Hansard, Monday, 10 September 2012

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, I have on 27 August 2012 nominated Dr Janil Puthucheary and Mr Png Eng Huat to be Members of the Estimates Committee in place of Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and the former Member Mr Yaw Shin Leong respectively. The nominations took effect from 27 August 2012.

1 Dr Lily Neo askedthe Prime Minister (a) how is the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) set by Singapore banks; (b) whether the system is robust and whether it requires better governance; (c) what is the possibility of a SIBOR-rigging incident happening in Singapore; and (d) what is the impact of the London Interbank Offered Rate on financial institutions in Singapore.

Page: 583

2 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Prime Minister what is the Ministry's position on the appropriateness of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate being used as a benchmark in the setting of loan pricing in Singapore.

(for the Prime Minister) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this Question on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). And with your permission, I will take Question Nos 1 and 2 together.

Yes, please.

The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is an important interest rate benchmark that is used by market participants globally, including in Singapore, to directly price financial products or, indirectly, as a reference when setting interest rates. As an international financial centre, we host many global banks that trade and offer financial products that are referenced against LIBOR. The process for setting the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) is similar to that for interbank offered rates in several other jurisdictions. The basic model for most jurisdictions has followed that for LIBOR, which is set by the British Bankers' Association (BBA).

So, for us, the SIBOR is currently set by 12 participating banks, and published by the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS). Prior to 11.00 am every business day, each participating bank submits the interest rate at which it could borrow Singapore Dollars in the interbank market, at tenures ranging from one month to 12 months. These rates are then collated and ranked. The middle two quartiles – the middle band – of six submitted interest rates which are in the middle of the range – are then averaged to determine the official SIBOR, which means that the outliers, or the rates that are at the bottom and top end of the range, are not included in the computation of SIBOR. ABS publishes the SIBOR at 11.30 am daily.

As SIBOR is a measure of the cost of borrowing Singapore Dollars in the interbank market, banks have found it to be an appropriate benchmark to price their Singapore Dollar-denominated loans. Such loans include commercial term loans and residential property loans. Besides SIBOR, it is possible to peg contracts to other benchmarks of similar tenures, such as the Swap Offer Rate (SOR), central bank bills or Government bills and bonds. However, each benchmark will have its own unique characteristics so banks can decide. In 2009, ABS reviewed its rate-setting procedures and adopted several improvements. These included the establishment of a Financial Markets Committee to oversee the governance and procedures for daily rate setting; and establishing a minimum number of participating banks – 12 of them – and a minimum number of contributed rates for each daily setting – six rates. ABS also appointed an administrator to review the rates contributed by participating banks, including checking for consistent outliers and comparing with broker rates.

Page: 584

In line with the investigation into LIBOR, regulators in several jurisdictions are looking into how key market interest rate benchmarks have been set by banks. MAS is doing the same in Singapore, and has directed banks that are on the ABS' rates contributing panels to conduct independent reviews to verify the integrity of their rate-submission processes. Pending the completion of these reviews, it is premature to draw conclusions about the impact on financial institutions in Singapore.

MAS is also working with ABS and the Singapore Foreign Exchange Markets Committee (SFEMC) to review the SIBOR-setting process more fundamentally. The review will take into account what SIBOR is used for, how it can be strengthened, whether proposed changes are resilient to future changes in market structure, as well as the impact on the existing stock of contracts that are already pegged to SIBOR. We are mindful that any change will impact lenders and borrowers. Other jurisdictions are also reviewing their benchmark setting processes, and we will study those closely as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether SIBOR should be left to the Association of Banks Singapore (ABS) to decide, or should it be overseen by MAS instead? Secondly, is the Senior Minister of State concerned that the rates may be skewed in view of the fact that fewer than 12 banks are contributing to submissions to ABS presently, instead of the 17 banks in the past? Lastly, should the rates be the actual price at which banks can borrow, rather than the price at which they think they might be able to borrow on the market?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. I think these are very relevant questions which we are studying. The first point to make is we should look at the broader context of how SIBOR came about, or how LIBOR came about. These are price-discovery mechanisms for lending and borrowing between banks, and so the way these rates were fixed or set were done by associations, because these were inter-bank rates. That was what happened in the case of LIBOR and that is also how our SIBOR rates have evolved. These were inter-bank rates relevant between banks and so the Association of Banks got involved in setting these rates.

That was the historical context of how these rates evolved. Over time, these inter-bank rates also came to be used for other purposes – for loans to corporates, to individuals. And so, there is a case for stronger governance or for strong supervision over how these rates are being set. That is why we are now in the process of reviewing the SIBOR-setting process, looking at how the SIBOR can be more fundamentally strengthened. Pending the outcome of the review, I do not want to speculate on the sort of recommendations or the framework that we will end up with. It is something we are studying and MAS is, indeed, looking at it more fundamentally to see how SIBOR can be strengthened. We are also studying what other jurisdictions are doing because this is not just a matter for Singapore alone. Many other jurisdictions are also having similar reviews and studies. It is also a discussion happening at international forums, and so we are keeping track of these. As these reviews in other jurisdictions are taking place, we will also see whether there are implications and whether there are aspects which we can adapt and apply to our context.

Whether the rates may be skewed, whether we should use actual rates rather than nominated rates – these are all part of the considerations which we want to look at to see how fundamentally SIBOR can be strengthened. How can there be better transparency in the rate-setting process? How can there be use of actual data? It is something we have been studying and will continue to study. As I have said, it is something that many other jurisdictions are also looking at. They are all looking at similar issues: transparency, better price discovery so that the rate-setting process can be more robust and more rigorous. We share the same interests and we are studying. Once our review is completed, we will be able to have a more robust SIBOR-setting process.

Page: 585

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Senior Minister of State whether it is correct to say that the method used to set SIBOR is similar to the one used for LIBOR? The US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that the LIBOR system is structurally flawed and is a major problem for financial systems and for confidence in the financial system. May I seek the views of the Senior Minister of State on Mr Bernanke's remarks?

Sir, the system is similar. We evolved in a similar way, and so our rate-setting system and processes are similar. But we have, over time, strengthened our own processes. As I mentioned, in 2009, ABS did a review and we did strengthen our own governance process. So, I would say that in the case of SIBOR, we have some confidence that we have a good system. It is robust. But can it be improved? Certainly so. Would I want to comment on Mr Bernanke's remarks that LIBOR is structurally flawed? Well, he made the remarks about LIBOR, so that is his view on the LIBOR process, not on SIBOR. SIBOR has shared some similarities with the LIBOR processes, as I mentioned earlier. But we have strengthened our SIBOR-setting processes over time, and we will continue to do so.

Page: 585

3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development regarding NParks' recent purchase of bicycles (a) whether the tender for the purchase of the bicycles was widely publicised; (b) why the Tender Committee did not reject the offers and call for a re-tender when options from only one vendor were received; and (c) whether the tendered price was within the budget allocated.

4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government discovered any discrepancies in the recent purchase of Brompton bicycles by NParks; (b) whether the Ministry has investigated the purchase for possible breaches of procedures and possible conflict of interest between the sole tenderer and NParks officers and, if so, what are the results of the investigation; (c) what was the urgency in purchasing the bicycles which accounts for the unusually short tender window; and (d) whether the Ministry is reviewing its procurement procedures to introduce greater oversight of tender evaluations.

5 Mr Pritam Singh askedthe Minister for National Development with regard to the purchase of the Brompton bicycles, (a) what prompted the Ministry to initiate audit proceedings on the procurement process; and (b) what role did the online media, particularly the blog post on therealsingapore.com, play in (i) the Ministry's decision to report the matter to CPIB; and (ii) the Ministry's press statement on 24 July 2012.

Page: 586

6 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development regarding the recent purchase of the Brompton foldable bicycles by NParks (a) what budget was established for the purchase; (b) whether it was benchmarked to any reference price points; and (c) what was the variance, if any, between the budget and the eventual cost of the Brompton bicycles chosen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 to 6 together, please?

Yes, please.

I first knew of the NParks' purchase of 26 Brompton foldable bicycles on 22 June after reading an article in the Lianhe Zaobao. That day, I asked NParks to explain and address two key questions. First, why the need for foldable bicycles; and second, whether the procurement had been conducted properly. NParks replied to me on 30 June.

On the first question, NParks explained that the use of bicycles would enable the park officers to cover more ground and complete more work each day than they could otherwise manage on foot. Their work-load has increased significantly over the last two years. For instance, an additional 50 km of newly-completed park connectors have become part of the area for them to inspect. Furthermore, they have increased the frequency of tree inspections by more than 30%, in response to changing weather patterns.

They decided on foldable bicycles to give the park officers greater flexibility as they can use public transport to reach their various work locations. The alternative is for an office van to fetch them and the bicycles to and from their deployment sites each day, and that will be more costly. Moreover, some of the inspection tracks require them to cross roads using overhead bridges. A foldable bicycle is easier for the park officers, especially our female officers.

NParks conducted a market study of foldable bicycles which would be durable enough to meet the demands of heavy usage of up to 40 km for each field inspection and have multiple gears to manage rough terrains. They also tried out several models, bringing them on public transport to assess their portability, compactness and weight. A proposal to acquire 26 foldable bicycles at a budget capped at $2,200 per unit was then submitted to and subsequently approved by the NParks top management.

I was satisfied with NParks' explanation on their decision to introduce foldable bicycles for some of its park officers, to do their work more productively.

On the second question pertaining to the procurement process, NParks explained that they had followed the Government procurement procedures. An open invitation-to-quote (ITQ), based on a set of general specifications, was published via the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ) system. All Government agencies are required to publish quotations and tenders on the open platform of GeBIZ. It is to ensure equal opportunities to all suppliers in the market. This is an open transparent system which is well established and well-known in the industry.

NParks set aside a four-working day opening period for the ITQ, in line with the prevailing Government procurement rules then. When the quotation closed, NParks received two offers from one bidder: Brompton at $2,200 each and Bike Friday at $2,500 each. NParks proceeded to award the contract to the sole bidder for the less costly Brompton model.

Page: 587

While NParks had adhered to the procurement rules, I had some misgivings on the procurement outcome. Whenever a quotation or a tender attracts a single bidder, my instinct is to ask "why?" There must be many bicycle dealers out there. Why did they not take part? Will a longer opening period attract more competitive bids? Although a single bid can be accepted under the public service procurement rules, I thought NParks could have recalled the quotation with a longer opening period to try and get more bids. With greater competition, I feel that NParks might have gotten a better deal.

That day, on 30 June, I tasked the MND Internal Audit Team to scrutinise this transaction to see if there were shortcomings and whether there were lessons which we could learn from this episode. The MND Internal Audit Team concluded its investigation on 20 July. It went through NParks' internal investigation report, interviewed the relevant officers and external parties. It discovered several discrepancies and other evidence which collectively pointed to the possibility of bias in the procurement. As the findings were materially significant, we decided to report the matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) on 23 July. The next day, we issued a press statement to keep the public informed.

Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of the online media in our investigation. In any investigation, we look at all inputs, regardless of the source or the medium through which they are expressed. We, hence, welcome information, wherever they come from. In this specific case, the online media discussion made two observations. First, some netizens shared information on the various types of foldable bikes and their price range. This was helpful as it added to the body of information that the MND Audit team had collected as part of their investigation. Second, some netizens observed that the NParks officer involved in the purchase and the successful bidder were Facebook "friends". This piece of information was not new as the MND Audit Team working with NParks management had earlier examined the officer's Facebook and had noted over 300 Facebook "friends", among whom was not only the successful bidder but the other bike suppliers as well.

What was material to our decision to refer the case to the CPIB investigation were some disclosures by certain parties interviewed by the Audit Team. These critical facts were duly reported to the CPIB.

The CPIB investigations are still on-going. We should observe the due process of the law to allow all facts of the case to be surfaced in due course before passing any judgement.

Meanwhile, MND has tightened its procurement controls and introduced new measures to enhance oversight. In line with the procurement changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam last month, we have set seven working days instead of four, as the minimum opening period for the quotations called by our Statutory Boards in GeBIZ to encourage participation from more suppliers. Departments are also free to recall the quotations with a longer opening period if they feel that this would help secure more competitive bids. In addition, for quotations resulting in single bids, MND now requires any such awards to be cleared in person by the CEO or Deputy CEOs of our agencies. MND has also updated its internal procurement guide to sensitise and guide all our officers in their purchases.

Page: 588

Let me stress that we do not and will not condone any wrong-doing. When we discover it, we will not flinch from taking the right course of action. But we must do so in a measured and reasonable way. In the pursuit of justice, we should always act and conduct ourselves in a manner that is dispassionate, balanced and fair to all parties.

Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, how was the budget of $2,200 determined? In my view, this is high. Second question, are there any other cheaper bicycles that can equally do the job?

As I have explained in the reply, the NParks officers involved in this purchase did some market research, checked out various models and ascertained their retail prices. And based on that, they made their decision or made a judgement call that $2,200 as the upper-bound of the budget would be adequate. Whether it is high or low depends on needs, which really is the second question. Are there cheaper bikes? Of course, there are all kinds of bikes. I used to cycle as a kid. I remember my bicycle, at that time, was less than a hundred dollars, but the market price of such cheap units now is probably a couple of a hundred dollars. So, there is a wide range.

Members may have read in the newspapers that I have been cycling, picking up an old hobby but with a purpose because I wanted to check out our park connectors. I have covered many stretches of park connectors by now. My sense is this – the different stretches of park connectors are of different nature and the needs for bicycle type vary. For example, when I cycled with my Bruneian counterpart at the Punggol Waterway, it was an easy stretch. I think a low-cost, simple bicycle without gears, costing maybe a couple of hundred dollars, would suffice. But unfortunately, our NParks officers do not have a choice. We do have park connector stretches which the Hokkiens say "teruk". [Interruptions] Not Hokkiens. The Malays call it "teruk". [Laughter]

I had problems with some of those stretches myself. But, more importantly, what convinced me about the need for foldable bikes is that I have seen some stretches where we actually had to carry the bicycles up the overhead bridges. It might be temporary but whatever it is, that is part of the design of the park connectors at this point in time. It is not easy. If the Member would like to join me in some of my cycling trips, she is most welcome. Carrying all those bicycles, as I have said, is challenging, especially for our female staff.

So, I am convinced of the need for foldable bikes. Once we go in to foldable bikes, then again, there is a wide range. In fact, as I have cycled with my NParks colleagues, what I noticed was that many of them used their own bikes and when I checked with them, looked at their bikes, I found that their bikes are not cheap at all. Several thousands of dollars, but they buy it on their own. The question is, should an employer continue to take advantage of this – just because your staff have their own bicycles? The management decided that they should provide bicycles to some, not to everyone, but to some, depending on needs, and then the requirements will vary as to the requirements of the jobs.

I have deliberately tried out various models of bicycles. I have tried simple bicycles. I have tried a fixed frame bicycle, unfoldable. I have tried two different brands of foldable bikes by now, with different capabilities. As I said, if the tender has attracted many more bids, the outcome might have been very different. That is the reason why I posted that first blog comment to express some misgivings, in fact, unhappiness, that I think if we had attracted a wider range of bids, even for foldable bikes, we might have received a better deal.

Page: 589

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. According to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in his reply to Member of Parliament Cedric Foo in this House last month, Deputy Prime Minister stated that competency in procurement procedures amongst civil servants has been a problem, and that delegation and supervision are also concerns. Can the Minister please elaborate on how the procurement of assets and expendables has been tightened in his Ministry since the Brompton bicycle scandal broke out?

What action has the Ministry taken to ensure that a similar incident will not occur in future? I ask this because Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned that "the core of the clean and functioning procurement system lies on the active oversight and supervision within each Ministry and agency". It will be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what changes have been made in the Ministry of National Development.

Sir, I thought that was already in my reply.

Page: 589

7 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts & Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what are the sources of funding currently available to the Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs); (b) how are the funds allocated to the various MMOs; and (c) whether there are plans to review the funding allocation in order to support the growing and evolving priorities of the community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) play an important role in uplifting and raising the achievement level of the community. One key source of funding for MMOs comes from the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) via the CPF check-off scheme. Of the estimated $17.8 million collected in MBMF every year, Yayasan MENDAKI receives approximately $4 million, the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) $0.4 million and the other Malay/Muslim Organisations, $0.4 million. The remaining amount, Sir, is channelled to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) in support of the Mosque Building Programme and madrasah education.

MMOs, like any other charitable organisations, also rely on donations to run their programmes. The Government provides dollar-for-dollar matching grant for donations raised by Mendaki, AMP and the MMOs up to a yearly ceiling of $4 million. The matching cap to Mendaki is up to $2 million, AMP $1 million and the other MMOs $1 million.

Page: 590

Donations and matching grant to Mendaki and other MMOs are channelled to the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) to support Mendaki and MMO-initiated projects. The MMO component of MMCDF is managed by Mendaki on behalf of the MMOs. The MMCDF Committee plays the role of ensuring that the funds are channelled to projects and programmes that meet the key priorities of our community in areas of education, youth, family and employability. The funded programmes are reviewed on a regular basis on their performance and outcomes.

Sir, the current funding arrangement was put in place since 2001. Given the evolving and growing needs of the community, it is timely to undertake a review of the policy on the funding allocation for MMOs, with the objective of ensuring that funds continue to be channelled to priority areas and to MMOs that undertake work in these areas. We will carry out the review over the next few months.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. The Minister mentioned in his reply that there are reviews that will be made. Can the Minister please elaborate on the reviews that will be carried out, and how can it be ensured that the funds that are disbursed to the MMOs are really used according to the intended purposes?

Sir, on the second question, there is a committee chaired by a Member of the Board, Mr Salim Kader, that will review every project proposals by the MMOs, and to ensure that the project proposals fit into the overall thrust of Mendaki's work. Thus far, we have seen no reason to deny any of the project proposals because they have kept the proposals in line with the overall objective of Mendaki.

On the review, Sir, we recognise that many Malay/Muslim organisations, such as PPIS, 4PM, Muhammadiyah, have initiated many programmes and services to uplift the community and we recognise that these initiatives are commendable and are aligned with Mendaki's key thrust in the four areas that I have mentioned – education, youth, family and employability. The purpose of the review is really to identify the areas in the community which we require more support because, obviously, nothing is static and the MMOs can continue to build on their good work. We want to ensure that they are in a position to tackle the community's challenges and that they have a sufficient and steady flow of funds to help the community progress even further.

Supplementary question, Sir. Beyond the allocation of resources and funding, what else are we looking to strengthen the MMOs? And will capabilities and capacity building be looked at to meet with future challenges for the community? Also, about the renewal of leadership within the MMOs, is there anything for us to assist them to upgrade and improve the leadership?

Sir, the MMOs are independent organisations. So, we are in no position to suggest otherwise how the leadership renewal should take place. But, obviously, in line with other renewals which are taking place in the overall Singapore society, we would encourage the Malay/Muslim organisations to review their own long-term plans in terms of ensuring that there is a continuous flow of young, talented Malay/Muslim individuals that can take up leadership positions.

On the first point raised by the Member, apart from financial resources, Mendaki since 2002 or 2003 has started what we call the "policy forum" to allow a greater sharing of information and data with the Muslim organisations, so that they are in a better place to make an assessment of our challenges and, therefore, reflect further on the kinds of programmes. Apart from that, as and when it is necessary, Mendaki has undertaken training programmes at our expense. As an example, in 2005 or 2006 – I cannot remember the exact year – we conducted a training programme for youth counsellors because there was a lack of youth counsellors in the Malay/Muslim community, where we commissioned an expert from New Zealand to come down to Singapore, and we organised a two-week programme for the Malay/Muslim organisations. So, we will continue to explore other ways to strengthen the Malay/Muslim organisations.

Page: 591

The following question stood in the name of Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong –

To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether cycling is included in the Ministry's transport and infrastructure policy; (b) whether the Ministry has planned for the rising number of cyclists on the roads; and (c) whether a comprehensive and coordinated national strategy to promote cycling as a mode of transport will be introduced, including developing bike-friendly infrastructure and a regulatory framework for cycling.

9 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry has conducted a systematic study on how other developed cities with busy roads have integrated cycling into the traffic system with a coordinated network of lanes, road signages, road markings and traffic signals and, if so, what practical lessons have been drawn that can be implemented in Singapore.

10 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures does the Ministry intend to adopt to increase the safety of cyclists and reduce the risk of accidents on the roads; (b) whether the Ministry foresees a greater proportion of Singaporeans utilising cycling primarily as a means of transport; and (c) if so, how does the Ministry intend to plan for this shift in behaviour.

11 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the outcome of the $43 million pilot programme undertaken by the Ministry since 2009 to design and construct dedicated cycling paths in the five selected HDB towns of Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun; (b) whether there will be a detailed public report on the outcome of the programme; (c) what are the lessons learnt that can be applied to having similar cycling paths or cycling lanes in the rest of Singapore; and (d) what other lessons have the Cycling Facilitation Committee learnt that may be applied to improving safety for both cyclists and other road users.

12 Mr Nicholas Fang askedthe Minister for Transport given the current regulations requiring motorists to undergo training and testing before being licensed to go on the road, whether it is possible to (a) put in place a similar requirement for all cyclists to undergo training and education on safe road use before being allowed to take to the roads; and (b) increase information for motorists on how to drive safely in relation to cyclists in order to reduce the number of accidents involving cyclists on Singapore roads.

Page: 592

13 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of reported traffic accidents between pedal cyclists and motorists each year since 2008; (b) how many such fatalities have resulted each year since 2008; (c) what are the main causes of such accidents; and (d) whether there is a need to re-consider calls for bicycle-lane markings or dedicated cycling lanes on our roads to better protect our pedal cyclists.

14 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport given the increasing number of cyclists on the roads (a) what are the Ministry's plans for improving road safety for cyclists; (b) whether a campaign will be mounted to change the attitudes of motorists towards cyclists and to condition motorists to look out for them; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the penalty framework for driving offences that cause death to pedestrians and cyclists.

15 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent spate of traffic accidents including fatalities involving cyclists and motorists on Singapore roads (a) what measures have been taken in the last five years; and (b) what additional measures are in the pipeline to curb such injuries and loss of lives.

16 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many cyclists were killed in the last five years as a result of traffic accidents; (b) of these accidents, in how many cases were the cyclists deemed to be at fault; (c) whether the Traffic Police will consider publishing a list of cycling accident black spots; (d) how does the usual punishment for a driver causing the death of a cyclist compare with other criminal offences where a death was unintentionally caused; and (e) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the $20 composition fine on errant cyclists who are found to have flouted rules.

Question No 8, Sir.

(for the Minister for Transport) : Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 to16 together?

Yes, please.

Sir, I thank Members for their questions on cycling. In recent years, recognising its increasing popularity, my Ministry has taken active steps to facilitate cycling as a mode of transport, starting with a $43 million pilot programme in 2009 to construct dedicated cycling paths in five selected HDB towns − Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun. We have since expanded it to seven towns with Bedok and Changi-Simei coming on board. Now, under our National Cycling Plan and with the support of our partner agencies, we will also be rolling out basic cycling infrastructure in all new developments − in the new Marina Bay area, new housing estates, as well as during major estate upgrading programmes under the Remaking our Heartland (ROH) initiative by HDB.

These plans take time to roll out but, already, we have provided 6.4 km of dedicated cycling paths in the first five cycling towns. By 2014, this will increase to well over 50 km in our HDB towns. In addition, LTA has recently provided 1.5 km of cycling paths along the perimeter roads of the new Gardens by the Bay, and the plan is to provide up to 16 km of cycling paths in the Marina Bay downtown area as the area develops.

Page: 593

These cycling paths that we are building are dedicated off-road paths, allowing us to segregate cyclists from on-road vehicles, as well as separating pedestrians from cyclists. We are investing in such cycling paths as they are safer for cyclists of all proficiencies, cater to the most number of users, and are generally planned to cater to short intra-town cycling trips, for example, to key amenities and transport nodes like MRT stations and bus interchanges.

We recognise that some cycling commuting trips are made between towns. For these less prevalent trips, we will look into linking up the intra-town cycling paths. Where appropriate, we will capitalise on the Park Connector Network, which will eventually allow us to achieve a larger, safe cycling network that can cater to longer-distance travel.

There have also been calls for the Government to do more for on-road cycling. In Singapore, land is a scarce commodity and, I dare say, road space is even scarcer. Most of our roads today are optimally sized for traffic conditions, and adding a dedicated lane for non-motorised traffic would require additional land, or the narrowing of existing vehicle lanes, with attendant adverse traffic impact. Given our circumstances, we have, therefore, prioritised off-road cycling, which is safer and can cater to greater numbers of people. I hope that Members and Singaporeans will understand that there will be these trade-offs, and that the Government is unable to accommodate all the wishes of all cycling communities, but must think of larger, overall needs. However, within reasonable limits, we can see if there are specific locations where we can do more for on-road cycling.

LTA has studied many cities that have attempted to integrate cycling as part of their traffic systems. Every city has a different approach, influenced by factors, such as population density, quality of public transport, land availability, cycling culture, traffic speed, and so on. Some cities in China, Denmark and the Netherlands take a similar approach as us where cycling lanes are essentially separated and protected from vehicular traffic, while cities in the US and UK have implemented unprotected cycling lanes, which are regarded as being less safe. We will continue to study other cities' approaches, and are prepared to pilot some of their ideas, where feasible, in Singapore.

Ms Janice Koh, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Dr Janil Puthucheary expressed concerns about traffic accidents involving cyclists. I share their concerns. The total number of reported fatal and injury accidents where cyclists are involved has declined by 17% between 2008 and 2011. Cyclists were found to be at least partly at fault for about half of these accidents. The number of cyclist fatalities averaged 18 per year over the same period from 2008 to 2011. Since the beginning of this year, there have been 11 cyclist fatalities.

Every fatality – cyclist, pedestrian or otherwise – is one too many, and I share Members' sentiments that we should minimise them. All road users, be they cyclists, motorists or pedestrians, need to play their part in this. The common causes of accidents attributable to cyclists or other road users include: failing to keep a proper look-out, disobeying traffic light signals, and failing to give way to traffic with the right of way. The Cycling Facilitation Committee (CFC), started by Minister of State Mr Teo Ser Luck, recognised that public education is key in shaping cyclists' behaviour. The CFC advocates a community-led approach to do so, and the volunteer cycling wardens that you see in some HDB towns are part of this approach.

Page: 594

Mr Nicholas Fang asked if the Traffic Police should require cyclists to undergo training and education on safe road use before being allowed to take to the roads. Since the profile of cyclists ranges from school children to senior citizens, from foreign workers to persons who pursue cycling as a sport, the Traffic Police's approach is to engage cyclists within the different groups and impart relevant knowledge on safe roads use to them through targeted platforms, rather than instituting a formal training and licensing regime. Efforts have been stepped up to educate the community on safe cycling practices and road rules. In the first half of 2012, 150 sessions of road safety talks in schools, workers' dormitories and at community-level events have been conducted, and 15 safe cycling exhibitions were held. At these events, "Safe Cycling Guides", containing information on proper riding apparel, safe cycling and road sharing tips are distributed to participants. A recent collaboration between the Traffic Police and the Singapore Sports Council included the production of a 10-minute safe cycling video entitled "Gear Up! Safety begins with me". LTA will also be producing an "Intra-Town Cycling" handbook as a reference for good cycling etiquette and to share safety tips. I am taking a personal interest in this area and will work with key stakeholders and relevant Government agencies to see if more can be done to improve safety.

Motorists, during learner-driver training, are taught various safety considerations towards cyclists on the roads. Drivers are taught to give ample room to cyclists, especially when passing them. Drivers are also taught not to make sharp turns at corners, and to slow down and give way to vulnerable road users, which include cyclists. It is a strict requirement for learner-drivers to check their blind spots before making a lane change or a turn. This is to ensure that drivers are aware of any motorcyclists and pedal cyclists who might be riding alongside. We have noted the suggestions raised by Ms Irene Ng and Mr Nicholas Fang and are studying further education measures with MHA and the Traffic Police to inculcate a safe road sharing mindset amongst motorists and cyclists alike.

On the enforcement front, the Traffic Police will continue to maintain ground presence to ensure that cyclists and motorists abide by traffic rules. Firm action will be taken against those who display dangerous road behaviour, such as driving or riding without due regard to the safety of others. We also urge cyclists to recognise their own vulnerability in relation to motorised traffic.

Ms Irene Ng and Dr Janil asked about the penalties for errant motorists and cyclists. A driver who unintentionally causes the death of a person in a road traffic accident may be charged under the Penal Code or the Road Traffic Act, depending on the circumstances of the case and the degree of culpability. A convicted driver will be punished with an imprisonment term of up to five years, or with a fine, or both. These persons will also be disqualified from driving for a period of time.

Similar considerations are applicable to other types of criminal offences where a death was unintentionally caused and where the person is also charged under the Penal Code. The Police periodically reviews its penalty framework for all offences, and will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

Cyclists who flout traffic rules will be issued summonses. Depending on the circumstances, a cyclist may be offered a composition amount of $20 for the offences. In the case where a person was hurt, the cyclist may be prosecuted in Court under the Penal Code for endangering the safety of others by rash riding, and they will face larger fines or even imprisonment. MHA and the Traffic Police are reviewing the cycling penalties to ensure that they are commensurate with the severity of the respective offences, and will announce the findings when their review is completed.

Page: 595

To sum up, we will continue to give priority to our efforts to develop off-road cycling paths to facilitate intra-town cycling. We will also review if we can do a little more on the infrastructure front to facilitate on-road cycling. Beyond infrastructure, it is also important for us to inculcate good cycling habits and responsible driving through public education supplemented by an effective regulatory regime. It is my hope that, over time, we will be able to engender a good cycling and driving culture that allows for mutual understanding, basic courtesy and, more importantly, a safe environment for all road users.

In the coming months, I intend to meet more of the different stakeholders to better understand their viewpoints and to see whether we need to review the approach that we have taken so far and the provisions that we have made to facilitate cycling in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for his maiden reply in this House.

I would like to ask a simple supplementary question regarding whether his Ministry would consider designating certain roads, especially on weekends and public holidays, for cycling. At least to reserve one lane, especially on roads that are less used in the catchment areas, such as Mandai or even in the Changi area. These are the frequent haunts of recreational cyclists. I do not think that recreational cyclists will want to cycle on cycling tracks, so I hope the Ministry can consider that.

Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. As I am doing my engagement process today and beyond today, I will take that as feedback and suggestion. I will take note of this when we review our plan.

But, Sir, beyond providing space for our cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, what is important is for us to have a caring attitude, to develop a caring attitude amongst Singaporeans. Since my Facebook posting, I have received many views and suggestions from Singaporeans to improve road safety. I have also met cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. One issue that resonates deeply amongst us is the need to care for one another.

I mentioned earlier one death is one too many. In fact, I find that one injury is also one too many. Any death and accident affect that individual as well as their friends and families. It may affect their physical abilities. At the same time, it will also affect their friends, their livelihood, the way they live with their family. I remember one of my friends who was paralysed from a traffic accident. He was a money-changer. His livelihood just changed totally. At the same time, his family was affected badly. Sometimes, when I travel around along the expressway, I see this message "Drive safety, think of your loved ones". This connects very well with me and connects with many Singaporeans. It reminds us to be careful, to take care of one another, to take care of the person driving in front of you, beside you, behind you and those who are walking along the pedestrian walkway and the motorists that are sharing the road with you. Wherever possible, we should care for one another.

Page: 596

With this attitude, it is important for us to see how we can develop, continue this journey of caring for one another. Sometimes, I think the people who are next to me are going to visit their loved ones, the person who is behind me going to visit their friends, meet their friends to have a good time, or to visit their aged parents. Thus, it is important for us to continue this effort to develop a caring community, and I feel, with this effort, we can keep our roads safer day after day, month after month and year after year.

I would like to echo the congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, and ask a number of supplementary questions. In the engagement and the review of the process of looking at cycling, going forward, I wonder whether the Ministry might consider the priority. The framework, as explained, is to essentially segregate traffic cyclists and pedestrians, but no matter how many cycle paths we build, there will always be on-road cycling. There is just no possibility of building enough cycle paths. And given that no cyclists have killed any pedestrians and pedestrians have not been killed on cycle paths, perhaps rather than trying to significantly change the existing behaviour by building more and more cycle paths and doing a little bit more for on-road cycling, could the Ministry consider the priority might be to map funding and resources to the existing behaviour and the existing risks – which is for cyclists who are being killed on the road – for consideration.

The other question I have is with respect to fines. I do not advocate an increasingly strict enforcement regime to drive behaviour but I would ask if the Ministry would consider that some consistency in terms of the enforcement framework would be necessary. I give one particular example. The Parliamentary Secretary said errant cyclists flouting the rules would be fined about $20 if it was a minor infringement. Just outside Parliament House in the walkway along the river, as the walkway extends under the bridge, there is a large sign saying that cyclists have to dismount and push and, if one does not, the fine is $1,000. There is a significant discrepancy for an on-road risk flouting the Highway Code and off-road courtesy and safety to pedestrians. Would the Ministry consider looking at cycling in a more holistic way to rationalise the enforcement framework?

Sir, I thank the Member for the good questions. As Members mentioned, cycling behaviour is affected by many, many things. We feel that one of the factors to provide safe cycling is to have separate off-road cycling lanes. Beyond that, we will continue to educate the public, not only the cyclists, but the motorists and beyond, to see how we can care for one another. We will continue to educate the public and, in fact, we have engaged the community widely during the community events and beyond to see how we can share cycling safety tips among the cyclists, as well as for children and the elderly, when they walk along these pathways, how they can detect some of the dangers coming on board in front of them.

With regard to the enforcement regime, I take the suggestion by the Member and, as I mentioned in my answer, the Traffic Police and MHA are reviewing the enforcement regime. We are going to see how we can make it commensurate with the severity of the offences.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. I would like to raise three supplementary questions. One of the first issues that we should look at that is affecting the discussion between cyclists and other road users today is the view of what cycling is meant to be. So far, in all your answers, you make it quite clear that cycling is viewed as a way for either recreation or very short intra-town journeys. I would like to ask if the Ministry would ever consider pushing for cycling to be adopted as an alternative way of transport, especially in the CBD area. For example, I personally know a lot of people who would be happy to cycle from their homes to work if they do not live prohibitively far away. This will actually help to alleviate congestion and pollution within the CBD area. Singapore, as an environment, is very well suited. We do not have winter. We have heavy rains sometimes but, by and large, we have an environment that is suitable for cycling as a mode of transport.

Page: 597

I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers on the regulatory measures that can be implemented. I understand that the varied groups of cyclists mean that trying to put in place a cycling licence, for example, may not be ideal. But if you look at the amount of regulation that is put in place for road users in cars and the kind of strict testing that we have, it seems to me at odds with the fact somebody exposed on a bicycle, sharing those same roads with vehicles that could cause much greater damage, are not required to undergo any form of certification or systemised education. I hope that the Ministry would consider looking at that a bit more in-depth because it seems out of place. Somebody in the car who, if involved in an accident is protected by the car, has to go through much more stringent requirements than somebody who is exposed on a bicycle.

And, thirdly, safety requirements, such as mandatory helmets or, perhaps, reflective vests or bands, could be put in place as mandatory for all cyclists. I understand they are not at the moment. Would the Ministry consider such a measure?

Sir, I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. He asked if we view cycling as an alternative mode of transport. Indeed, it is an alternative mode of transport, especially for the first and the last mile travel. We are encouraging intra-town travelling. And, in fact, if you look at the trend, there is a development that cycling has increased in terms of intensity in the last few years. If you go to the interchanges, MRT stations, and you look at the bicycle racks that have been provided, they are full, especially when you come to Yishun. I can see that they are highly utilised.

We are also looking at how cyclists can travel from one town to another town – inter-town. In fact, yesterday, I just met a grassroots leader who shared with me that he cycles to work from Yishun to Loyang, even though he takes one hour. But he is a different type of cyclist in the sense that he said he uses all the intra-town connections – the park connectors to Lorong Halus and all the way to the Punggol Waterway, all the way to Loyang.

We recognise such a phenomenon and, as I have mentioned earlier, in time to come, we will develop more cycling paths in the whole of Singapore. With new estates coming on board, it will be an integrated one, and we would certainly like to see how we can make it a more sustainable transport system in Singapore. We want to encourage that and, in fact, cycling is something that allows families to bond. The essence of cycling is that it has multiple purposes. Some use it for leisure, others use it for travelling within their town – to go marketing, to go to the MRT station, to work – and also there are those who do it for sports.

Page: 598

With regard to the rules and requirements for cyclists, we are reviewing that, as what I mentioned earlier. We understand your point and it is important for us to understand that, if you look at cyclists, they range from the small kids to senior citizens, foreign workers and those who use it for sports. We are very mindful of that and we want to make sure that we reach out to the relevant segments, and different segments would have a different kind of educational process. To do so, it will require us to continuously work with the community and see how we can further improve the safety as well as the infrastructure for the cycling community. The safety requirements that the Member mentioned – the helmet and the reflective bands – we have deliberated this time and time again, even during Minister of State Teo Ser Luck's time, and the CFC is aware about this. As in my reply to the hon Member Lim Wee Kiak, we will take on this suggestion. We will relook at it to see how we can make cycling a safer mode of transport in Singapore.

Mr Nicholas Fang, last question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification, as to my first question: so, would the Ministry ever consider advocating cycling as an alternative form of transport, not just intra-town but from town to CBD, and actually encouraging that? That would change a lot of the way other road users view cyclists. People look at cyclists now as people who are doing it for recreation or only for short distances and, hence, they are not used to the idea of more cyclists on the road in the CBD and, hence, adjusting their behaviour accordingly.

Sir, we could look at it as a natural phenomenon, such as when I shared with you how my resident cycled from Yishun all the way to Loyang. We recognise that there are not many people doing this, possibly due to our weather and because we have an efficient public transport system whereby the MRT and the buses provide a better transport mode for our people, for the majority of us. Nevertheless, we will provide the infrastructure for cyclists who may want to travel from one town to another town. It is important for us to give this choice to Singaporeans. We do not want Singaporeans to be forced to take a certain mode of transport. Most importantly, we want to encourage people to use our public transport system.

Page: 598

17 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider a further review of the Primary 1 Registration Exercise to set aside at least half the number of available places in each school to cater for pupils registering under Phases 2B and 2C.

(for the Minister for Education) : The current Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework seeks to allocate P1 places based on several considerations, including proximity to the school, presence of siblings, parental ties to the school and community involvement. The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the P1 Registration Framework, taking into consideration the feedback received after every exercise. We need to carefully weigh these considerations before deciding on any changes.

Page: 599

Currently, although not everyone can be admitted to their preferred choice school, MOE ensures that there are sufficient school places on a regional basis so that no child will have to travel long distances to his or her Primary school.

Aside from reviewing the P1 Registration Framework, it is more important for every school to be a good school, so that every pupil receives a good quality and holistic education, regardless of the school which he or she attends. In this regard, MOE has been resourcing all our schools with well-trained teachers, investing in suitable education facilities, and ensuring adequate financial support for good school programmes.

We will also continue to encourage parents to make more informed school choices. For example, through the MOE Parents' Seminar and the open houses organised by our schools, parents can learn more about the programmes of different schools. MOE has also developed a video on the key factors parents could consider when selecting Primary schools. By doing so, we hope to encourage parents to select schools that best fit the needs of their child.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether he would agree that young children attending Primary school should not have to travel long distances to their Primary schools? Secondly, in such a case, would the Ministry of Education consider making changes to the P1 Registration Scheme such that children under Phase 2A, which takes into account parents' ties, should not have priority to a Primary school unless they live within a reasonable proximity to the school? Sir, to give an illustration: if I live in Jurong and I am an alumni of the school in the East, I get priority to that school even though I live a long distance away. It would go against the spirit of encouraging parents to recognise that within their own neighbourhood, one of the schools is a good school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the suggestion. I agree with him that we do not want children to travel long distances to their Primary schools. That is one of the primary considerations when we designed the Registration Framework. The Member has given a suggestion on how the framework can be further refined. As I said, we look at feedback all the time. After every registration exercise, we receive feedback. For every rule that we have, we always have feedback for and against it because there will be parents who want the rule to be maintained and there will be parents who want the rule to be taken away. And you see that in some of the discussions and the letters in the newspapers as well.

That is not to say that we should not change. We continually review, as I said. After every exercise, we will do a review and we will see what can be improved. We will certainly take the Member's suggestion into consideration as part of our regular reviews. But as I mentioned earlier, it is not a problem that can be resolved by tweaking our registration framework. I should emphasise that the bigger emphasis should be to ensure that we resource every school well, so that every child going to any school in Singapore will be assured of a good quality education. That is where the weight of our emphasis is – to make every school a good school, to assure every child going to a school in Singapore that he or she can get a good quality education.

Sir, at each year's P1 registration exercise, it always pains me to see the disappointment in the parents' and children's faces when they are not able to get into the school that is located just a couple of 100 m away from their flats. Instead, they have to go to a school that is much further away and have to incur transport costs, school bus and travelling time. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether for perhaps non-GEP schools, would MOE consider higher allocation to those who live within one km so that they have a higher chance and have a shorter distance to travel to school.

Page: 600

Just to understand the question better. There already is the priority for those who live nearer.

Sir, I am asking about higher allocation because, right now, we are still seeing children who are only 50 m away from the school, and they cannot get into the school of their choice.

Now, I understand the question. I thank the Member for the suggestion. These are feedback that we get from time to time. I would say, as I mentioned, there are also concerns raised that if you were to give even more priority, the impact on property prices, for example. Would that then force out more parents who may not be able to afford living within that area? Would that be a fairer way of allocating? So, there are different considerations which we have to weigh. It is complex. It is not going to be resolved just by tweaking the formula alone.

The best long-term approach in terms of looking at this issue is not just in terms of tweaking the Primary 1 registration formula but really in investing resources so that every school is a good school. And also reaching out to parents, engaging the community, helping parents understand that whatever school their children go to, there will be resources, there will be good infrastructure, there will be well-trained teachers and their children can be assured of getting good quality education.

I appreciate the suggestions that have been given on tweaking or changes to the Registration Framework. We will review this regularly, as I said. But let us also look at strategies that are going to be sustainable and that will yield more impact. The strategy that we have in terms of investing in every school is the right one.

Page: 600

18 Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower what were the causes that led to the collapse of a concrete roof at the worksite of the Downtown Line Bugis station and whether any safety measures were breached.

19 Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with regard to the recent work accident at the Downtown Line Bugis station (a) whether the workers, including the two deceased foreign workers, were working beyond the prescribed working hours; and (b) whether the company that employed the foreign workers had breached any employment regulations.

Mr Speaker, if I may take this and the next Question together?

Yes, please.

We are all saddened by the news that two workers had to lose their lives as a result of the accident at the worksite of the new Downtown Line Bugis station. This is a stark reminder that accidents can happen at any time which can result in the loss of lives, injuries or even damage to public and private properties. We must, therefore, be on our guard and take the necessary precautionary measures to ensure that work is carried out without risk to our workers.

Page: 601

The Ministry of Manpower will not tolerate employers who contravene safety regulations. If employers are found to be endangering the lives of their workers, firm enforcement actions will be taken.

We are currently investigating the cause of the Downtown Line accident. As such, I will only share some preliminary findings. A group of workers were concreting the roof slab of a linkway to connect the existing East-West line to the Downtown Line at Bugis station. Most of the concreting work had been completed when sometime between 6.00 am and 6.50 am on 18 July 2012, the formwork collapsed. Two workers who were working underneath the structure at the time of the accident died, while the eight workers who were working on top of the structure suffered minor injuries.

Following the accident, BCA conducted the necessary checks to ensure that the structural safety of the surrounding buildings and the road above were not affected. My Ministry ordered all formworks and concreting works at the accident worksite to cease so that risk assessments and work procedures at the worksite could be reviewed. At the same time, the company was required to devise and submit a recovery plan to remove the collapsed formwork structure and its associated material safely. After a thorough review of the company's work procedures as well as their submitted recovery plan to ensure that all necessary safety precautions were in place, we lifted the stop-work order on 28 August 2012.

One of the areas that we are investigating is whether fatigue and extended working hours could have contributed to the accident. If the employer is found to have breached any regulations on hours of work under the Employment Act, relevant action will be taken.

Other areas of investigation that we are focusing on include the adequacy of the formwork structure design, the conformity of the erected formwork to the approved design and the quality of formwork structure material. In the course of our investigation, we will continue to share, where appropriate, the findings that may have an impact on formwork processes at worksites to ensure work safety.

Sir, I thank the Acting Minister for his response. A couple of supplementary questions. One is, we learned that two Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) officers suffered chemical burns. How did this happen because, apparently, the workers were found to be covered with wet cement, but the DART officers had chemical burns? Second question is, going forward, would MOM, LTA, SCDF and the employers look into improving the rescue plans and rescue operations? Apparently, this is a seven-hour complex operation. What have they learned from that?

I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I do not have the specific details. But what I would say is that I would like to just take the opportunity again to place on record our thanks for the DART officers who performed admirably. As mentioned, it is a complex operation. As with all operations, I am quite sure that SCDF will conduct its own after-action review to see how the operation was carried out and if any lessons were learned, and to continually improve. That is something that I am quite confident that they will be doing.

Page: 602

Similarly, in terms of the chemical burns suffered by the officers, I am quite confident that that is something that they are looking at as well and they will follow up, in terms of future adjustments or procedural change if need be. I do not have the specific details with regard to that. But I believe those would be the steps that would be taken by SCDF.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the Workplace Safety and Health Act, Part IX, clause 58, there is a requirement that formwork pouring of cement be able to hold up two times the weight of cement that it is designed to hold. However, there is also an understanding within the industry that this requirement is not usually followed. If it is in the Act and if the investigations find that in this particular case the formwork factor weight is not taken into consideration, will the Ministry look into further strengthening of the Act as well as enforcement of the requirements under that?

At the same time, the Institute of Engineers of Singapore had issued a statement saying that with regard to the accident, the workers should not be under the scaffolding in the first place. This is not covered under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. Would the Ministry also similarly consider strengthening the Act in this area?

I would like to thank the Member for the follow-up questions. If he has specific details about how contractors are deliberately contravening the regulations, we will be quite happy to look into the details. But as mentioned, the investigations will take place and if the company is found to have violated any of the requirements, we will take the necessary actions. Similarly, this would also apply to the latter point raised about workers under the formwork structures. Let us allow the investigation to run its course. We will take note of the findings, and we will carry out adjustments and actions accordingly.

Page: 602

20 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) how frequently does the Singapore Medical Council run the qualifying examination for foreign medical graduates from medical schools that are not listed on the list of recognised schools for practice locally; and (b) on average, how many candidates take these examinations annually and what is the passing or qualifying rate.

(for the Minister for Health) : The Qualifying Examination (QE) was made available in 1999 as an examination for graduates from foreign non-recognised medical schools who sought medical registration with the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to practise in Singapore. This is necessary to ensure that registered medical practitioners are competent and fit to practise medicine.

The qualifying examination is held once a year. Currently, only Singapore citizens with non-recognised degrees returning to practise in Singapore are eligible to apply and sit for the qualifying examination. For the past three years, an average of 10 candidates per year take the qualifying examination and the pass rate is around 17%, or five out of 30 candidates.

Page: 603

I thank the Minister of State for the response. Can I just find out what will happen to a Singaporean student who has completed a medical degree overseas in a non-recognised university or medical school, and then returns, and because of the timing of the qualifying examination, has to wait at least for a period of one or one-and-a-half years before he can get employment or to be qualified to be recognised to practise in Singapore? What can we offer these graduates for that one to one-and-a-half year period because they are looking for something productive to do. I have seen quite a few of these cases.

I want to thank the Member for her question. Just to put this in context. Let me first note that the QE is only for the few Singaporeans who choose to study in the schools not listed in Schedule 2 of the Medical Registration Act (MRA) and who then return and appeal to practise here.

Most foreign-trained doctors who are employed in Singapore can be provisionally or conditionally registered without going through the QE as they have graduated from recognised foreign medical schools. In 2010 and 2011, for instance, the number of such doctors trained abroad who were provisionally and conditionally registered without having to sit for the QE was 403 and 454 respectively. This is in contrast to the five and 14 in the same two years that applied to sit for the QE.

The QE is actually the final MBBS examination that is taken by our final-year MBSS students and is conducted by the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine in NUS. It is a very labour-intensive examination requiring concurrently the efforts of many clinician examiners and is actually a stress to our hospital services. We understand that NUS presently does not have the resources to accommodate a large number of QE candidates with the increasing number of its own final-year medical students. We will monitor the number of applicants and ask SMC to work with NUS' Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine to shorten the waiting time by allowing more candidates in one sitting, as much as possible.

As regards these candidates who may have to wait – and the waiting time depends on the number of candidates who apply to sit for the QE as well as the number of places available; it can be up to two years but not necessarily so – I would also like to highlight that these candidates are not without recourse. They can take an SMC-recognised post-graduate examination, like the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (MRCP (UK)) or fellowship of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. In fact, a number of doctors with these non-recognised basic medical degrees have been recognised by SMC for conditional registration through a pass in such exams. Again, we will get SMC to let the candidates know that they can take these post-graduate exams, like the MRCP (UK), if they are eligible to do so, and that will also allow the candidates to look for and attempt other options.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, last question.

A clarification, Sir. Post-graduate exams are only open to graduates who have at least completed a stipulated period of training. For these Singaporean students who are from unrecognised medical universities and have graduated, they will not be able to qualify to sit for any post-graduate exams because it requires a period of at least 24 to 30 months of training before they qualify. Thus, they are still in a fix.

Page: 604

I would also like to clarify with the Member that it is true that in order to sit for the post-graduate exams, they will have to undergo some prescribed training. First, we really do not encourage Singaporeans to take degrees from non-recognised medical schools, and then come back here and appeal repeatedly to sit for the local QE exams. But having said that, in fact, we do encourage them to get attachment training either in other jurisdictions where they come from and then take the post-graduate exams, if they are able to, or to get temporary registration in Singapore if they can get employment here, and then take the post-graduate exams within a stipulated time-frame so that they can get conditionally registered.

Page: 604

21 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what are the reasons for pulling out Singapore's participation in the 2013 Venice Biennale; (b) how does the National Arts Council intend to spend the budget initially set aside for the 2013 event; and (c) whether the views of the visual arts sector were taken into consideration before the decision was taken and, if so, what was their response.

Sir, Singapore has participated in six editions of the Venice Biennale since 2001. The cost of participating in each edition averaged more than three-quarters of a million dollars. The last edition in 2011 cost the National Arts Council (NAC) $850,000 to showcase one artist and one curator. As a comparison, the grants budget for the whole visual arts sector in FY2011 was only $1.78 million, but benefited more than 135 artists and visual arts groups. For FY2012, NAC has increased this grants budget by more than 20%, with the intent of helping even more artists.

Sir, as I had mentioned in my written reply to Members in July this year, the Venice Biennale has been one of the platforms at which the NAC has profiled Singapore's artistic talent globally. However, despite the millions of dollars spent on the Venice Biennale, only a handful of our artists and curators have been able to capitalise on the opportunities and prestige that their participation has brought. For the vast majority of our artists, there is still much room to improve the basic level of support.

NAC's budget for supporting the entire visual arts sector in Singapore is only about $7.3 million this year. This budget, which was increased by 10% from the previous year, funds a range of visual arts platforms and a variety of grants to visual arts groups and artists. The Government is mindful of the need to periodically review and ensure that public funds are well-spent, and that benefits to our local arts community are maximised. Having taken part at the Venice Biennale for over 10 years, it is timely for the NAC to undertake a stock-take. In view of this on-going review, the NAC has decided not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013.

Sir, the impetus for the review stems from the need for the Government to improve its long-term strategy for international profiling and exposure of our arts talent. Given the limited resources and competing needs, we must strive to maximise outcomes for all our artists. Based on our previous models of participating at the Venice Biennale, only 20% goes towards benefiting artists directly, with 80% of our funds going towards venue rental in Venice and associated logistics and administrative costs. A review, Sir, will help us determine how these funds can be made to work harder for our artists; for instance, through creating more commissioning opportunities for our arts practitioners, whether in Venice or at other platforms such as the Art Stage Singapore and the Singapore Biennale.

Page: 605

Sir, while the review is on-going, the NAC will invest in more strategic developmental opportunities for the local visual arts community. Among the initiatives being explored are:

ramping up support and presence at a variety of major international events, including the Venice Biennale curated section;

ramping up support and participation in international residencies for our artists;

profiling local artists at international platforms held in Singapore, such as the Singapore Platform at the international art fair, Art Stage Singapore;

supporting the commissioning and curating of more ambitious local works that can reach both domestic and international audiences;

growing the capabilities of independent visual arts institutions, as intermediaries for international showcasing of Singapore talent; and

working with visual arts groups to offer more experimental platforms for artistic development and professional practice.

As part of NAC's on-going consultation for its long-term Visual Arts masterplan, NAC had sought feedback from Visual Arts stakeholders in the public sector and arts community. In arriving at the decision not to participate in Venice Biennale 2013, NAC had also taken into consideration key findings and observations from our previous involvement in Venice, including, Sir, feedback from the Venice Biennale Selection Panel.

The NAC received mixed views from the various stakeholders regarding Singapore's participation in the Venice Biennale. On balance, we decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with participation in the next Venice Biennale without first addressing the concerns of how public money is best used to maximise benefits for all our artists. As part of this review, NAC will consult its visual arts advisors and seek the views of members of the arts community and the public, including the hon Member Ms Janice Koh.

Sir, in conclusion, let me assure the House that the Government is committed to helping develop our visual arts sector. The key issue is how public money should be spent to achieve the greatest impact, and to benefit the most artists.

The NAC recognises that the Venice Biennale continues to be a desirable platform for international profiling of our artists. Besides some countries' independent efforts to rent a space and present a "Country Pavilion", an important focal point of the Venice Biennale is the high-profile curated section where artists are selected and presented by the Biennale's curator that year. In this respect, even as NAC reviews our participation via a "Country Pavilion", NAC will extend strong support and facilitation to Singapore artists who are selected to participate in the curated section of the upcoming and future editions of Venice Biennale.

Page: 606

Sir, the on-going review allows the Government to carefully map out a longer term strategy and approach to visual arts, that will best support our local talent and maximise the benefits for Singapore's visual arts development.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, if the concern is about return on investment, then can we look at it this way? Each time a Singapore artist is successfully showcased at the Venice Biennale, we promote Singapore, we promote arts businesses, the very ones that we want to market including Art Stage, Affordable Art Fair and the upcoming Gillman Barracks. If we are concerned about whether or not our participation in the Venice Biennale will make a systematic and effective contribution to arts development, then may I have the Ministry's view on how they measure this value of our participation?

The second supplementary question is the Venice Biennale is not just one of many international biennales around the world. It is the oldest and the most prestigious art platform. If Singapore is going to continue participating in other biennales, including Gwangju and dOCUMENTA, then why are we pulling out of the most prestigious and important one?

My third supplementary question is whether or not the Ministry can undertake its review while we continue to participate in the 2013 55th edition of the Venice Biennale, especially in view of the fact that despite MICA's consultation, there is still widespread concern amongst art-makers in Singapore – over 200 have signed an open letter to the Ministry – about having to have this four-year gap if we intend to participate in 2015, and the difficulty of having to restart our engines again if we have this gap. Can we not build on our previous success from 2009 and 2011?

I thank the Member for the three supplementary questions. I will try my very best to answer as much as I can, given the limited time.

First, we have consulted widely and the feedback that we have received from the artistic community is mixed, as I mentioned in my reply. It is very difficult for us to do two things at the same time. The Member would know, and I think all Members would know, that the Venice Biennale is the oldest and the most prestigious biennales, and we have to do a proper job at it. We have done this for 10 years, and so having looked back at how we have performed and consulted not only the artistic community but also the Selection Panel, we realised there was no clear indications one way or another. As I mentioned in my reply, there were mixed reactions and mixed reviews. So, we took a judgement call, if I can say so, to say, "Let us suspend this while we do a deeper study."

As the Member rightly mentioned, we want to come back by 2015 – which is when we celebrate our Golden Jubilee – and we hope that when we have done the review thoroughly and when we re-enter Venice Biennale, we can enter with perhaps a lot more pomp and grandeur that will bring the kind of success that the Member mentioned in her first question. We are looking towards how Singapore is looked at internationally. We have a vision to build Singapore into a dynamic and artistic hub for people to come here and for our artists to be recognised.

I think the Member must recognise that it is also very difficult for us to give a quantum to that particular success. A particular artist, after he was showcased in one of the Venice Biennales, in fact had received a lot of offers after that, which is great for him and great for Singapore. But as I mentioned in my reply, we have to relook at this not just based on one artist but for the experience over the last 10 years. How do we therefore measure the best use of the resources that we have which is somewhat limited?

Page: 607

I agree with the Member that Venice Biennale, being the oldest, and compared to the other biennales, we should take a very, very careful look before we make that decision. Bear in mind that for the other biennales, we do not spend a lot. In fact, some of the artists are invited by the biennales. Our commitment to the artists is that when they are invited to other biennales, we will continue to support them. The Venice Biennale is where we actively participate in it. We spend a lot of money. We spend a lot of resources not just over there but over here. And we bring a very large team over there. So, the resources are tremendous.

Given all that has to take place for us to be able to mount a very successful campaign in Venice, we think it is timely for us to take a very hard look. I am confident that we can come back with a big bang because I think we need the inputs of the artistic community to tell us how best we can use those limited resources so that we can achieve the bang that we want for our investment in Venice.

The answer is that we are not pulling out entirely at one go. We are going to study this. We want to re-enter at some point in time. The most important thing is let us take a good look at this over the longer term rather than a shorter horizon. I empathise with her and other members of the arts community that there could be a sense of loss of momentum. As I mentioned in my reply, there are other opportunities that we are creating to increase the international profile of our artists. So, we will continue with our other efforts. But I hope that she can support this process entirely because really we want to be able to do this properly and correctly because the image of Singapore is very important for us too.

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 22, 25, 32-33, 35, 37-39, 41, 43, 45-46, 48, 50-54, 57, 61-65, 67, 70-73 and 77 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 652 to 672). Question Nos 23-24, 26-31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, 47, 49, 55-56, 58-60, 66, 68-69 and 74-76 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 11 September 2012.]

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore in connection with the re-distribution of the portfolios of certain Ministries",

presented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations, and to establish the Personal Data Protection Commission and Do Not Call Register and to provide for their administration, and for matters connected therewith, and to make related and consequential amendments to various other Acts",

presented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Civil Law Act (Chapter 43 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Public Trustee Act (Chapter 260 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Voluntary Sterilization Act (Chapter 347 of the 1985 Revised Edition",

presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

3.02 pm

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

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

Sir, the Parliamentary Pensions (Abolition) Bill seeks to put into effect the recommendation in the White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government" to remove pensions for office holders and Members of Parliament. This will be done through amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Act, or PPA in short, and other related Acts, as well as the eventual repeal of the PPA.

In January this year, this House had an extensive debate on the White Paper which contained the recommendations of the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee. This House endorsed all the recommendations in the White Paper as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, office holders and Members of Parliament. This included the recommendation to remove pensions for new office holders and freeze pensions for eligible office holders and Members of Parliament with effect from 21 May 2011.

Page: 609

The PPA contains the pension provisions for office holders and Members of Parliament. The PPA was first introduced in 1969 to establish a pension scheme for office holders and Members of Parliament who have devoted a considerable portion of their working lives to public service. Then Deputy Prime Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee had explained that the pension scheme aimed to help encourage future leaders of calibre to take up positions by lessening the financial sacrifice in pursuit of a political career. Since then, there had been periodic amendments of the PPA to refine the scheme. One important amendment made was that Members of Parliament elected after 1 January 1995 ceased to be eligible for pensions.