reviewing this while we are maintaining the status quo.

I would say that even in the current situation, in certain circumstances, there is anonymity given if it is required for public interest. For example, to sensitive information relating to national security or if the release of information on the accused may lead to identification of, say, children, young persons and alleged victims of sexual or child abuse offences. The reason for doing that is to protect those vulnerable victims and children from being identified and give them a better life. With that focus, the Courts have some power to prohibit publication of the identity of the accused and impose some conditions on how the trial can be reported and the media have got to comply with those requirements.

There are, as I said, pros and cons with both approaches – whether to allow or to prohibit the publication of names of accused persons until they are convicted. And as I said earlier, we will keep our position under view.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement, Minister for Communications and Information.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 45-48, 50, 52-58, 61-63, 66-68, 71-82, 84, 86-94, 96-101, 103-108, 110, 112-114, 117-123, 125-126, 129-137, 139-142 and 144 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 42-44, 49, 51, 59-60, 64-65, 69-70, 83, 85, 95, 102, 109, 111, 115-116, 124, 127-128, 138 and 143 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 11 May 2021.]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, last Thursday, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) announced its proposal to restructure and transfer its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) to secure its long-term viability. My Ministry has voiced the Government's support for SPH's proposal and committed to support the media business as it builds capabilities and adapts for a digital future.

Today, I will bring Members through the key considerations behind these decisions: first, the importance of local news media to our nation and how we have upheld it through our history; second, the Government's reasons for supporting SPH's proposal; and third, our commitment to help our local news media adapt and thrive in the digital era.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a high-quality, professional and respected media reporting news by Singaporeans for Singaporeans is essential to the fabric of our nation. Our local media is keenly attuned to our unique circumstances as a small city-state, an open economy and a multi-racial society. They help interpret global events through a distinctively Singaporean lens, analysing their impact on our lives. This is ever more crucial in an era of heightened geopolitical contestation. The local media also express our identity, values and priorities so that the world gets a perspective from Singapore itself and not through the filter of others.

Domestically, the local media not only report on events and developments but also publish a balanced range of views to inform the national debate and help foster a national consensus, not allowing disagreements to deepen into divisions in our society. They help to sustain the common ground in our multi-racial and multi-religious society whilst preserving the voice of each of our communities through the vernacular media and they write "the first draft of our history", as Mr Goh Chok Tong put it in 1995, serving as an authoritative record of our collective experience as a people, giving future generations of Singaporeans a sense of how we saw the world, what was important to us and how we built tomorrow's Singapore.

The local news media fulfil this role while upholding high standards of accuracy, objectivity and balance. These are traits that are ever more scarce in the raucous global information landscape, especially online. The local media help to distinguish fact from falsehood, substance from posture, "what is high from what is low", as Mr Lee Kuan Yew put it in 1998.

As our nation faces increasingly complex challenges and trade-offs, our local media provide a highly credible flow of information and analysis upon which we form collective decisions.

COVID-19 vividly exemplified this. In the pandemic, Singaporeans looked to our local newspapers and channels as their trusted sources of critical information. In a 2020 survey by the British pollster YouGov, seven in 10 Singaporeans said they trusted the local media's reporting on COVID-19. In the UK, by comparison, YouGov found that only three in 10 trusted the information on COVID-19 in British newspapers.

In 2021, the Edelman trust barometer reported Singaporeans' trust in local media at 62% – above the global average of 51% and above the US, which is 45%; and UK and France, which were both at 37%.

It is critical to maintain this trust. Our local media industry has strived to do so while adapting to changing industry trends and commercial imperatives. Because of its importance to the national interest, the Government has been an active steward in this evolutionary process to ensure the vitality and viability of our local media industry. Let me cite two examples.

In 1984, SPH was formed through a merger of the English, Chinese and Malay language papers, with the Tamil press brought under its umbrella later in 1995. The primary aim of this merger nearly four decades ago was to preserve the vernacular media. The Government could see that the vernacular papers would come under greater financial pressure over the years with the gradual shift towards English.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained at Lianhe Zaobao's 80th anniversary in 2003, "My worry as Prime Minister was how to preserve at least one quality Chinese newspaper and sustain it over the long term when the trend in education was towards English."

The merger reduced duplication of overheads and costs of competition, and enabled the SPH newspapers to achieve economies of scale and greater commercial viability.

Between 2000 and 2005, the print and broadcast industries launched into more direct competition but subsequently re-consolidated. Initially, SPH and Mediacorp were allowed to enter each other's main businesses, with the trend towards convergence between print and broadcast. The hope was that greater competition between them would spur both to develop better local content and retain local audiences against rising foreign competition.

The competition was fierce but ultimately the model did not prove to be viable. Against the backdrop of the dotcom crash and SARS, the industry was rationalised in 2004 to preserve the viability of the two companies; one a core broadcaster and the other a core newspaper group.

Sir, today, yet again, our local news media is at a watershed. Sweeping structural changes in the media and advertising industries caused by technological advances and the Internet have severely disrupted the traditional business model that relied on print advertising revenue. The competition for eyeballs has intensified. In the borderless online space, our local news media must now compete not just with international news organisations but also entertainment providers and user-generated content.

The cost of producing quality news content remains high but revenues have plummeted. Global print advertising revenue is decreasing by 7% year on year. Meanwhile, news aggregators and other news providers are now able to provide so-called "free news services" without the cost of maintaining a high-quality newsroom.

Though digital ads are growing, it is the digital platforms like social media and search engines that capture the lion's share of the revenue.

Though the demand for quality news has not diminished, monetising digital initiatives is challenging and the revenues of quality news platforms all over the world are falling sharply with little prospect of relief.

Just last week on World Press Freedom Day, the executive director of the World Association of News Publishers, Andrew Heslop, published an article quite aptly titled "Media across the globe fighting immediate and existential threats". He warned, "Many of the difficult questions facing the news industry are underpinned by an inability to predict a general economic model that will guarantee a future for quality, professional journalism... The harsh reality: public interest reporting simply does not convert to advertising dollars."

For many media companies, the economic fall-out of COVID-19 was the final straw. An article in the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "The Journalism Crisis Across the World". Most publications are now running deficits and many newsrooms are shrinking, even closing. More than a quarter of American newspapers have disappeared in the last 15 years, reducing the number of newsroom jobs by half. In the UK, more than half the country is no longer served by their own local newspapers. Southeast Asia has seen well-known newspapers change hands, restructure or shut down in recent years. The Jakarta Globe ceased printing and went fully online in 2015 and the Philippine Star had a majority stake acquired by the telecommunications group, PLDT.

Ours is a small local market with just two main local news media organisations, SPH and Mediacorp. While there are potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration between them, we can ill afford the convulsions and closures we have seen elsewhere, with a consequential loss of diversity and choice in our media landscape.

The response of media companies across the world has been varied, reflecting their own social and political contexts.

Many have resorted to cost cutting to survive. News Corp, one of the largest media groups in the world, recorded a US$1.5 billion loss in 2020. It is now embarking on a consolidation exercise which will likely entail major cost cuts and job losses.

Even digital news sites which have ridden the wave of Internet media have not been spared. Popular site, Buzzfeed, which claimed a greater online audience than the print circulation of any single newspaper, has never made a profit and was compelled to abort its global expansion plans last year.

Some publications have received life support from wealthy financial backers or funds. Billionaires have acquired established newspapers for philanthropic or other motivations.

The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos of Amazon in 2013, after 80 years of ownership by the Graham family, which had sustained the paper partly on the proceeds of its Kaplan education business. In the six years before the sale, the paper's operating revenue fell by 44%.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) was owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp until 1993, when it was acquired by Malaysian real estate tycoon Robert Kuok. In 2016, it was acquired by the Alibaba Group.

With the largesse of Alibaba, SCMP lifted the paywall on its articles and was reported to have increased its international reach more than fourfold within three years. Yet, it remained loss-making.

In 2020, SCMP restored the paywall and subscription model, acknowledging that the "advertising model is no longer enough to sustain high-quality news".

Other major newspapers now owned by billionaires include the Los Angeles Times. Even hedge funds have got into the act. Alden Global Capital acquired over 200 US newspapers, with extensive lay-offs and cost-cutting measures.

Some newspapers have received funding from non-profit organisations. The Guardian in the UK has been owned by the Scott Trust since 1936. It has done well against global competition – nearly two-thirds of its readers come from outside the UK. But in 2020, after making a £25 million pound loss even after drawing from the Trust, The Guardian announced plans to cut 12% of its workforce saying that "we face unsustainable annual losses in future years unless we take decisive action."

Even the rare papers that are profitable are under continuing pressure. The Wall Street Journal has had to make numerous changes to its operating model to keep afloat. While investing in a special innovation team of 150 employees, it has also had to thin out its print edition and lay off staff as recently as 2016. The New York Times has done especially well in making the digital pivot, recently reaching 7.5 million subscribers in 2020, though it too saw ad revenue plunge by 26% the same year.

The New York Times' success is not easy to replicate. Beyond digital transformation, it commands a global attention that is difficult for our media, writing from the perspective of a small country, to emulate.

It is also noteworthy that the New York Times and Washington Post tripled their digital subscriptions during the period of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, US metropolitan dailies of comparable size, like the LA Times, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle, have seen significant falls in circulation, in part because of "subscription fatigue" among readers.

The Financial Times (FT), which enjoys the advantage of being a specialist newspaper, employs rigorous data analysis to tailor its coverage and subscription offers at its target segments. It has a small but affluent readership, exemplified by FT's weekly lifestyle magazine called "How to Spend It", with strong advertising appeal. Still, in 2015, the Japanese media group Nikkei bought FT from Britain's Pearson. So, even a successful newspaper is susceptible to takeover.

Governments around the world have recognised the news media as a public good that merits direct public funding. Public funding of broadcast media is well-known. Less well-known is public funding of print media, but it has a long tradition in European countries.

The French government spends hundreds of millions of euros annually to support the press, including prominent papers like Le Monde and Le Figaro. It has done so for over half a century, with annual subsidies at times exceeding a billion euros.

Scandinavian governments too have supported their newspapers for decades, both through direct subsidies and tax breaks. In 2020 alone, the Norwegian Media Authority gave press subsidies of 43 million euros, while Sweden rendered a 65-million euro aid package to buffer the impact of the pandemic.

In Singapore, we provide annual funding for public service broadcasting to Mediacorp. Last year, we also provided SPH Media with over $30 million through the national Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and we were prepared to do more if the need arose.

So, in sum, the global news media industry is under severe structural pressure and there is no universal solution. A few have succeeded; some are struggling; many have failed. The sources of support – be it public, private, philanthropic or others – have varied widely. And at this critical juncture, SPH Media must similarly chart its own course to revise and, if necessary, re-invent its business model for the digital age.

Against these industry headwinds, SPH has held out longer than most.

In fact, SPH's overall reach and readership has never been higher. SPH's papers' circulation has grown by 5% from 2017 to 2020. In fact, within this period, The Straits Times' print and digital circulation has grown by about 20%.

SPH has also made significant investments of about $50 million a year for the last five years to build digital capabilities and grow its readership. It has augmented newsrooms with a wider range of tech capabilities, such as product development, digital content production, data analytics and audience development. It has modified its operations to generate content round the clock and deployed it on a wider variety of social media platforms, including Instagram and Telegram. SPH has launched new platforms for readers to engage its correspondents and experts and has been recognised internationally for its excellent data visualisation and interactive graphics, multimedia and photojournalism.

Last year, it emerged as the biggest winner at the Asian Media Awards, with The Straits Times and the Chinese Media Group picking up accolades in breaking news, infographics, feature photography and newspaper design, to name a few.

So, in short, these are not news platforms that are declining in quality or readership. On the contrary, like Mediacorp in broadcasting, SPH papers continue to be trusted and valued sources of news that are well read which is a tribute to the professionalism of our journalists.

Their challenge today stems from an inability to monetise their gains in attracting and retaining readers on digital platforms.

Despite rising readership, SPH's media business has been steadily losing revenue. SPH announced last week that its media business had lost half its operating revenue in the past five years and posted its first ever loss of $11.4 million in 2020. And that loss would have been deeper without the Government's JSS grant.

Looking ahead, SPH expects these trends to persist and widen. Print advertising revenue will continue falling as media consumption progressively shifts online. Rising digital advertising revenue will not compensate for the fall in print advertising revenue. And there is limited scope to grow digital subscriptions given our small domestic market and the global competition.

These secular trends are undeniable. They affect SPH, Mediacorp and the global media industry. And the adverse effects will be compounded by the lingering economic impact of COVID-19, with businesses cutting ad spending and consumers reluctant to pay for content.

SPH has been under persistent pressure to account to shareholders for the anaemic financial performance of its media business. Hence, the company has implemented several cost-cutting and retrenchment exercises in recent years. But SPH has assessed that any further cuts would impair its ability to maintain quality journalism.

SPH has also spoken of its constraints as a listed company to make significant and sustained investments in their digital and newsroom capabilities, which may not yield near-term payoffs.

Hence, under the current structure, there is a serious risk that SPH's media capabilities will be hollowed out.

Without sustained investment in capacity building and a digital pivot, its quality and circulation will fall. This, in turn, will worsen financials and cause further disinvestment. And the immediate pressure will inevitably be on our vernacular papers, some with relatively small circulations, which would have a profound detrimental impact on the multi-racial fabric of our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is the sobering picture of what lies ahead if we fail to act now and take proactive steps. Without a responsible and high quality local media, the quality of our public debate and discourse will be compromised and we will slowly but inexorably become less cohesive as a society.

Given what is at stake, the Government must take a long-term view and adopt measures to secure the sustainability of our local media.

The Government therefore carefully studied the proposal from SPH.

SPH proposes to restructure and transfer the ownership of its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG). It will first form a new subsidiary, transfer the media-related businesses and properties to the subsidiary and capitalise the subsidiary with $80 million of cash and $30 million worth of SPH shares and REITs. Subsequently, if SPH shareholders give their approval, the subsidiary will be transferred to the CLG.

The CLG will be separate from the listed company, no longer run by the SPH management. It will operate as a revenue-seeking business, subject to the usual commercial disciplines. However, any operating surplus will be ploughed back into the media business, rather than distributed to shareholders as dividends. In that sense, it will be "not-for-profit" to the members of the CLG.

This concept of a CLG run with commercial discipline is not new for us. There are several examples, including our Universities, The Esplanade and Gardens by the Bay.

SPH's proposal is not a panacea for the challenges faced by its news media business. But it is an essential first step if the media business is to adapt to the digital and commercial realities of the industry. The Government therefore supports SPH's restructuring proposal and is willing to provide funding support to the CLG. Let me summarise our thinking.

Sir, a high quality and trusted national media, with an instinctive understanding of our national interests and constraints, is essential to Singapore. Throughout our history, the Government has aimed to develop and sustain such a media industry in Singapore.

However, the current SPH model of a news media business within a listed company is no longer viable. While the media business' traditional revenues streams are declining sharply, significant investments are needed to build digital and other capabilities for the longer term.

A Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) is one model to remove the news media business from the constraints of a listed company, while the news business under the CLG invests in strategic imperatives.

But the CLG will still have to find new sources of funding to meet the expected financial shortfalls in the news business.

The Government is willing to help fund the proposed CLG – while ensuring fiscal discipline and accountability – in areas like digital innovation and capability development, as part of a long-term sustainable business plan.

We already have a similar financing model with Mediacorp, our core national broadcaster, which has been working well.

Having such national broadcasters, newspaper publishers and online news platforms is a public good that benefits the whole of society. Although the business and financing model will change, the Government does not intend nor expect this to affect the relationship between MCI and the SPH newsroom.

The Government is mindful that our local news media must remain credible institutions that are trusted by Singaporeans and that it remains the responsibility of the editors and journalists in SPH Media to report news and diverse opinions objectively, and from a Singaporean point of view.

Sir, looking ahead, the CLG’s success will be determined by three key factors. First, strong leadership, with the support of its stakeholders, to set the strategic vision and execute the organisational transformation. Second, a robust business strategy that can be sustained under the new structure with the requisite resources. Third, a strong and capable team of professionals in the newsrooms, who will maintain the high standards that we have come to expect of this cherished national news organisation.

In this regard, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) is a key regulatory instrument that will apply to the news entities under the CLG. The NPPA was introduced in 1974. It places restrictions on the ownership and control of local newspaper companies. Among other requirements, newspaper companies like SPH are required to issue two classes of shares: ordinary shares and management shares.

Ordinary shareholders can each hold no more than 5% of the company’s shares except with the approval of the Minister. This prevents excessive influence over local newspapers from any single source, local or foreign.

Management shareholders have special voting rights on resolutions relating to the appointment of directors and staff of the newspaper company. The issuance of management shares and the appointment of directors must be approved by the Minister.

The intent has always been for these management shares to be held by reputable and established institutions, so that the stewardship of the newspaper is entrusted to entities with an abiding interest in and commitment to Singapore’s stability and success.

Currently, the management shareholders of SPH are OCBC, Great Eastern, UOB, DBS, Singtel, NTUC Income, Temasek via Fullerton Pte Ltd, NUS and NTU. As SPH restructures its media operations, we want to ensure that its management shareholders continue serving as custodians of the CLG.

I have therefore met and consulted the representatives of the management shareholders. They have all agreed to form the CLG and to be its founding members. This will ensure that our local news media will remain in the hands of trusted institutions with a long-term stake in Singapore. In due course, the membership will be expanded to include newer and more diverse institutions as stakeholders of the CLG.

One important and immediate decision for the CLG is the appointment of the Chairman of its Board. I also discussed this with the management shareholders. They have all agreed that, given the national importance of this undertaking and the scale of the challenge, the Chairman should be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. With his high standing and more than 25 years of public service experience in various senior appointments, Mr Khaw will be able to provide strong strategic leadership for the CLG. I am pleased to inform Members that Mr Khaw has agreed to be the Chairman of the CLG, and he will be sharing his thoughts on its way forward in due course.

To ensure the long-term viability of the enterprise, the Government also stands ready to provide the CLG with funding in areas like digital innovation and capability development. We want to ensure the CLG has the wherewithal to innovate, build digital and other essential capabilities, and confidently take on new challenges.

The new media company must have a long-term, sustainable business model with different revenue sources, including traditional advertising and subscription revenues, complemented by Government funding and contributions from its management shareholders and benefactors as other components.

We expect that after the transfer of the media business, the CLG will formulate detailed proposals on its strategic plan to build the business. This will form the basis for Government funding and support.

On the regulatory front, the Government will maintain the safeguards hitherto placed on the media business under the NPPA.

Subject to shareholder approval, after the restructuring is completed and the media business is transferred to the CLG, MCI will lift the shareholding controls imposed on the listed SPH entity. The NPPA will then apply to the new media company, under the CLG’s charge. The NPPA will not apply to the CLG, but appropriate safeguards will be incorporated in the constitution of the CLG to ensure that the CLG structure achieves its purpose and fosters the objectives of the NPPA framework; and that its members and directors will remain committed to Singapore’s stability and success.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we want the news media business to succeed in this critical transition while continuing to fulfil its vital role in our society.

As I said at the beginning of this Statement, a high-quality, professional and trusted media, with news reported by Singaporeans for Singaporeans, is essential to the fabric of our nation.

That mission statement remains unchanged. Within the framework of the NPPA, the local media operate independently of the Government. They report and analyse the news fully and objectively, not holding back bad news, nor advancing any singular ideological view or agenda, but focused on Singapore’s interest. The Government and the media will not see eye-to-eye on every issue and incident, but that is to be expected.

That is how SPH and Mediacorp, have operated hitherto, and that is how the Government expects the CLG to continue to operate after the proposed restructuring. The CLG must maintain the reputation and high level of trust that SPH has built with generations of readers, domestically and internationally.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the restructuring of SPH is a watershed in the evolution of our local news media. But we are convinced that it is essential if our news media are to survive as high-quality news outlets. And the Government will do our part to sustain a trusted news media in Singapore.

Sir, our news media are not just economic entities. They are cherished institutions that reflect our values; whose "past, present and future are intrinsically tied to this nation", as Prime Minister Lee put it at The Straits Times’ 170th anniversary.

The newsrooms are, and must continue to be, home to talented editors and journalists, whose professionalism and diligence have built credibility and trust in our newspapers.

As 19-year-old "A" level graduate Keng Xin Yi said in today's Straits Times and, I quote, "It is important to keep SPH Media alive and motivated to produce quality newspapers every day. ST has been serving Singaporeans with diligence and high standards, educating us from the time when we knew little about the world. I hope we can express our gratitude by supporting and respecting these dedicated journalists. Together we can keep our source of knowledge going and keep our ST alive. I want ST to be a part of the lives of my future children and grandchildren too."

Sir, the success of this restructuring and the future of our local news media, turn ultimately on our journalists' commitment to this mission and the support of our citizens like Xin Yi. I would like to conclude by assuring our journalists, and all Singaporeans, of this Government's abiding support for this critical national endeavour.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. Before that, I thank him for his Statement, which contained a lot of information or some information at least, that the public has heard for the first time today and here in the House.

I have a few questions.

First, when did the Government first inform SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business?

Secondly, what is the size of the funding that Government has pencilled yearly to support the SPH CLG? Does the Government aim to cap the grants it extends, with the expectation that CLG will also secure other sources of funding from the private sector, for example?

The third question is with respect to some public documents that were released by SPH last week. It was decided that the SPH contribution towards the CLG would be, I quote, "arrived at after considering various factors, including the potential funding requirements of the media business for a few years". Does the Ministry consider this contribution to be a reasonable one and how did it come to this conclusion?

My final two questions: what structures will the Government insist on to ensure the independence of the SPH CLG from possible Government's interference and to foster a culture of editorial independence across its titles? And, finally, in view of the significant change in the sector, would the Government consider the formation of a Select Committee to allow members of the public and Singaporeans in particular to: (a) express what editorial standards they expect from the CLG, taxpayer-funded mainstream media; and (b) to express their views on how best the SPH CLG can ensure editorial independence from any government of the day?

Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his series of questions. They span a wide range of issues. I will attempt to give him a comprehensive response. But I imagine this is going to be further developed in subsequent clarifications.

First, on the issue of timing – when did we inform SPH that we were willing to fund SPH? As I said in my Statement, the Government has always taken the position that we are willing to support investments in capability development. And then, it is up to the respective organisations to develop their plan and to put forward their proposals to us. In the case of SPH, specifically, as I mentioned, last year, they received the JSS, which was part of the national scheme. In addition, we were prepared to offer extra help if it was required, but the restructuring proposal was put to us; which then, leads to the next question about other sources of funding and whether Government funding to the CLG will be capped.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that it is premature to specify the exact numbers that will go in, with regard to the Government funding. The reason for this is not because we are reluctant to talk about them, but it is simply because, first, this is still a matter before the shareholders of SPH. They have to decide whether they want to approve this. It is only after that that we can really get into a more detailed discussion.

But it is not just about the shareholders' approval. We also need the new CLG to then formulate its plans and put on the table what it sees as its strategic business direction, going forward; and in that matrix, the different sources of revenues that it expects or anticipates, and what role will the Government funding play in that matrix.

So, the question of whether other sources of funding would be required, if the Leader of the Opposition heard in my speech earlier, not-for-profit does not mean that the entity does not pursue its business on a commercial basis. We fully expect the entity to seek out advertising revenue, circulation or subscription revenue and other sources of funding. But we fully expect that Government funding will be a component of that funding matrix for the CLG.

He asked if the SPH contribution which has been spelt out – which includes the transfer of two property assets which are related to the media business and also some other operating businesses which are linked to the media, in addition to the $80 million of cash and $30 million of SPH shares and REITs – he asked whether this is reasonable and why. Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to stress that because this is a matter that has to be put to the shareholders at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), I do not want to pre-empt any case that the management and the Board will make.

But I can say that our focus, the Government's focus, has been very clearly on the news media business and its viability, going forward. Whilst I am unable to say specifics about what the numbers look like in the near term – SPH has said some about how they think it will continue to widen in terms of its deficit – I can say that the medium- to long-term outlook remains challenging. And that is why we need to be clear that the Government will be prepared to come in to give support. But how much, how – I think these are the things that will need to be worked out in due course after the CLG has had the chance, subject to shareholders' approval, to then develop a business plan and put the proposal to us.

The Member asked about structures for editorial independence or ensuring a culture of editorial independence. I would venture that that culture already exists in Singapore in the news media. I think we do a disservice to our journalists and editors to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, if you look at the overall outcome that we have achieved over the years, it speaks to, not just from external sources that validate by recognising the accomplishments of our local news media but, importantly, and this has a bearing on the Leader of the Opposition's last point on the Select Committee, because if I understand it correctly, it is about enabling people to express their views.

I would say Singaporeans have already expressed their views because, first, when it comes to trust surveys, Singapore scores highly. Singaporeans have been quick to point out that they trust our news media, both print and broadcast, and they have shared this. I cited the YouGov survey and also the Edelman Trust Report. I would add that even our local surveys, for example, by the IPS, validate this, saying that about 70% of Singaporeans, or seven out of 10, trust our local media. And that is at a higher level than the trust they accord to international media, I would add.

So, it is not just what they say though, it is also what they are doing. What are their habits, what are their preferences. In other words, how are they voting with, in this case, their eyeballs? The fact is, as I said, and I want to re-emphasise, the SPH news organisations, in aggregate, have not just maintained but they have grown their reach and readership, when you combine the digital and the physical. That would not be the case if Singaporeans did not feel that they could trust a news organisation.

So, I think the people have spoken and it is our job now to make sure that object of their trust continues to succeed.

I have a couple of supplementary questions for the Minister. First of all, the Government will provide funding to the new entity, the new CLG called SPH Media. It is reasonable, if you provide the funding, to have some expectations, to have some accountability, even to have some conditions. Can the Minister, perhaps, develop on what are some of the accountabilities or even the KPIs that the Government would expect from the new CLG in return for the funding?

And, of course, with that accountability, with that expectation, there could also be the criticism that, therefore, that is the way also of exerting control over the CLG. Could the Minister, perhaps, also expound on some measures that could be put in place to balance off between expecting accountability but yet, at the same time, having a hands-off approach and not necessarily shaping or influencing how the CLG would then do its business?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. First, on accountability and conditions or KPIs tied to the funding. Again, I want to start by saying this is still a matter that has to be approved by the shareholders of SPH before we can start talking about these matters in greater detail. But I can talk about it in terms of broad principles.

Clearly, and as I said in my Ministerial Statement, we want to do this – and by this, I mean the funding of the CLG – with financial discipline and accountability in areas like digital innovation and capability development. What does that mean? It means that if the funding is given for a specific purpose, then the expectation, and in this case is for building capabilities, for example. And the expectation must be that those capabilities are indeed developed. But it goes beyond that because the development of capabilities in the end is a means to a more important end. And that end is sustaining, if not growing, the attention, the readership and the following from Singaporeans. It is something that both Mediacorp and the SPH news groups have been doing with significant success over the years.

But, clearly, it is something that we would want them to continue to strive to achieve. Because at the end of the day, if you do not have the eyeballs, the attention of people, then, the effort, in a sense, will ring hollow. And our objective, when we talk about a trusted, professional, high quality news organisation, the ultimate measure of it, as I said in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, is in how our citizens respond to it and how much attention they give it – whether it is in terms of readership, dwell time; and this is especially so in the moment of crisis, which is when the truth and reliability of information becomes even more critical.

On the point about control, I think I had said some of this in my earlier response. First, let me acknowledge that it is inevitable that whenever you have a change, in this case, a structural change in the organisation, such concerns will naturally arise. It is inevitable and it is quite understandable. But as we deliberate on this and we discuss this in this Chamber, we also need to keep in mind where are we starting from when thinking about the future. We are starting from a position where we have two news organisations, media organisations: one a core newspaper group with radio and online presence; another, a core broadcaster with radio and online presence. So, some overlap but distinct core competencies.

These organisations have developed under our existing model. And what I mean by that is SPH is subject to the NPPA and the restrictions that go with it. Mediacorp gets funding from the Government in the form of public service broadcasting. In both cases, they have been able to pursue their editorial policy in a manner that has allowed them to win the trust of Singaporeans, as evinced by the various studies and surveys, and so on, and also the reading habits of Singaporeans.

So, if I may put it another way, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". So, we have something that is working. The part that is challenging is the financial model, in particular. The business must be given enough time to be able to transition to a more sustainable business model. And that is something that we are now committed to do by rendering support to the CLG but without changing the nature of the relationship that we have today between these news organisations and the Government and MCI.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. The Minister spoke about the impact of digital disruptions on the news media industry. While digital investments and funding are important to maintain quality local news media, this clearly is not enough. In fact, SPH has actually grown its digital footprint as well as its viewership. The challenge has been viability.

So, what will be different for the CLG to achieve the digital pivot, that the Minister has said is required? A clear strategy to transform and to drive digital innovation is required and so, how will this new entity achieve that?

My second question is a different one but an important one to maintaining the quality of local journalism, and that is really its people. In this case, it is the journalists themselves as well as the experienced team that produces the content. So, what is being done to ensure that that this retention of talent is there, as well as, more importantly, the ability for the new entity to attract new talent required for it to do the pivots it requires?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions which are both, I think, very important.

Perhaps, I will start with the people question first. One cannot talk about quality journalism without talking about quality journalists. It is indivisible. And indeed, when we talk about investing in the capability of our news media, this is one of the key attributes – the ability to attract, retain and develop journalistic talent which take our news media industry forward, both for the quality of its news reporting and also for its analysis of global and local events; and to be able to offer that distinctly Singapore perspective, which we need for all the reasons that I have outlined.

So, we are very clear that when it comes to the people element, it is something that must continue to be supported. How that is done is a matter that the company itself must take forward. And what I mean by this is, for example, if we think back to the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the objective was very simple – to prevent attrition of capabilities that have been developed and that are needed for the future.

But what we need in the context of SPH now is not just the prevention of attrition but actually, the ability to build on that capability which I think is the point that the Member makes as well. And so, I think this is an area the new CLG Chairman, the Board and the management will be seized with. And I would imagine that as part of their strategic business review that human dimension is going to be key because ultimately, that is what sustains the news media.

Having said that, the earlier point about what will be different, and I agree with the Member, financial support or money alone is not enough. I think really, it is about what you are using these resources for and therefore, what will be different.

As I pointed out, I think the current structure, whilst there has been a considerable effort on the part of SPH to pivot to digital and they have made the investments I have mentioned, about $50 million a year over five years, but really, they need to do more and they need to do it in a more purposeful and quick way. I think that is something that if you talk to the editors and the journalists, they would say and that is also the experience that we see around the world.

Therefore, I think, first, the fact that you are now moving out of a listed company structure into a CLG model will give that company the opportunity to dedicate the resources it needs for this purpose. And that is where I think the support from Government will also be important.

I would say that the other thing is, again, I think the point that the Member makes – and the Member will be very familiar with this – is that it is not just about technology. It is how that technology is applied in the context of this vertical and how it is used to deliver a product that is valued by the customers, the readers and whether there are different ways to find new revenue sources arising from that. So, this is a very important area of work.

I know that within the current SPH system, they have put some degree of effort into it. But going forward, the CLG and the management will have to bring in talent – in addition to what they already have within – to address this in a very direct way and start making the decisive strategic moves in that regard. I think the ability to make such moves and then back them with the resources and then find the talent to back it up, these are all going to be important differentiating factors in the change that has been proposed under the restructuring.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, we understand the severe commercial challenges faced by SPH Media as a standalone entity as a listed company and would require Government funding to put them on a more sustainable path.

I have two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, how did the Government arrive at the decision that the CLG structure is the best option. The second clarification is, has the Government consider other options such as privatising SPH so that the media unit is not subject to the market returns pressure, very much like SMRT, or even like the Mediacorp approach where the Government support the company with annual public service broadcasting grants?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. How did we arrive at the CLG structure and were alternatives considered?

First, we have to be very clear how the proposal came about. This is the result of SPH management and Board assessing their business, in particular, the media business and its prospects going forward; and then, putting forward a proposal which, in their assessment, achieves best the objective of ensuring the viability and success of the media business going forward, freed from the constraints of a listed company and its reporting structures and so on. So, that is how it came about.

And this, I want to emphasise again, is a proposal that awaits shareholders' approval. So, I do not want to go into a detailed discussion on its merits. But as I have said quite clearly, the Government supports it. We are supporting it not because of the shareholder value proposition. That is for SPH and its management and its directors and independent financial advisers and independent directors to explain to their shareholders. We support it from the perspective of what needs to be done to secure the long-term sustainability of a quality, trusted news media in Singapore. That is the focus.

So, other ideas, whether it is privatisation and other formulations, I think these are questions that I am sure the Board and management would have considered. But I also want to point out that from the Government's point of view, the regulatory levellers are quite specific. They only pertain to decisions that affect the news media business in the way I have explained. So, I think the larger issues around the business, its viability, its decisions on what can be done for shareholder value, ultimately, is something that the Board and management have to decide on and propose to shareholders to agree.

I think the Member asked the question: is it possible for us to support the company in its present form, I assume, with something like public service broadcasting funding and so on.

Can it be considered? I think the answer is obviously yes. But is that a good model? I think it is debatable. Why is that debatable? Because I understand the intent of the Member. In other words, the business is within the listed company. It is having some challenges. Can we just direct the funding to that operation in that business for it to succeed?

The problem is, if we channel a certain amount of funding to the listed company and the listed company then makes profits and then it distributes dividends to its shareholders, the question that can be asked is: is this a case of taxpayers subsidising returns to shareholders? So, there is an issue there. And so, then it means, do we need to find other constructs to do with it. And I do not want to belabour the point but other than to say that I do not think it is a straightforward solution. I think it is fraught in its own way.

What we have before us is the proposal that the Board and management of SPH put to us after their own deliberations of various possibilities. Our lens is purely from the point of view of how do we ensure a quality, professional trusted news media continues to succeed in Singapore. And that is the basis on which we have expressed our approval for the restructuring.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I would like to say that I welcome the Minister's statement in his speech that the Government and SPH Media will not see eye-to-eye on matters and it is as it should be if the newspapers are to be credible to readers. I welcome that statement strongly.

At the same time, he has acknowledged that due to the proposed change in the funding, there are some concerns about the implications of Government funding on the editorial direction of the newspaper. And in the same breath, he just announced to us today that the Government and the management shareholders of SPH have agreed on the choice of the Chairman of the CLG to be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. I have some clarifications on this choice.

First, let me clarify that I am not questioning the personal integrity of Mr Khaw but the fact is that he is the former chairman of the People's Action Party and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure. So, I would like to ask Minister: first of all, the choice of Mr Khaw, although he said it was by agreement between the Government and the management shareholders, am I to assume that it was the Government's suggestion that Mr Khaw takes on this role and the management shareholders agreed to that suggestion?

The second question, does Minister not see this as a missed opportunity in the light of the major restructure that is coming up and some concerns about what this will mean for newspaper content? Is this not a missed opportunity where someone else who is not so closely linked to the Government could have been chosen to be the Chairman? Were any other candidates considered?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her clarifications.

Let me just be very clear. I said in my Statement that the news media and the Government will not always see eye-to-eye. I will think the definition of a good news media or a credible news media is that it must always not see eye-to-eye, but it has the occasion when it is necessary to be able to do so. So, I want to be clear about that.

Second, I think the nub of her question really is that, with Mr Khaw Boon Wan being asked by the management shareholders to chair the CLG, whether this creates problems from the point of view of editorial independence. I presume that is the Member's main point.

Let us start where we are today. SPH, its current chairman is Dr Lee Boon Yang and he is a former Cabinet Minister. In SPH's history, they have had other Chairpersons who have either been ex-senior civil servants or ex-Cabinet Ministers. Mediacorp's Chairman today is an ex-senior civil servant. Yet, we are where we are today – and I do not wish to canvass arguments all over again – but we are where we are today in terms of the credibility of our media, the trust that Singaporeans have in our media, through this array of leadership. I think we should therefore be very clear that what matters is not a perceived political hue in the appointments, but rather in the substance of the character and capability of the people who are involved.

I think, in that regard, Mr Khaw Boon Wan is held in high standing in Singapore and also by many beyond Singapore. He has a proven track record of taking on difficult issues and working on them. This is one such issue. What you need is someone at the leadership level who has the gravitas, has the strategic vision and the experience in undertaking these sort of major tasks. Make no mistake about it – this is a major undertaking and it is one that is of national importance.

I think the choice of Mr Khaw Boon Wan is something that not just the Government but in fact the management shareholders were very keen on. As I said, it was a discussion that we had. This is not the kind of position for which we have a very long shortlist or that we would do a global search. In the end, you have to decide on the basis of what is needed, what are the attributes we seek and how do we go forward. That is what happened here.

And therefore, is this a missed opportunity? I think what would be a missed opportunity is, if we allow political considerations to prevent us from making the right decision, in terms of the right person for the job, to get it done. I think that is what we have sought to do.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as a consultant in the area of technology, media and telecommunications, I want to say that the proposed transfer to a non-profit structure for SPH away from the glare of investors' expectations seems to make sense and will give SPH more time to fundamentally transform. But, as said by the Minister, it is no panacea. I have two clarifications to ask of the Minister, building on some of the questions earlier raised by the Member Jessica Tan.

First, how will SPH maximise this opportunity for a fresh start? Which means, essentially, answering the question: what can you sell that is insightful, relevant and distinctive and provides an engaging audience experience, to whom and at what price? This will likely have to be consumer paid because advertising is not going to cut it. The fundamental source of competitive advantage here has become distribution and it has moved to the digital giants. And with what technology to support all this? How can you operate at a drastically lower level of cost in order to make money, including, for example, by moving to much more green-field tech platforms?

I recognise these are questions for the CLG, but I think what I would like to know is: is there an ambition within the CLG to think of SPH now more as a start-up to benefit from this fresh start, rather than incremental thinking?

How will the new entity be able to attract a visionary CEO in addition to talented journalists and editors but also tech people who see the noble mission of providing quality, independent journalism? In particular, can a bigger voice or a greater role be accorded to the internal staff, some of whom I know, have been pushing for change for a long time and love their jobs as SPH journalists in spite of the business uncertainty and in spite of all the accusations that they have partisan motives? They could have really good ideas under bold and inspiring leadership.

My second clarification is regarding vernacular newspapers. I would like to know if the preservation of Berita Harian and other vernacular newspapers will be an explicit condition for Government funding? Or if funding is given by other sources, will there be a mechanism to ensure that these vernacular newspapers, so important to our nation building, are explicitly retained?

Finally, I just want to say that journalism has always and will continue to benefit from various forms of subsidy, support and benevolence from various actors. Why? Because as Joseph Pulitzer once said, "Our republic and its press will rise or fall together." So, we do need solutions that enable high quality, independent journalism, not least local news and vernacular news, informing the communities about the events and people affecting their lives.

Minister, would you like to reply to those clarifications?

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for, firstly, the note of optimism that she has raised. Because in discussing this – the merits, the challenges, the concerns and so on – I think we must not lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity for the organisation and the people within to embark on the journey that they have travelled on up to now, but with a new beginning. I think that is the key thing.

In considering that, I do want to make the point because the Member said, "Will this CLG behave like a start-up or will there be just incremental change?" I think the best way I would put it is this. You want the zest, the energy, the drive, the invention of a start-up, but you do not want to lose the credibility, the trust, the quality, the people that we have nurtured all through these years. So, we want to have our cake and eat it. We want to be able to do both.

And I think it is very important that we recognise that because it is not about jettisoning everything and starting from scratch. But neither is it about being so hidebound that we are not prepared to discard some of the older or long-held propositions from a business point of view in order to pursue new ideas. So, I think we need a bit of both, or rather we need a lot of both.

This is where I think, as the Member has mentioned, the staff, the people who are within, are just as important as the people who are without to be brought in, in due course, to complement the capability of the organisation. The people who have been with the organisation – the journalists, the editors, the other staff – they bring a very valuable perspective. I think that has to be a part of the equation going forward, just as we need to bring in, whether it is technology-oriented people but also others who will be able to contribute and complement. Therefore, I think the most important thing here is having a team; a team that brings together the best capabilities in order to maximise the chance of success for this new CLG venture.

I think this is something Mr Khaw Boon Wan and I am sure the team, would be very seized with, including the process of finding not just an appropriate CEO but filling other talent requirements within the organisation.

The Member raised another very important point which pertains to the vernacular media. As I said, the stresses that the industry is under today, in particular, SPH Media, means that if nothing were done, then the capacity within the newsrooms would diminish because cost cutting would be inevitable. I think amongst the first and most at-risk will be the vernacular media because they have got a smaller circulation. If you take a purely business logic to this, then I think the outcomes can be quite detrimental from a national cohesion point of view.

So, certainly, as I have said, we want to preserve the voice of our vernacular media. This is an important part of what my colleague Mr Edwin Tong has called the tapestry of Singapore society. We have to make sure that we pull that and ensure that that remains an important part of the overall entity that is the CLG and all its news media operations.

So, we would want to be very clear about this aspect. But how they achieve it is a different matter. If I can put it another way, the Member's questions revolved around: what are they going to do? How are they going to do it? Whom are they going to do it for? What price are they going to impose and the financial model?

All of these are very important questions but they are not questions that the Government should be answering. Because ultimately, we have to put it to the Board and management, and for them to come back and tell us exactly what they have in mind, what are the pivots and changes, maybe even the reinvention they envisage. And, in that context, what we need to do or what we can do – from the Government – to support.

I see many hands. It looks like many Members want to be part of this narrative, this important narrative. I ask for the Members to keep their clarifications short so that I can call on both sides of the House and give each Member who wants to speak a chance to speak. So, clarifications very short, please. Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, very briefly, as we have been enjoined to do, I think with this latest move, the Government seems to acknowledge that commercially, it is very challenging to run a media operation, hence, the transition to the CLG structure. Given this context and given the NPPA regime where broadsheet newspapers need to obtain NPPA licences, going forward, will the Government consider practising a light touch in awarding licences to Singaporean-owned companies who feel that they might want to enter this space and give it a go? Because, they feel that they can innovate and somehow overcome these commercial hurdles as some media organisations in other parts of the world, like The Guardian in the UK, for example, have done.

Secondly, I welcome the Minister's emphasis that the new entity must be seen to be non-partisan, objective and independent. To that end, would the Minister consider – either the CLG doing this or the Government doing this – to set KPIs that are regularly measured to ensure that the public actually believes in the independence of the new CLG, in its editorial independence, and to measure that regularly, given that taxpayer monies will be pumped in?

And lastly, I would just like to ask a question about how senior editorial appointments in the new CLG will be made. In his memoirs, the former chief of SPH, Mr Cheong Yip Seng wrote on page 432, and I quote, "the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act gives the Government veto powers over who gets to edit newspapers". He is referring to his experience some time ago. I asked a Parliamentary Question more recently about whether the Government plays a role in newspaper editorial —

Mr Perera, could you just ask your clarification?

Yes. So, it appears that the Government does not. My question would be: would the Minister consider creating a structure within the CLG to ensure that senior editorial appointments are seen to be independent and safeguarded from any kind of influence whatsoever, and that is seen to be the case?

I thank the Member for his questions. The first is NPPA and whether we would have a light touch and allow more entries into the market. First of all, I think when we are addressing this, let us diagnose the situation correctly. As I said, the issue is not around NPPA or no NPPA restrictions. It is not around Government funding or not Government funding. It is actually a circumstance that is the result of technological trends which have now made the financial model of this business of the news media a much more challenging one. So, we need to address that squarely, first.

But can we allow more entries into the market? I think we have a fairly vibrant news media. I am not sure that they are all going to be in the traditional mode. Members would know, for example, that we have some newer players, like Mothership, Rice Media and so on. And I think what we are essentially saying is that, you have to look at it as an overall eco-system and it is an eco-system where we will have new entrants coming in. You will also have some of our traditional mainstream media – in this case, Mediacorp as well as SPH Media. And we also have the international media who have a very strong presence here in Singapore. So, we have to look at it from an eco-system perspective. It is not about singularly pursuing one aspect, but it is trying to ensure the overall local media grows and is able to hold its own vis-a-vis some of the broader competition it faces and the challenges we have talked about. So, that is the context in which I think we will look at it.

Secondly, KPIs. Will there be KPIs? I understand what the Member is saying. If I could refer the Member back to what I have said in my earlier comments not just in my Ministerial Statement but subsequently. In fact, that has been one of the key things we look at. So, as I have said, it is not just what Singaporeans say – which is important – in surveys and so on. It is also what they do in terms of which sites do they go to, how many page views are they getting, what is the dwell time and so on? These are all metrics and I think the Member would be very aware that there are various metrics that can be used in order to measure this, the engagement of the audience. And this is certainly something that we would want to ensure is achieved. And if people do not trust our local media as a credible source of information, then I think these metrics will suffer.

I wanted to just make one clarification on senior editorial appointments. The Government does not exercise a veto on those appointments. The decisions on those are made by management; shareholders have a say in that matter. So, just to be very clear. The Government has a say on some other matters. But when it comes to the senior editorial appointments, it is all subject to the management, shareholders' approval.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have got two clarifications, please.

First, we know that journalists play a critical role in society and nation-building. I would like to ask what impact will the restructured model have on the lives and livelihoods of existing SPH media employees. In addition, is there likely to be any further downsizing as part of the transfer of SPH's media business to the CLG and, if so, will the Government ensure that any employees in transition are supported?

My second clarification in Malay, please, Sir, adding on to my hon colleague Ms Mariam Jaafar's question earlier.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Local papers like Berita Harian play an important role as a source of news and information for our community, especially for our senior citizens and they highlight stories of pride, interest and concern to the community.

I would like to ask whether the Government funding will include support for the mother tongue newsrooms to embrace digital transformation and ensure that readers continue to have diversity and the highest quality in our mother tongue newspapers.

(In English): Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member. I share – and I think we all do – the desire to ensure that our journalists continue to be able to pursue rewarding, fulfilling careers in this very important profession. Indeed, we want to ensure that that continues to be the case even after this restructuring.

Specifically, are there any retrenchment rationalisation? The terms of the proposal, as I understand it as of now, are to have the entire team move over and, therefore, no attritions are intended. I also believe that the desire is more to build on the capabilities that we have and to see how we can attract new talent to augment what is already in there. So, I think the first order of business for the Chairman and the CLG Board and management would really be, amongst other things, as I have said in response earlier to Ms Jessica Tan, that it is not just about the business aspects and the financial aspects, but it is also about the people aspects and this must be given importance. And this is something that, from the Government's perspective, we think is critical because, to reiterate a point I made earlier, it does not make sense to talk about quality journalism if you do not have the quality journalists and editors in the newsrooms. And that is key.

On the vernacular media – and I think the Member's point was specifically about the Malay media – I, again, want to reiterate the response that I gave earlier to Ms Mariam Jaafar. Essentially, the vernacular media are a key part of our news media in Singapore because of the voice it gives to the different communities, no matter their size, and, through that, giving them a say and a visible participation in the common space. So, I think it is something that is treasured, something that we have nurtured through the years and it is not something that we want to lose. So, certainly, in the course of this transition, we would want to ensure that that commitment to our vernacular media remains.

Now, how the vernacular media evolves, what path they take, that, I think, is something we should have a more open mind about because, in the end, they have to adapt to the needs of the community, the needs of their readers, and work out a model that sustains the interest and earns the trust of the communities they serve.

I will allow two more clarifications: Mr Pritam Singh and then closing with Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just following up from my first list of clarifications.

Yes.

I asked about the time when the Government first informed SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business and I also asked about the size of that grant. I would be surprised if the Government had not considered what would be the extent of the grant that it would extend to the CLG. So, can the Minister share with us if there is any ballpark figure as to what is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be going to the CLG?

The Minister made a point about the standards of journalism. It is not a simple issue to address in the course of a Ministerial Statement. But my generation, at least, remember this headline, this cover page in the New Paper, which was in 1997, at a very sensitive time just during the elections. It contained a checklist to help you decide how to vote. The Minister spoke earlier about objectivity and balance. The only thing objective about this cover page is the EPL scores – no-win for Liverpool and also for Manchester United.

The checklist, essentially, told the voters what you are voting for. If you vote for the PAP, you are voting for upgrading, Edusave and Members of Parliament of acceptable character.

Mr Pritam Singh, if I could ask you to ask your clarification rather than expound in a speech. Thank you.

I will come to that, Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I will be brief.

But I would agree with the Minister to the extent that one has to be fair to the journalists because there are good journalists. And a good example can be found in a piece published on 1 May this year. The Chinese Media Group head of Zaobao, Lee Huay Leng asked some very serious questions about the leadership transition to the 4G leadership and, she said, "internal competition is intense; there is no consensus to pick any one". On the other hand, the English papers, "a major Cabinet reshuffle but now is not the time to read the tea leaves". So, there can be different views on the quality and the standards of journalism and it is for that reason that I put my earlier question to the Minister about a Select Committee and to try and get some understanding from the public what they expect of a taxpayer-funded CLG.

I note the comment the Minister made about the surveys. But I think this is an opportunity to hear from the public and I hope the Government can consider this favourably.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to make political capital out of something that I think is quite fundamentally important to us. Even in the examples that he cites, in a way, he has already illustrated the point that I am making. He went back to 1997 to bring out an example and then he says, just this year, the Chinese media put one point of view and the English media put another point of view. Is this not the diversity that we want? Is it not the diversity that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about?

So, I am not very clear why he thinks the current model is not succeeding. Is it perfect? No. I would challenge him to show me a model that works and that is perfect. But is it one that works in our context? I think it does. With some areas for improvement? Certainly. But it is an evolutionary process. And even in the examples that the Leader of the Opposition cites, I think it is quite clear. And I would add that what we want at the end of the day is not posturing, but substance. So, if we can achieve that, not just in the news media, but also in this Chamber, I think we would have gone a long way to building a stronger country and nation.

As for the funding, the Leader of the Opposition asked for ballpark numbers. But that is precisely the problem, is it not? I think we should be talking about these sorts of matters when we have greater clarity because, to throw a ballpark number, and if I give Members a range, then the question would be, "Oh, it is a very big range. Can you narrow it down?" And if I say, "No, I cannot", then we go back to square one.

So, the point is we are doing the responsible thing here, from the Government's point of view. Not just to say that we support the restructuring – because we could have stopped there – but we went a step further to say that we would be prepared to fund the CLG. That is a significant point which should not be overlooked. And, clearly, when the funding is finally decided upon, it will have to come back to this Chamber because it will be part of the budget of MCI and the Member and his party would have ample opportunity to ask all the specific questions.

But let us not miss the wood for the trees. It is not about the details right now. It is about the overall thrust of what we are trying to do. Is it the right thing to do? Is our news media an important public good that we should be supporting? And, if so, has it done a good job up to now in the models that we have used? And, if yes, then let us work with that and build on it rather than talk about a complete wholesale overhaul.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two clarifications, the first one in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Bilingualism is an important characteristic of our education system. Being bilingual helps us to stay connected with our mother tongue cultures and it strengthens Singapore's global role as a cultural and economic bridge. I think this is important. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that the high standards of our vernacular newspapers are maintained.

Just now, Minister said that they would ask vernacular newspapers to be preserved after restructuring. I would like to ask further, since the Government will provide funding for the CLG, can we expect them to maintain the high standards of their content, including the reporting of international events and providing insightful analyses on current affairs? Lianhe Zaobao has won a hard-earned international award, let us continue to support them. I hope that the Minister can give us more information on this.

(In English): The second point is about establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally. I think this is very important. Helping our papers to be able to be circulated internationally is a very critical part, in addition to the national cohesion, national public good in Singapore. So, again, I would like to ask Minister, whether this is something that is on the agenda or one of the parameters that we may require the new CLG to look into in the move ahead. And whether there will be resources or funding set aside to build such capabilities?

Can you clarify about the international query?

Establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally is important. So, how can we build up that ability to ensure that we can be circulated internationally?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her points. I think it is very important that we take this opportunity to once again, reiterate the commitment to the vernacular media, as part of this and any future restructuring or other changes that may occur. They are important pillars in our multi-ethnic fabric.

I think I have made the point about the important role that they play, and in particular, by giving voice to the particular community. For that reason alone, we should be focused on how we can give them not just resources, but really the motivation and ambition to be more.

I think that is the other point that the Member has raised, which is from an international point of view. For example, and I think specifically in the context of say, the Chinese media, I am sure it will not be lost on many within the SPH organisation but also those who are going to be involved later, that our Chinese media has significant potential to not just cater to the needs of Singaporeans, but also to be able to present a perspective on international affairs. I think it will be a very valued one because it will represent the Singapore point of view, which would be seen as being objective. And it will also be one that would be valuable to Singaporeans because there will be a chance to understand some of these international developments through the lens of Singaporeans and how they assess this in terms of its impact on us and our long-term interests.

So, for all those reasons, I think we will want to make sure that the vernacular media do not just pivot to digital, but actually develop additional important capabilities to meet this broader need that we have. I think this is something that I would have to defer to the CLG Chairman and the members of the Board and the management, who will then have to take this forward. But I think from a Government point of view, certainly there should be no doubt as to where we stand on the issue. I thank the Member for bringing it up.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Home Affairs.

[(proc text) "to provide for registration of births, deaths and stillbirths, to repeal the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Chapter 267 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs 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 Mental Capacity Act and to make a related amendment to the Electronic Transactions Act", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development; 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) First Reading. (proc text)]

Sir, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill, to be laid upon the Table.

[(proc text) Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister for National Development. (proc text)]

The Certificate is in order. Minister, please proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020."

[(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Minister, Second Reading when?

With regard to Second Reading, tomorrow, Sir.

So be it. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

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

Sir, first, let me set the context behind this Bill. To do so, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the handout, please?

Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

Members may also access this handout through the SG PARL MP mobile app. Mr Deputy Speaker, over the next 15 years, Singapore will be making bold investments in major infrastructure that will benefit both the current and future generations. This generational upgrade in our infrastructure will greatly enhance the connectivity, liveability and sustainability of our home. Taken together, we expect an upcoming hump in development expenditure of around 5% of GDP annually, higher than our baseline or average development expenditure of 3.7%.

This expenditure is over and above other infrastructural investments that we will continue to make, in areas like building more healthcare and education facilities.

We plan to build new MRT lines such as the Cross Island Line and Jurong Region Line. MRT is the most efficient and greenest mode of transport. We want to raise the mass public transport modal share during peak hours from 64% now to 75% by 2030. New MRT lines will move us closer to the vision of a 45-minute city with 20-minute towns by 2040 and bring greener transport options closer to more Singaporeans.

Another example is the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, or DTSS. The DTSS will meet our long-term needs for used water collection, treatment, reclamation and disposal. As part of the second phase of DTSS, the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant will be able to treat up to 800,000 cubic metres of used water per day. This is equivalent to 320 Olympic-sized swimming pools. This will enhance our water resilience, in the face of larger fluctuations in rainfall.

Other examples of major, long-term infrastructure that we are building or expecting to build include major highways, such as the North-South Corridor which will alleviate congestion on the CTE, as well as coastal protection infrastructure to protect us against rising sea levels caused by climate change. Agencies are already embarking on site-specific studies at our coastlines, to examine potential measures like sea walls and polders. We expect more expenditure on climate change beyond 2030.

This Bill before the House today will permit the Government to borrow for these major, long-term infrastructures, subject to strict safeguards, under the new Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA for short.

Given this upcoming hump in development expenditure that I just described, borrowing is a fair approach, because it allows each generation that benefits from the infrastructure to pay for its share. Otherwise, taxpayers in the next decade will need to finance much of this lumpy infrastructure that has a useful life of 50 years or more.

Borrowing in this context is also efficient. First, with Singapore's AAA rating, we are likely able to tap the debt market at favourable interest rates.

Second, by borrowing instead of drawing on investments, our reserves can remain invested to earn returns. We can tap on these returns to supplement our Budget through the Net Investment Returns Contribution, or NIRC. Other alternatives to borrowing include raising taxes temporarily, diverting resources from other spending needs such as social spending, or delaying significant infrastructure investments; however, all these options would be less efficient and more costly to the nation.

Borrowing for infrastructure is not new. As a fledgling state with no natural resources, we had borrowed to finance large infrastructure investments to help build Singapore in the past.

Singapore launched our first Development Plan in 1961, an ambitious $871 million plan to kickstart industrialisation and economic development. We borrowed from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and paid these debts back steadily and on time.

In the 1980s, we borrowed to finance a wave of major infrastructure projects that we continue to benefit from today. These projects include Changi Airport Terminals 1 and 2, and our first MRT lines, the North-South and East-West lines.

By the early 1990s, our economy was growing rapidly, aided by our young demographic. This led to buoyant revenues, which allowed the Government to meet all its expenditure needs and pay down the earlier debts. In addition, with prudent management of our finances, we were able to run healthy Budget surpluses and build up our reserves. There was no need for us to borrow to pay for major infrastructure expenditure.

While we must continue to build for our future, including significant infrastructure, such as MRT lines and coastal protection infrastructure, our economy and demographic are now more mature. Given our ageing demographic and less scope for catch-up productivity growth, we cannot expect our economy to grow rapidly in the future.

Hence, we will not have the same buoyant revenues as before to pay for large infrastructure expenditure upfront. Instead, we will reactivate Government borrowing.

Our approach on borrowing should remain prudent and disciplined.

First, we will not borrow for just any kind of development expenditure. We will set a high bar for qualifying projects that can be financed by borrowing.

Second, we must ensure that we do not overly burden future governments with high debt servicing costs, which will reduce the resources available for spending on worthwhile services and subsidies for our people. Hence, we will impose both strict borrowing and interest limits.

We have benefited from the prudence of previous generations, who set aside surpluses then, when our economy was growing rapidly. This is why we have our reserves and a Reserves Protection Framework. Let us not forget that the opposite of reserves is debt. Today, the NIRC adds about 3% of our GDP to our total revenue. For most advanced economies, 1%-3% of GDP is spent on debt servicing costs.

We must be careful not to slide from a position of having net assets to one of having net debt. Otherwise, instead of having assets that earn a stream of earnings to add to our revenue for future spending, we will be committing resources to servicing debts incurred by earlier generations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now explain how we have included these safeguards in the Bill, which will apply in addition to the Reserves Protection Framework.

The earlier Development Loan Acts in the 1960s to 1980s that permitted Government borrowing for spending on development did not set out criteria for the type of development that qualifies. However, given that our economy is maturing and we are no longer expecting the same high growth and high fiscal surpluses as before, we have set out a prudent and disciplined approach.

Today, all Government development projects go through a rigorous multi-stage evaluation process to ensure project worthiness and cost effectiveness. All infrastructure projects will also need to obtain Ministers' approval before they can be built. SINGA projects will undergo the same scrutiny.

In addition, under the SINGA Bill, nationally significant infrastructure projects must satisfy four requirements.

One, it must be major in size. Two, it must be important to Singapore's national interests and benefit the general public. Three, it must last multiple generations. And four, it must be owned by the Government.

First, nationally significant projects will have to cost at least $4 billion. This is set out in clause 11(5a).

Nationally significant infrastructure projects tend to be big-ticket items as they are major and complex in nature. The $4 billion threshold will capture major, lumpy development needs that form the upcoming "hump" above our baseline development expenditure.

It will also exclude smaller-scale infrastructure, such as schools and polyclinics. Such smaller scale infrastructure makes up the base of our annual development expenditure and should continue to be funded from taxes and other revenues.

Clause 11 of the Bill sets out the criteria for determining the costs of the project.

First, recurrent expenditure related to the nationally significant infrastructure, such as costs of repair and maintenance and purchase of vehicles, is excluded.

Second, the cost of acquiring land is excluded as well.

Third, the Bill permits projects to be built in phases, such as our MRT lines. Where these phases have been planned for right from the start, the costs of all phases of the infrastructure project can count towards the $4 billion threshold, if the different phases or components of the project are linked either physically or operationally. In short, we can view such a project as one system of integrated and inter-connected components.

For example, the cost of the entire Cross Island Line will count towards the same project value threshold because all its stations and rail tracks are physically connected to each other. The entire Cross Island Line is also expected to operate in its entirety, interchanging with all other MRT lines, existing and planned.

In the case of the different infrastructure components that are required to protect us against rising sea levels, they are linked operationally but not physically. They may not be physically connected to each other because they may be triggered at certain locations. However, the costs of these components will also count towards the same project value threshold because the components need to work in tandem to protect our coastlines.

For separate infrastructure projects that are not linked physically and can operate independently, the SINGA does not permit these projects to be bundled together in order to meet the $4 billion threshold. For example, the costs of individual hospitals will not count towards the same project value threshold, as each hospital can function as a standalone. When one hospital is down, other hospitals can continue to run and they may even pick up some of the slack in providing healthcare capacity. In contrast, if a component of an MRT line or coastal protection infrastructure is not built, the whole system would not be able to function as intended.

I turn to the second requirement, which requires the infrastructure project to be important to our national interests and benefit the general public in Singapore. This is set out in clause 2, under the definition of "nationally significant infrastructure", as being one that is "likely to materially improve national productivity or Singapore's economic, social or environmental sustainability" and in clause 2 as being "intended principally for use by or for the benefit of the present and future generations of the general public".

New MRT lines will qualify, because these enhance liveability, promote economic activity by improving connectivity and are the greenest mode of transport in the long run.

The Bill provides a list of examples that meet these objectives, such as transport infrastructure, climate change-related infrastructure, as well as utility network infrastructure. This list is non-exhaustive. This is because we can never know today, what we may need in the future. What is important is that we are targeting those projects with benefits that accrue widely to Singapore as a whole, or to a large majority of our people.

In order to adhere to the spirit of this thinking without trying to predict too far into the future, we have safeguards that I have mentioned earlier, to ensure that the Government will use this carefully.

The third requirement, as set out in clause 11(2), is for the resulting nationally significant infrastructure to have a useful life of at least 50 years. This ensures that the infrastructure project will benefit more than one generation of citizens.

To be clear, the useful life of an infrastructure is not necessarily the same as its physical life. The physical life can be shorter, if we expect that the infrastructure may no longer serve its intended function sometime in the future, for example, if it is likely to be rendered obsolete by technological advances after a period of time.

We will use the useful life of the infrastructure to determine the depreciation period of the capitalised assets. This is fair as it ensures that depreciation costs are spread only across generations who will benefit from the infrastructure.

Lastly, all nationally significant infrastructure financed by borrowings must be legally owned by the Government. This ensures that the qualifying infrastructure assets can be capitalised on the Government's accounts.

In addition, the asset must be controlled either by the Government or another entity on behalf of the Government. This ensures that the Government retains ultimate oversight over the infrastructure assets, to incentivise proper upkeep and maintenance, so generations of Singaporeans can benefit.

To give an example, the North-South Corridor will qualify under SINGA, because it is an asset owned by the Government and is controlled by another entity, namely LTA, on behalf of the Government.

The four qualifying requirements that I have touched on set out the projects that can qualify as nationally significant infrastructure. In addition, the Bill sets out limits to ensure that the amount the Government borrow is equitable and sustainable. This is to ensure that future generations are not saddled with a high debt burden.

Clause 5 imposes two restrictions: a gross borrowing limit and an annual effective interest cost threshold.

Together, these restrictions ensure that future Governments will be able to afford the principal and interest costs, while having sufficient fiscal space to fund their priorities of the day.

The gross borrowing limit is set at $90 billion under the Bill. This sum reflects the projected pipeline of nationally significant infrastructure over the next 15 years, after adjusting for inflation.

Ninety billion dollars is approximately 20% of today's annual GDP at current market prices. This is lower than the borrowing limits of Development Loan Acts which previously allowed the Government to borrow for development expenditure in the 1960s to 1980s. Previous borrowing limits averaged 40% of GDP in the year the Acts were introduced. It is thus a reasonable figure given our more mature economy.

I should emphasise that the borrowing limit is a gross limit and not a rolling limit. Once the Government has raised a borrowing under SINGA, that amount will be counted towards the total borrowing limit, even after the loan has been repaid.

After the $90 billion limit is reached, the Government will have to amend the borrowing limit by passing a new Bill in Parliament in order to borrow further sums under SINGA. In doing so, it will need to justify such further borrowings to finance infrastructure projects that are of national importance.

In other words, this Bill that we are legislating is limited to enable the Government of the day to borrow to meet the significant infrastructure needs in the coming years up to a maximum of $90 billion, as we undertake this generational upgrade.

If there are further needs beyond the $90 billion, future terms of Parliament will have to debate and approve further measures to meet these needs.

As set out in clause 5(2), refinanced borrowings will not count towards this $90 billion limit. This is because there is no corresponding spending on and capitalisation of nationally significant infrastructure. Allowing for refinancing, gives the Government of-the-day the flexibility to manage borrowing costs efficiently across interest rate cycles. For instance, the Government may issue bonds across a range of tenors and refinance when the bonds mature.

Hence, the Bill provides for borrowings for the purpose of refinancing, even after the $90 billion borrowing limit is reached.

The second restriction is an effective interest cost threshold of $5 billion per annum. Five billion dollars interest against the $90 billion cap works out to be an effective interest rate of about 5.5%. This threshold ensures we limit our borrowings when interest rates are very high, as interest costs will have to be borne by future generations.

The annual effective interest cost will be calculated based on the effective interest costs paid in the preceding financial year. If the effective interest paid exceeds $5 billon, the Government will not be allowed to borrow more in the next financial year.

Allow me to illustrate how the threshold will work. The recent 30-year SGS that was auctioned in January 2021 had a cut-off yield of 1.4%. If we borrow the full $90 billion based on this rate, the annual interest costs will be $1.3 billion, which is below the $5 billion threshold. But we cannot expect interest rates to remain at low levels forever. Historically, the longest period where SGS yields remained low did not last for more than two years, and this was in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis from 2011 to 2012.

So, interest rates may continue to stay low or may increase in the future and we have to be prepared for that. In fact, the cut-off yield of a 30-year SGS went up to 2.94% in February 2018, which is not too long ago.

We have also examined the interest rate trends for SGS over the past 25 years. Cut-off yields of SGS with tenors of more than 10 years have ranged from a low of 0.93% as recently as July 2020, and to a high of 5.87% in 1998 when global interest rates were higher. The $5 billion threshold thus provides some buffer for us to cater to such scenarios.

We will, however, limit the maximum amount that can be borrowed if interest rates are overly high and the interest cost threshold achieves this objective. For example, if interest rates averaged around 10%, then the interest cost threshold will constrain the amount of borrowings under SINGA to $50 billion, notwithstanding the gross borrowing limit of $90 billion.

Setting the threshold at $5 billion therefore helps us to balance between fiscal sustainability and flexibility to accommodate market fluctuations.

A $5 billion threshold caps the interest costs at around 1% of our GDP in 2020 at current market prices. This is a fiscally sustainable level and would not excessively impinge on future Government's ability to fund other priorities of the day. It also provides a buffer to account for interest rates rising and falling through the cycle, as the Government borrows at different points in time to finance infrastructure as and when we need to build them. Let me elaborate.

The cost of borrowing is fixed at the prevailing yield during each bond issuance. As the Government issues bonds over several years, it will lock in interest rates at different points in the interest rate cycle. This means that even if some borrowings needed to be made during periods of high interest rates, there would have been borrowings that were made, or will be made, during periods of low interest rates, so the costs of borrowing will be averaged out over time. Further, the $5 billion threshold translates to borrowing cost of 5.5%, for $90 billion borrowing, which is high relative to historical borrowing rates. The last time when 10-year borrowing costs exceeded this level was in 1998.

With all its fiscal expenditure, the Government will be transparent in reporting the use of borrowings to finance nationally significant infrastructure. When borrowings are used to meet progress payments for nationally significant infrastructure, such spending will be reported in the annual Budget Statement and the Government Financial Statements (GFS), together with annual depreciation expenses and interest costs. Additionally, we will submit a statement of assets financed under SINGA to the President annually to ensure accountability.

Sir, let me now explain how this Bill will impact our Current Reserves and annual Budget balance.

Presently, the development costs of infrastructure are financed using revenues accruing to the Current Reserves and fully expensed upfront in the annual Budget. In other words, Government's annual Budget balance is reduced by the full development costs of any infrastructure that is paid in that year.

With borrowing, the Government will be able to raise cash to meet the outlays for these major, long-term infrastructure projects. But borrowing is not revenue and does not increase the Current Reserves that we can allocate in the annual Budget. This is why the Bill also provides for the capitalisation of infrastructure projects that are financed under SINGA. In other words, the development cost of major, long-term infrastructure will be financed using borrowings raised under SINGA, capitalised as assets and depreciated over the useful life of the infrastructure. Depreciation of SINGA assets, as well as borrowing costs, will be expensed against the annual Budget balance and will reduce Current Reserves of each term of Government over the assets' useful life.

As such, development expenditure financed by SINGA will affect the Current Reserves differently, compared to regular development expenditure. The Budget presentation will reflect this treatment. This better matches the timing of benefits with the timing of spending. Present and future generations of Singaporeans will both contribute to and benefit from such infrastructure. Put together, this approach will smoothen the upcoming hump in development expenditure and lower our average development expenditure over the next decade from around 5% of GDP to 4.2% of GDP, after taking into account depreciation and borrowing costs.

Let me explain using an example. Assume an MRT line that costs $14 billion and has a useful life of 70 years. Currently, we would expense the full $14 billion upfront, which reduce our annual Budget balance by the full $14 billion over the construction period, which may be over a period of say, 10 years. Assuming equal progress in every year, this would mean expenditure of $1.4 billion per year.

Under SINGA, the $1.4 billion cash payment for each year will still form part of the development estimates in our annual Budget, which are subject to Parliament's approval and President's assent. However, we will add back this $1.4 billion in computing our annual Budget balance as this $1.4 billion will be capitalised as an asset.

Upon completion of the construction, we will spread the total development costs of $14 billion over the MRT line's useful life of 70 years, by expensing annual depreciation costs of about $200 million instead. This means that our annual Budget balance will be reduced by $200 million over 70 years, before borrowing costs.

Clause 29 of the Bill will amend the Financial Procedure Act to allow for nationally significant infrastructure financed by borrowings to be capitalised as assets and depreciated over the useful life of the infrastructure.

The Reserves Protection Framework will continue to apply as well. If the Government runs a deficit, including depreciation and borrowing cost of SINGA assets, and do not have sufficient Current Reserves, there will be a draw on Past Reserves. Each term of Government will need to run a balanced Budget over its term, maintaining the fiscal discipline to ensure that we do not spend beyond our means. This fundamental principle remains unchanged with SINGA.

We had sought the President's in-principle support in February this year for the Government to borrow for and capitalise nationally significant infrastructure under SINGA. And as with the case for all Bills to become law, we will also seek the President's assent to this Bill. Under Article 144 of our Constitution, the President has the discretion to withhold assent to any Bill providing for the borrowing of money by the Government, if she is of the opinion that the Bill is likely to draw on Past Reserves. Only after Parliament has passed and the President assented to the Bill, will the Government be able to borrow for nationally significant infrastructure, up to a gross limit of $90 billion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make it clear that this Bill introduces a new form of Government borrowing to finance spending on nationally significant infrastructure.

This is distinct from existing borrowings under the Local Treasury Bills Act or LTBA and Government Securities Act or GSA, which are for specific non-spending purposes, such as for market development, meeting the investment needs of CPF and liquidity. All borrowing under the LTBA and GSA are invested and cannot be spent. Even if we were to borrow up to the $90 billion limit under SINGA to finance nationally significant infrastructure, the majority of our borrowings will continue to be under the LTBA and GSA, which are for non-spending purposes. Some commentators have incorrectly interpreted our high gross debt-to-GDP ratio as a sign of fiscal imprudence, when in fact, our assets are well in excess of our liabilities.

To address these misperceptions, we intend to clearly delineate the two types of borrowing in legislation. First, borrowings to finance spending on nationally significant infrastructure under the SINGA; and two, borrowings which are invested and cannot be spent under the LTBA and GSA. We intend to merge the LTBA and GSA into a single Act, as both are for non-spending purposes. The merger Bill will be tabled in Parliament in the coming months.

In addition, this Bill repeals the Development Loan Acts (DLAs) which previously allowed the Government to borrow for development expenditure in the 1960s to 1980s. This makes it clear that borrowing for developmental purposes going forward, can only take place under the new safeguards that are imposed under SINGA.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now conclude.

In 1965, shortly after Singapore became an independent nation, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "Over 100 years ago, this was a mudflat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear". Since Independence, infrastructure has played a major role in Singapore's remarkable physical transformation from mudflat to metropolis.

We built a world-class airport that has made us the open, globally connected city we are today. We created our first reservoir in the city and the largest reservoir in Singapore, the Marina Reservoir, by building a dam to keep out seawater. This innovative method provides us with an additional source of water supply and helps alleviate flooding in low-lying areas of the city.

The Downtown Line, which opened in end 2015, reaches out to residential areas such as Bukit Panjang, MacPherson and Bedok Reservoir that were previously not served by the MRT, cutting travel times for Singaporeans living in these areas and connecting people to the city centre.

Moving forward, infrastructure will remain important as our country enters into its next phase of development. We will turn our metropolis into a green, global city that is robust in addressing future challenges. We are building a sewerage system that helps us recycle every drop of water in a never-ending loop. We will bring green and efficient transport options closer to more Singaporeans. We will build coastal protection infrastructure to protect our coasts from rising sea levels caused by climate change.

And in so doing, we will build a Singapore where we and our children can live our best lives in a safe, green and liveable environment, for all time and seasons to come.

This Bill will allow the Government to borrow so that we can make bold and necessary infrastructure investments that are critical to Singapore's long-term development – just as our forefathers did.

It provides an additional fiscal tool to continue to build Singapore for the future. It adheres to our prudent fiscal approach by ensuring that we do not risk borrowing beyond our means.

After all, all debt has to be paid for. If we do not borrow responsibly and sustainably, we would risk being unable to meet our debt obligations. This would jeopardise our credit rating as well as investor confidence and this will hurt us and our children in the future.

This Bill ensures that we borrow to spend only on nationally significant infrastructure investments which will benefit many generations of Singaporeans to come – in line with our values of taking a long-term view and staying prudent and responsible.

We are not borrowing to spend on expenditures that will be consumed quickly. Current generations should continue to pay for their own recurrent needs like healthcare expenditure through recurrent revenues such as taxes. This is the right and responsible thing to do.

Let us share the effort to build our nation together. Most importantly, let us never stop thinking about our future.

In the long journey of nation-building, each generation of Singaporeans are relay runners. Let us always take good care of what we have inherited, run our best race and pass on a better Singapore to those who come after us.

This Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Bill is but one step in this long journey. It seeks to do right by Singaporeans, both present and future, through the financial plans and provisions that we make today. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two aspects related to this Bill: firstly, on fiscal prudence and financial discipline, whether that has been undermined with the SINGA Bill; and secondly, on intergenerational equity, a somewhat new perspective that increasingly deserves our attention.