Hansard, Monday, 11 November 2013

1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he can provide an update on the findings of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Trafficking in Persons, in particular, how such trafficking can be deterred in or through Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, trafficking in Persons, or TIP in short, is a transnational crime where vulnerable individuals are recruited and conveyed, often through coercive or deceitful means, for the purpose of exploitation. While TIP can affect anyone, it mainly involves women and young children. Singapore is seen as an attractive destination by human trafficking syndicates due to the perception of potential monetary gains.

Recognising this threat, MHA, MOM and other agencies set up an Inter-Agency Task Force against Trafficking in Persons in 2010, with the aim of implementing whole-of-Government strategies to combat TIP more effectively.

Since its formation, the Task Force has made substantial progress. Notably, it launched a National Plan of Action last year which focuses on:

prevention of the crime;

protection of victims;

partnership with stakeholders; and

prosecution of offenders.

Prevention of TIP. In terms of prevention, our tight border control measures deter perpetrators from trafficking persons into Singapore. Frontline officers are trained to identify victims. Raising public awareness is another key thrust of

Page: 11

prevention. In January this year, the Task Force established a grant of up to $80,000 per year to co-fund public awareness initiatives. This is supplemented by other efforts, such as publicising TIP cases through the media.

Partnership with stakeholders. Working with strategic partners to multiply our efforts on the ground is another limb of Singapore's anti-trafficking strategy. At the international level, we partner other countries – whether source, transit or destination – to break the vicious cycle in human trafficking. This includes joint efforts to tackle organised crime that profit from the exploitation of the vulnerable. Indeed, while Singapore has worked hard and continue to do so, source countries, too, have the responsibility to uplift conditions so that their citizens will not have to resort to desperate and risky ventures. Source countries should not depend solely on downstream measures to address this scourge.

We will also work closely with foreign counterparts to exchange information and organise capacity-building workshops to increase law enforcement knowledge. In addition, the Task Force regularly engages and partners Non-Government Organisations to provide victim care and services.

Thirdly, protection of victims. The protection of the well-being of victims is particularly critical, especially those who may have been abused. Victims are provided with temporary shelter, food, counselling and medical assistance as appropriate. We are studying the need to have more victim-centric measures to aid the victims in their recovery.

Lastly, prosecution. To deter trafficking in persons, Singapore relies on tough laws and the effective prosecution of offenders. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), Police and MOM have specialist teams to handle TIP investigations and prosecution.

The Task Force has also been actively reviewing domestic legislation to ensure they are relevant and effective for combating trafficking offences. While we have provisions in various laws to criminalise trafficking acts, our review has confirmed the need for a dedicated law to combat trafficking.

This will bring several benefits. First, it allows us to put in place a consistent and forward-looking framework to deal with all types of TIP offences. Second, we equip agencies with the necessary levers to deal with the different modus operandi of TIP criminal groups. Third, this would clearly reflect Singapore's commitment to fight TIP to the global community and align us to international

Page: 12

standards.

Mdm Speaker, the Task Force has made good progress in tackling human trafficking. It will continue to advance initiatives under the National Plan of Action. At the same time, the Task Force will work to enhance international cooperation so that countries may collectively tackle this global threat.

Mr de Souza.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I believe there should be zero tolerance for human trafficking, especially the trafficking of minors. What is needed is a dedicated piece of legislation to criminalise the trafficking of persons and minors for the purpose of sexual exploitation, forced incarceration, slave labour and forced organ trafficking. Such legislation will enhance Singapore's arsenal to combat trafficking in and through Singapore.

Therefore, Mdm Speaker, I have drafted a proposed private Member's Bill on the prevention of human trafficking and I would like to know MHA's position, as to whether it would be open to working with me, in partnership, on this private Member's Bill for me to better understand the needs of the investigative and enforcement officers on the ground, and what legal powers and tools they need to ensure that we can deter this strongly, potently, through a dedicated piece of legislation, for example, like what we have in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have brought it here today, in Parliament. It is a "work in progress" and I wanted to know whether there can be some collaboration from the Government.

I thank the Member for advocating for more measures to deter human trafficking. We are also supportive of his suggestion to introduce a private Member's Bill. This is, indeed, a commendable effort. I have mentioned earlier that a dedicated law is, indeed, important and is an essential progression in our fight against trafficking in persons (TIP). I am, therefore, happy to support the Member's initiative and will ask the Task Force to work closely with him to co-develop the Bill.

All of us know that this would be a major undertaking as TIP issues cut across many Ministries and agencies. We require many consultations with various stakeholders. Not only do we need to ensure that this new law addresses the substantive TIP issues fully, we will also need to examine issues relating to the administration of the new law, taking reference from international conventions like the UN TIP Protocol. We then have to adapt what

Page: 13

is relevant for us.

I am confident that the Member, who has legal experience, will lead this effort well. I will ask our Task Force to collaborate with him and give him all the facilities he needs to make the private Member's Bill successful.

Mdm Speaker, just one more supplementary question. The process cuts through various areas of enforcement, for example, MHA for enforcement and investigation, Immigration because it is cross-border, MOH because of the need to deter exploitation and trafficking in terms of organs, as well as MSF because we need to see what we can do for victims. So, I hope that the Senior Minister of State's response really is to allow me to work with all of these different Government departments, in addition to a public consultation with NGOs, VWOs and Singaporeans of the same value and who are like-minded. I would just like that confirmation from the Senior Minister of State.

I confirm the Member's request.

Mdm Speaker, I am delighted to hear that there are plans for a dedicated legislation and that the Member, Mr de Souza, is also prepared to work with the Ministry on this proposed legislation. Is there a target date for this legislation to be ready? And until that legislation is ready, what can the Ministry do in the meantime with regard to Special Passes which are issued to persons who are deemed to have been trafficked? I think one problem is that the Special Pass does not provide them with adequate financial support and that could compromise the investigation process. It does not provide for adequate counselling.

Volunteers on the ground take the view that the performing artistes' visas have now become a very popular choice by which trafficked persons enter Singapore. Until the legislation comes into place, what can the Ministry do?

Finally, the Senior Minister of State spoke of the National Plan of Action. I would appreciate it if he could also articulate some of the tangible outcomes.

There are many questions and I may lose track of them, so please correct me if I do not address any of the questions. Firstly, on the Special Pass, this is, indeed, one of the issues, not only for the purpose of prosecuting and helping in the investigations, it also helps out the victims. We have to balance the need for both. This is something the Task Force

Page: 14

has to continue to look at to see from the number of cases that we are looking at, whether these are, indeed, adequate. Over time, we will evolve the processes to ensure that the protection of the victims is adequately given, either by the Government or by the NGOs with which we work.

Secondly, on the artistes' passes, indeed, as both Mr de Souza and I have mentioned, these offences involving trafficking in persons are broad. They involve all kinds of offences and they involve all kinds of Ministries. Over time, as we plug one area, new areas will tend to come up. We are aware of these issues, and when they come up, we will certainly address them within whatever current and existing legislations that are available to us and, in the future, with the new legislation that will be tabled.

And I did not get the third question.

What are some of the tangible outcomes with regard to the National Plan of Action? For example, has there been any prosecution?

As we have mentioned, the complexity of this Bill is not only that it would involve many Ministries, it also involves addressing the issues that are raised at international fora. We have to include all the concerns that are raised either against us or what we have not done adequately, and also to cover as many loopholes that will possibly appear in the future so that this Bill will be robust.

I do not foresee this coming up very quickly. We have to do consultations. We have given ourselves a timeline of within a year to table this Bill. The National Task Force has already been in place. Even before the Task Force came into action, many of the offenders have been put to book. Currently, there are about less than 100 complaints. We have already put about six of them through prosecution and through the Courts and they have been convicted, but there are others that are still in the process of investigation.

Page: 15

2 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Transport whether more help can be provided to needy families to cope with public transport costs.

3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport how can public transport be made more affordable and attractive given the Ministry's intention to raise public transport ridership to 70% by 2020.

4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport whether concessionary fares or higher subsidies for public transport can be provided to disabled Singaporeans upon an application by them.

Mdm Speaker, there have been a number of questions and suggestions by Members during today's Parliament sitting as well as past sittings on the affordability of public transport fares and concessions. Since the release of the report by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC), this has also been an issue of much public discussion. I feel, therefore, that I should give a more comprehensive reply in responding to the three Parliamentary Questions by also addressing the various recommendations by FRMC.

But before I do so, let me first put on record my deepest appreciation and commendation to FRMC Chairman Mr Richard Magnus and his Committee Members for their tremendous effort in putting together what I consider a very comprehensive —

Minister, are you taking all three Parliamentary Questions together? Are you seeking permission for that?

Yes, Mdm Speaker, I am, indeed, taking all three Questions together.

Please proceed.

I very much appreciate the FRMC Chairman Mr Richard Magnus and his Committee members for their effort in putting together a very comprehensive and balanced report. I do appreciate their efforts to consult widely and to look at the difficult issues of both ensuring commuters' interest

Page: 16

in having affordable fares and the long-term financial sustainability of the public transport system.

Reading the report, and also from the generally positive response from the public to the report, I can clearly see that the FRMC has put a lot of "heart" into their recommendations, in particular, for a concession framework that better ensures fare affordability for Singaporeans.

I think it is useful to recap what is the context and purpose of this Committee that I appointed. In June 2012, I asked Mr Richard Magnus to chair a Committee to review and recommend improvements to the public transport fare review mechanism. In February of this year, I further requested the Committee to review the existing public transport concession schemes and propose improvements or new schemes to benefit a wider group of commuters, so that we can help keep down their expenditure on public transport.

We have studied the report carefully. The FRMC has put together a list of recommendations that meets its Terms of Reference and, in my view, addresses the issue of fare affordability in a comprehensive manner. The Government accepts the FRMC's recommendations in full, including the new fare formula; the fare review mechanism, which includes the proposal to allow for smoothening of fare increases by rolling over part of the fare increases to the following year; and the proposals for new concessions and enhancements to existing schemes. The new fare formula, which is an improvement over the old, was meticulously crafted to better reflect the cost pressures that the PTOs face.

Overall, the report is fair and reasonable and contains a timely reminder that we need to make regular fare adjustments from time to time to ensure that the system is sustainable and workable. Its recommendations will provide the Public Transport Council (PTC) with an enhanced framework to ensure that fares remain affordable across the diverse spectrum of public transport users.

In February this year, I explained in Parliament that our fare increases over the last few years have been slower than that of comparable cities like Hong Kong and London. For example, London had raised their public transport fares by 6.8% in 2011, 5.6% in 2012, and, in January this year, by 4.2%. Fares in Hong Kong have increased by a total of 13% since 2009, including the latest 2.7% increase in June this year, which was preceded by a 5.4% increase last year. I should add that fares in Singapore were not higher than both cities to begin with.

Page: 17

In contrast, since 2005 – when the first FRMC had proposed the past fare formula that was valid till 2012 – from 2005 to 2011, which was when our last fare increase took place, public transport fares in Singapore have increased by a cumulative 2.7% or an average of 0.4% per annum. This is despite the fact that there have been significant changes to the cost environment of the public transport operators. For instance, diesel prices have gone up by about 90%, while national average wages have gone up by about 30% over the same period.

In short, fares have not kept pace with increases in operating costs. To the FRMC's credit, they did not duck this issue and have recognised the need for some discipline in ensuring that we have reasonably regular fare adjustments to keep our public transport system financially sustainable.

That said, we would like to assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh that we remain fully committed to ensuring that public transport fares remain affordable. Wages over the past few years have gone up at a much faster rate than fares, which means that fares have actually become more affordable for the average commuter. This is an important point that I would like to emphasise: public transport fares for the average commuter have become more affordable, not less.

However, we do recognise that there are certain commuter groups who would still be in need of help. That is why I had asked the FRMC to also study the affordability of public transport for Singaporeans of different income levels and various special groups who may need assistance should fares be raised. I am, therefore, pleased that the FRMC has come up with several useful recommendations, which we have decided to accept.

The FRMC has recommended that Government implement and fund two new concession schemes. One, for persons with disabilities (PWDs) and the other, for low-income workers (LIWs). I am pleased to inform Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Lily Neo, who have asked for more public transport assistance for disabled and needy Singaporeans that the Government agrees with the FRMC's proposals. We are committed to further strengthening our social safety net on the public transport front. The two new concession schemes for LIWs and PWDs go beyond giving these two groups of Singaporeans ad hoc assistance through Public Transport Vouchers.

We will, of course, need some time to work out the details of these two concession schemes, including who can apply and how to apply, and the precise concessionary benefits. However, our rough estimate is that about half

Page: 18

a million Singaporeans will be eligible for these two new schemes. This would constitute a 40% increase in the number of commuters who currently enjoy various fare concessions, from about 1.2 million currently, to about 1.7 million.

We have not yet decided on the exact amount of discounts to give to these two groups. However, it is my intention to ensure that the discounts given will more than offset any fare increase in the next fare exercise. So, the discounts that we are going to give to these two groups – the LIWs and the PWDs – will more than offset any fare increase in the next fare exercise.

What is of the greatest interest to all Members is not so much the new fare formula that is proposed in the FRMC report – although I will touch on it briefly at the end – but instead, what this means for the next fare review exercise – how much will fares increase, and when.

Following the Government's acceptance of the FRMC report, the next task will be for the Public Transport Council (PTC) to apply the new fare formula for the next fare review exercise and consider how to incorporate the FRMC's recommendations on existing concessions. The PTC will need time to go through various deliberations. While it may start the process for the 2013 fare review exercise later this year, its decision and the implementation of the decision will not likely be in 2013, but only in the first half of 2014, for practical reasons.

The PTC will consider the 2012 fare cap that was based on the old formula and which was suspended during the FRMC review, as well as the 2013 fare cap based on the new fare formula. Should the PTC, after careful study, decide not to effect both fare caps in one go, it may allow for part of this to be rolled over, as provided for under the new fare mechanism framework.

Given the intent and spirit of what the FRMC has recommended to smoothen fare increases and ensure fare affordability, I would urge the PTC to consider the possibility that any fare increase for this next round of fare adjustment not exceed the average national wage increase for 2013. This will avoid an outcome where fares suddenly become less affordable for the average commuter. So, what I am suggesting to the PTC is that for this next round of fare increase, that any increase should not exceed the average national wage increase for 2013.

PTC will, of course, have to decide what exactly the increase will be. That is their prerogative. And as part of the overall package for the coming round of

Page: 19

fare adjustments, also look into implementing, in full or in part, the various enhancements to the existing fare concessions as recommended by the FRMC.

If we add together all these possible changes to the concession schemes, including those to be funded by the Government, the next fare exercise could see a total of about one million commuters actually benefiting in some way. This could include preschoolers, students, including those in the Polytechnics, and also those who may wish to take up the adult and senior citizen monthly passes, which will cap expenditure for heavy public transport users. This is in addition to the low-income workers and persons with disabilities whom I had mentioned earlier. We have to be patient for the details as these are matters on which the PTC will make the call as part of its fare review deliberations.

The PTC should also take into consideration the FRMC's recommendation for the PTOs to make one-off contributions from the fare increase they receive to the Public Transport Fund. Together with the channelling into this Fund the fines that have been incurred by PTOs for regulatory breaches, we will have a sizeable fund which can allow for more generous Public Transport vouchers to be given out to all needy households affected by any fare increase.

Let me next touch on the issue of service quality, as there has been some feedback that this is missing from the FRMC report. Some have suggested that we should suspend fare increases until there is tangible improvement in service levels. I do acknowledge that this is a source of unhappiness for some.

The FRMC has carefully considered this – whether to have a service component in the fare formula – and decided that the issue of service level is best addressed separately outside of the fare formula, where the Government can regulate and work with the operators to improve service levels.

I think this is sensible and certainly practical in terms of keeping the fare formula relatively straightforward. In addition, we have practical considerations as we have a unified fare structure that is applicable for the entire public transport system, and it would be challenging to try to give differentiated fare increases to different PTOs on account of service quality issues.

However, not having service quality as part of the new fare formula does not mean that we are not raising service levels, or that we are letting the PTOs off easily. In the 2008 Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP), we explicitly declared our long-term intention to make public transport a mode of choice. This is re-

Page: 20

affirmed in our recently launched and refreshed 2013 LTMP.

Shifting commuters away from private to public transport is a strategic imperative, given our land constraints, and to make our city even more liveable. Our aim is to raise the public transport mode share during the peak period from the current 63% to 70% by 2020, and to 75% by 2030. To do so, we know that we have to substantively improve the availability and quality of public transport, and we have already announced many initiatives, both long and short-term.

For bus commuters, we are accelerating the programme to add 800 buses, or what is going to amount to about a 20% increase, to the bus fleet. In the areas where we have implemented new routes or improved existing services, the benefits are already being felt by commuters.

For rail, we will be adding more than 100 trains from 2014 over the next three years across all our rail lines. We will also be upgrading the signalling system of the North-South and East-West Lines by 2018 to allow peak hour trains to run at 100-second intervals, instead of 120 seconds currently. We will also be doubling our rail network from 178km to about 360km over the next 15 to 20 years.

In addition to adding more buses and trains, we have also seen some improvement in the reliability of the rail network. For instance, train withdrawal rates for our oldest North-South and East-West Lines have come down significantly from about four per 100,000 train-kilometres in June 2012 – that means, four withdrawals every 100,000 kilometres travelled – to about 2.3 per 100,000 train-kilometres in September this year.

We are also raising Operating Performance Standards, increasing penalties and tightening our regulatory framework to ensure that the PTOs deliver higher service levels. Starting next year, the rail operators will be running more train trips throughout the day to bring down waiting times to no more than five minutes for most of the day, even outside the peak period. PTOs will also need to further reduce the number of short service delays below five minutes and strengthen their maintenance regimes to raise reliability levels. We will complement these improvements with stiffer penalties for non-compliance.

We are, therefore, making significant moves to improve service levels and to realise these improvements as fast as we can. Major improvements will take time but they are on the way. Meanwhile, it is imperative that the public transport system as a whole continues to remain financially viable, with

Page: 21

commuters, transport operators and the Government all contributing. Hence, there will still be a need for regular fare increases to keep the system going, to maintain and improve service levels. But in doing so, Members can have my assurance that we will insulate the more vulnerable and needy Singaporeans from the full impact of fare increases.

So, let me give Members this assurance that while fares are likely to have to go up in the coming years, they will not become less affordable for the average commuter, and, in fact, will be considerably more affordable for the low-income and the disadvantaged groups. This is my intention and I have every confidence that we can achieve it.

Mdm Speaker, I am glad that MOT accepts the FRMC's recommendations to give fare concessions to low-income workers, the disabled and Polytechnic students. May I ask the Minister whether the fare concessions can be given as Monthly Concession Passes, especially for the needy and the elderly, instead of the usual one-off transport vouchers? May I ask the Minister how does his Ministry ensure good outreach to assist the targeted groups so that no one falls through the cracks? Lastly, will the Minister consider different fare pricing for Singaporeans, PRs and visitors for our public transport?

Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank Dr Lily Neo for her supplementary questions and also for her strong advocacy over the years for the lower income and disadvantaged groups.

On whether it is monthly passes or ad hoc vouchers, the intent is for the two groups that we have mentioned – the LIWs and the PWDs – to be given a card that will entitle them to the discounted fares. It will not be in the form of vouchers. It will be in the form of a pass.

Secondly, on the point of good outreach, that is really important. Indeed, we would like to encourage all Members in the House to support us in this venture. I recall that in the previous fare exercise in 2011, we made available 200,000 public transport vouchers to try and offset the impact of the fare increase on the most vulnerable groups. Instead of making one call for applications, we actually made two calls. We made two calls for applications. In the end, just over half of the 200,000 vouchers were taken up. I think it is not the situation where we do not have enough vouchers but, really, it is how to reach out to them, how to make sure that they are fully aware of some of these schemes. We will try and do more in terms of the general publicity but I do

Page: 22

encourage Members to support us in this.

Finally, with regard to differential pricing, I think it is something that we need to be quite careful about. In fact, already, there is a certain amount of differential pricing because many of the tourists who come in would already be using single-trip tickets, rather than to use the ez-link card. We have, over the years, set the single-trip fares at a different price compared to what you would pay if you were to use your ez-link card for a particular trip, but we are also mindful not to stretch this too far.

Thank you, Minister. I have questions specifically on our disabled Singaporeans; that was my Parliamentary Question. So, I will restrict it to that. Are the subsidies envisioned for our disabled Singaporeans distinct from the intent not to have fare increases beyond the NWC wage increase for 2013? Are they distinct concessions that will be given to our disabled Singaporeans?

Yes, that is the intent. For the LIWs and the PWDs, the intent is that, with the next round of fare increase, the discounts given to them will more than offset any fare increase. So, in other words, they will actually see a reduction in their fares.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. The first is the thinking behind the cost of certain schemes being borne by the Government and certain others being cross-subsidised by the full-fare commuters. And because some of the concession schemes are subsidised by the full-fare commuters, the rate with which these schemes are undertaken will affect the affordability of full-fare commuters. Can the Minister assure us that any future increases would bear this particular point in mind?

I want to thank Mr Cedric Foo for a very thoughtful question. When I asked the FRMC in February of this year to look at the concession schemes and to see whether we need additional schemes beyond the enhancements to existing schemes, I also asked them to look at the overall affordability how these schemes ought to be paid.

The FRMC, I think, has come up with some very balanced recommendations. To benefit the additional of about half a million people – the LIWs and the PWDs – and to be able to achieve what I have just said in terms of concessions given to them must more than offset any fare increase for this next round, it would

Page: 23

entail quite a substantive amount to be invested in these concessions. I think the FRMC realised that if all these were to be cross-subsidised by full-fare paying commuters, it would be a heavy burden on them, bearing in mind that they believe that it is really up to about the 60th, maybe 70th, percentile of Singaporeans that are public transport users. So, the FRMC was conscious of this fact and recommended – and the Government has accepted – that the Government be responsible for the new concession schemes.

At the same time, the FRMC was also mindful that if all the concession schemes, including the existing ones, were to be borne by the Government, there would be a lack of tension in the system, so to speak. And so they retained the existing mechanism where enhancements to existing schemes would be borne by the rest of the commuters. So, I think there is a certain tension and a certain balance that they are trying to achieve.

Madam, I have four supplementary questions. First, will the Minister consider extending concessions to the intellectually-disabled commuters as well, not just physically-disabled commuters?

Second, regarding incorporation of service quality in the formula, since most commuters do associate service quality with their willingness to pay higher fares, the Minister has said that it is because the Government does not want to have differentiated fares between different operators but my question is "why not?" And how difficult is it to implement differentiated fares between the two operators? In fact, that will actually spur the operators to do better on the service quality standpoint.

The third question is regarding the energy component in the index. While I accept that energy is a major cost component for the PTOs, there are many other cost components as well, like manpower. Are we trying to shield the PTOs from all these negative externalities in the fare formula?

And my last question is, will this new fare formula – if you compare it with the previous fare formula and with the knowledge that we know as to how much the previous fare formula allowed for increases over the last few years – would this new fare formula lead to higher maximum fare increases?

Mdm Speaker, I want to thank Mr Giam for his supplementary questions. The first is that we talk about people with disabilities, not physical disabilities per se. There is, certainly on my part, no intention to

Page: 24

exclude certain groups of people. Having said that, I would say that MOT is really not the expert in this area and we would be bringing in our colleagues from MSF and the groups who have much greater expertise to advise us further on this.

On service quality, the one thing you want to try and do is to keep it as straightforward as possible. The FRMC had that in mind, to not want to complicate the fare formula unnecessarily. If you do want to include a service quality component in the fare formula, then I suspect that the PTOs would also say, "Well, what about the cost increases that are associated with any service quality improvements? Would that also be included into the fare formula?"

Today, I think what we have is a situation where the regulator can very carefully and, I hope judiciously, increase the operating standards without the corresponding increase in cost being directly passed on to the commuters straightaway.

We have been increasing the operating performance standards. We have required the operators to put in more trains and so on, and that has not translated into a fare formula where the commuters are required to pay, so, bear that in mind.

The next is on the energy index and I am glad you agree with it but you also expressed concern whether we would then have to shield them from all the other components like manpower. Well, if you look at the fare formula, instead of just taking CPI and the wage index minus the productivity component, as in the past formula, now it is both core CPI plus the wage index and the energy index minus a smaller productivity formula.

We believe that that actually reflects better the cost structure of the operators. We have about 20%, or slightly over 20% of the expenditure going towards energy, which has increased by about 50% from what it was in the middle of the last decade. And 40% of their cost is already manpower-related.

When the FRMC came out with the new fare formula, they had looked very carefully at the cost structure of the PTOs, but they also recognised that, instead of using headline CPI, it was more appropriate, as recommended by the academics, to make use of core CPI to take away the accommodation and the private transport components of it.

Page: 25

On whether the new or old formula is superior, which will lead to higher or lower increases, it really depends. In a year where the electricity and energy prices go up significantly, as they have in the past, then I believe that the new formula will lead to a higher number. But in a year where those remain relatively stable and where the CPI increases are largely driven by accommodation and private transportation, then the new formula would lead to a smaller number. Regardless of a higher or smaller number, when the FRMC looked at it, they really wanted a fare formula that was more reflective of the overall cost structure.

Mdm Speaker, the public is happy that there would be long-term concession rates for the low-income commuters. They are also heartened that the Public Transport Fund would be enhanced by way of collection of penalty fees, as well as a part of the fare increment in revenue that PTOs receive. We also note that only half of the transport vouchers in the recent round were collected or redeemed by commuters. I would like to ask the Minister how does the Ministry envisage the bigger fund will be used for the right purposes and whether they will consider allowing people with severe hardship to be able to apply, not just one time, but for many times, to tie over short term or even extended periods of financial hardship?

Those are good questions. Again, I reiterate the call to Members to be on the lookout for those who do need help and to see in what ways we can help them, both in transport as well as beyond transport. The intent, going forward, is perhaps, think about the possibility, as the Member has suggested, to not only make some vouchers available during a round of fare increase but also have some vouchers available on an ad hoc basis, so that assistance can be given to those who are most in need or who are in difficulties on a very sudden short-term basis. So, we will look at that very carefully and I thank you for the suggestion.

I would like to ask the Minister this: there are calls for including profitability into the public transport fare formula. I just want to know if that has been considered into the formula because if the transport operators are making excessive profits, then commuters will find it very hard to accept any fare increase.

Thank you. May I ask the Member for his definition of what would be considered excessive profits?

Page: 26

If you look at the bottom line, and if you see that net profit is in the hundreds of millions as reported, then I think people will find that it is hard for them to say, "I still have got to pay for any of these fare increases."

The FRMC, while they have not completely addressed this, actually devised a feature to try and moderate this somewhat. The FRMC would like to recommend that we have regular fare increases, and not follow the pattern of what we have seen in recent years where, sometimes, it is deferred and forgone because there is no roll-over mechanism.

The FRMC added a feature that PTOs, based on their profitability, should contribute between 20% and 50% of the additional revenue that they would get arising from a fare increase exercise. So, for that year, they would take between 20% and 50%, depending on their profitability, and contribute this to the Public Transport Fund and then it would be up to PTC to decide how else to use the Fund beyond what it is today.

Having said that, without defending in any way what the PTOs' profitability numbers are, it is also interesting to look at how that has changed over the years. I think it has really been SMRT's profits that sort of enjoy a certain scrutiny, more so than SBST's. As part of the fare exercise, I was actually looking quite closely at the numbers. What we had seen from March 2011 to March 2013, over the space of those two years, was a 50% decrease in the profits for SMRT, and the last financial year was about $80 million.

Again, looking at the reports for the first two quarters of this year up to September, it has come down further by another 55% from last year's corresponding numbers. They are under some degree of cost pressures because we have required them to step up their maintenance, we have required them to set themselves to higher performance standards, and they have had to pay their staff more.

So, that is the situation as it is, which is why FRMC, when they put up the report, to their great credit, focused very much on affordability and concessions, but at various parts in the report, also made it very clear that they were concerned about the financial viability of the public transport system and, therefore, the need to maintain discipline in terms of having regular fare reviews.

Page: 27

5 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how the different Ministries determine the eligibility criteria for subsidies and assistance schemes for childcare, education, housing, healthcare and public assistance for needy Singaporeans.

6 Ms Lee Li Lian asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government is considering raising the per capita income cap of $550 for ComCare assistance closer to the $900 used during the haze episode or the $1,100 for the Community Health Assist Scheme Blue scheme; and (b) how are the needs assessed to determine the $550, $900 and $1,100 cut-off lines.

7 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the Government doing to mitigate the "cliff effect" of having the eligibility for short-term and medium-term ComCare assistance capped at a household income of $1,700 or a per capita income of $550; and (b) how many households were eligible for assistance as of end-June 2013.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to answer the next three questions together as they relate to the topic of how we take care of all Singaporeans, especially the less fortunate in our midst?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, this Government cares for all Singaporeans. Our priority is to uplift as many Singaporeans as possible for them to enjoy quality lives by having a stable home, meaningful jobs, quality healthcare and good education opportunities to fulfil their potential – not just for oneself but to also contribute to society where possible.

New technology and global competition have posed new challenges and widened the income difference in many societies. We, too, face similar challenges where our low- and middle-income families find it challenging to keep pace. For this reason, we must complement efforts to uplift all Singaporeans by ensuring that we share the fruits of our nation's success with those who are less fortunate and those who may not be able to keep pace.

Page: 28

While we are committed to help our low- and middle-income families keep pace with the rest, we also recognise that the more successful ones have a duty to share with the rest. This must be our social compact to stay united and cohesive.

Ms Foo Mee Har asked about the eligibility criteria for our different help schemes. Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to distribute a set of table and chart on the key schemes we currently have to share the fruits of our nation's success with Singaporeans across the board?

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members]

Mdm Speaker, this list is illustrative and by no means exhaustive. It illustrates how we share the fruits of our success with all Singaporeans by providing more for those with less. Our strategy is to have multiple lines of assistance to help fellow Singaporeans with differing needs. These range from broad-based subsidies that benefit many, to targeted assistance for smaller groups who need additional help. The eligibility criteria vary, depending on the target group of beneficiaries and the purpose of assistance.

For essential needs, such as housing and healthcare, or developmental areas, such as early childhood development, education and training, our subsidies generally cover a wider group of Singaporeans, with greater levels of support and subsidies provided for the lower income. The eligibility criteria are developed according to the groups we help. For example, our childcare subsidies cover up to the 67th percentile of households with preschool children while the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) card caters to the lower- and middle-income households earning up to a per capita income (PCI) of $1,800.

There are also programmes that support a smaller group of low-income Singaporeans who need extra support. Examples include ComCare, which provides both short- and longer-term assistance to families in need. Similarly, the income criteria for these schemes reflect the low-income and needy groups that we help. However, there is flexibility within the help system to cater to those who may not meet the criteria but who are genuinely in need.

On the other hand, Workfare has a different objective. Workfare is designed to mitigate wage inequality, rather than to meet certain basic needs. We design the system to help the lowest 30% of income earners or more than 400,000

Page: 29

Singaporean workers in absolute numbers. This scheme allows our lower-income workers to narrow the wage gap and share in the nation's success.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked how we avoid a "cliff effect" for ComCare. ComCare applicants are assessed holistically to determine their needs and circumstances, taking into account overall circumstances beyond income. Factors like household size, number of schooling children and medical conditions are considered. We mitigate any cliff effect by having a gradation of assistance given to families who fall within the eligibility criteria. On the other hand, in 2012, more than 1,500 households who did not meet the income criteria were also assisted under ComCare. Those who have other needs that cannot be met by ComCare assistance will be referred to other agencies to ensure that they receive assistance appropriate to their needs.

On Mr Yee Jenn Jong's other query, as at the first six months of 2013, close to 11,800 households are receiving ComCare Short and Medium Term Assistance.

To Ms Lee Li Lian's question, across all Ministries and schemes, we will continue to review the eligibility criteria regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and effective for our target groups.

Mdm Speaker, we are heartened by many Singaporeans who wish to know more and, more importantly, to do more to help fellow Singaporeans in need. Indeed, we must never forget the needy amongst us, no matter how rich our country may be. We can all contribute our part towards this effort to share the fruits of our nation's success and uplift fellow Singaporeans in need. Very often, the needs of Singaporeans who require assistance are multidimensional, beyond a simple income matrix. Social workers, in partnership with volunteers, community groups and like-minded individuals, will understand very well the need to provide flexible, integrated and timely support for such families to walk through the dark valleys of life. We seek to continually improve our care for all Singaporeans, especially the most needy amongst us, in partnership with our fellow Singaporeans.

I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive response and for the table, which helps to provide details of the various schemes and how they target different groups of Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.

Page: 30

Even though it is very clearly laid out in the way the Minister explained just now, I think somehow the people who need the help have the impression that the schemes are available on a case-by-case basis. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider communicating the assistance schemes much more clearly to the target groups, so that residents can better understand who the schemes are targeted at, and raise awareness of the availability of the schemes to those in need. It will also give more confidence to residents to come forward if they need help because they are more aware of their eligibility.

Mdm Speaker, indeed, that is one of the key and, perhaps, most important things that we must do in any policy implementation. It is not just about having good policies, it is about closing that last mile, making sure that our communication reaches the people whom we are targeting the message. And in this area, I would like to appeal to all Members of this House to help us and walk this journey with us. Because, very often, the people who are most in need may not read the newspapers, access the Internet or even understand English, but they need people who can talk to them in their language, people who will knock on their doors, check on them to see whether they are okay, and explain some of these assistance schemes to them.

In my own house visits, very often, you will find that families do not even apply for bursary for their school-going children. Sometimes, because they do not know about it; sometimes, they think that other people may look down on them if they apply for such assistance. But this is where we need to do a lot of work to encourage them to come onboard and take up the assistance where it is available. We cannot emphasise enough this point about communication and the last-mile communication. And I urge all Members of the House to join us in this, to mobilise the volunteers and reach out to these groups of people, so that they, too, will understand the help available and they do not need to go through the difficult moments in life alone.

I thank the Minister for the answers and the table. I have one supplementary question. I would like to understand a bit more about the criteria for the $550 per capita income or $1,700 household income cap for ComCare. I would like to know if this is based on any research or international norms, or if this is a definition by MSF about minimum living income. I would like to also know how and when MSF would consider adjustments to these lines that are being set.

Page: 31

Mdm Speaker, in response to Mr Yee's question, let me explain that ComCare provides short- and medium-term assistance to the families in need to supplement the other sources of help that they might have. It is not a uniform scheme whereby everybody gets a fixed amount. The amount that is given out to the respective families actually takes into account various factors like, as I have explained, the family sizes, their other sources of income, their particular needs, for example, in medical, and so forth. So, the criteria that we set here for the per capita income of about $550, for the PCI, of about $1,700 for the family, those are guidelines that we use because these are generally lines whereby, from our experience, people coming to seek help are in this range. And, of course, we will regularly review the criteria, as we have done so in the recent years.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have a couple of supplementary questions for the Minister. First and foremost, I am glad that the Minister has shared the reasons why some low-income families have not undertaken some of these schemes. I note that there are many of these schemes available but there is also a perception that these schemes are not accessible. So, how can we improve their accessibility? Because for many of these low-wage workers, they are typically daily-rated and do not have documentation, or some may also find it a hassle to go to the CDC or Social Service Offices (SSOs) because of the nature of their job.

The second question is about how we can make it easier to access the schemes. How much does the Government spend or what is the increase in terms of the funding for such schemes? And in terms of the increase in expenditure, what is the impact on taxpayers?

Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Zaqy for his questions. Can I just clarify what his second question is?

Basically, my second question relates to this. We have always said that we are not a welfare state. We have a lot of schemes available to the low- and middle-income workers. But as we keep increasing the schemes, moving into the middle-income range, for example, would that put a heavy burden on the taxpayers? I want to ask the Minister how is the Ministry planning in the long term, in terms of the sustainability of such schemes.

Page: 32

Mdm Speaker, if I may take the first question on accessibility. Indeed, we need to spend a lot of time and a lot of effort to mobilise the volunteers and grassroots community leaders to come and help spread the message. For example, recently, we have set up a chain of Social Service Offices across the entire island. We will have 10 by the end of this year and, hopefully, 20 by the end of next year. These are all avenues to help improve and increase the number of access points where the needy families can get help.

We are also expanding the network of Family Service Centres from the previous of about 40 to now more than 40, so that families in need can also access help. But, most importantly, it goes back to what Ms Foo Mee Har mentioned just now, which is that we need our volunteers and grassroots partners to know the schemes first so that they can go out and help spread the message because they are our best opinion multipliers.

The other thing that we have to do is to improve our communication. Many of these needy families get the information from other needy families on what are the sources of help available. So, we will try all channels, and we must try all channels, to get the message out. On the other hand, we must simplify the messaging so that it does not matter whether you understand English, Mandarin or any other languages, so long as you get to an access point, like a Family Service Centre or a Social Service Office, you will have the information available to you.

What we want to work towards is that the person applying for assistance should not be required to understand the complexity of the scheme. If they need help, they should be able to approach someone who understands the scheme, and it is up to us who are providing the help to find out which is the most appropriate scheme and package the scheme to help the person in need. So, we do this at the backend but, at the front end, the persons who need help will just need to let the social worker or the social work professionals know the kind of situation that they are in.

Of course, there are other things that we are trying to do better, which is to have an integrated database to avoid having people repeat their case stories when they move from point A to point B. We have an integrated case management across time and across space so that the needy families get the help that they need.

On the second question that the Member asked: what does this mean for us, going forward? Indeed, this is a very important question. We know that

Page: 33

because of the way technology has come about, and because of global competition, there is a tendency in many countries for the gap to widen between the top and the bottom. This means that, over time, we can expect that we will need to do more, not just the Government but the community partners, and so forth. Over time, we must continually find those resources to help the people that we want to do so, which is why I started this answer by saying that our first priority is to make sure that, if you like, the tide goes up and the pie continues to grow so that we have more resources. We are not aiming for economic growth for the sake of economic growth per se. We are aiming to grow the pie so that we have the resources to help the people in need. If the pie does not grow, if we do not have a stable country and the pie continues to shrink, it makes it so much harder for us to find the resources to help the people in our country.

Having said that we have grown the pie, the next thing we must do is that we must have a social compact – a social compact that says that we are prepared to do more for those with less. If you look at the multi-coloured chart that I have just distributed, you will notice that there is a cascading effect, whereby the low-income actually gets the most help, and that is how it should be. We should not be in a situation whereby, because of politics, the middle-income group ends up getting the bulk of it and we neglect the lowest income group. We should have a system, where it is broadly where we are now, whereby the lowest income will always get the most, then we slowly cascade down, and those with the most will also be willing to share more of what they have. Only so will we be able to have a social compact for us to stay united as a country.

But having said all these, let us recognise that this is not easy because, going forward, as our demographics grow older, as our demographics age, the amount of resources that we can command to do many of these things may be increasingly constrained. On the other hand, the needs that we have may be growing quite quickly, and this is where we must make sure that all the schemes that we do are sustainable for the future generation, that the future generation will not be burdened by something that we started in this generation but is unsustainable. On the other hand, that will also require us to make sure that whatever finite resources that we have, whether in this generation or the next generation, that they are most targeted at the people who need it most. We must have this understanding amongst everyone in the society, that this is what we want to do – to always focus more resources on those with less. Only so will we be able to mitigate any widening of the gap brought about by the forces of technology and globalisation.

Page: 34

When the Ministry is conducting such reviews, I would like to find out whether there are any ways, methods or formulas that were used previously to conduct its review, in order to continue to stay relevant. In other words, how are the reviews done?

Mdm Speaker, different Ministries will have different methods of reviewing it. But what I can share, common to all Ministries, is that you do not just look at one particular indicator but at a range of indicators to give us a sense of it. It may not be an exact science but we must try and get as many different indicators as possible to help us do this.

Let me use the example of the childcare subsidies that is under my own Ministry. For example, in the review of the childcare subsidies, we used to have a uniform assistance scheme for many of the people who are eligible, which is a flat rate of $300. Over time, we have gotten feedback from people that actually we should focus more resources on those with less and, indeed, we agree with that. Over time, we have also found, as a percentage of household expenditures, what is a reasonable number that we should have per child per household, and we look at the experiences of other countries and our own experiences. Then there is also the absolute amount that people spend. So, we also look at prices in the market. With all these different indicators, they would give us a sense of what we need to do. In the recent review that we announced in the earlier part of this year – the first quarter of this year – we targeted the most subsidies to those families with the least so that the families in the lowest income group can even send their children to a childcare centre at $3 per month per child. We do all we can to help them and, very often, this $3 is even covered by the community groups. But that also means that, progressively, we will not have the same level of assistance to the rest of the people who are much more well-off. So, there are different ways.

For housing, they will have other indicators, for example, what is the debt-servicing ratio, and how much loans to give to the people. So, different Ministries have different indicators. But common to all Ministries is that they use different indicators to give them a sense of the kind of challenges that the different family groups have in order to derive the various schemes.

Page: 35

8 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Communications and Information in light of the fire at the SingTel Bukit Panjang Exchange on 9 October 2013 resulting in loss of telecommunications services to consumers and businesses (a) if he can provide an update on the status of the IDA investigation; (b) what lessons have already been learnt from the case; (c) what actions the Government will take even as the investigation continues; and (d) what businesses and consumers can do to make themselves more prepared in future.

9 Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Minister for Communications and Information in light of the disruption to connectivity due to the fire at the SingTel Exchange at Bukit Panjang (a) whether our network is sufficiently resilient to withstand disasters and terrorist attacks; (b) whether there is a need to separate the provision of the national network from retail operators; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce different tiers of service levels and redundancies for critical business and Government operations.

10 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) when will IDA make a decision on and what are its considerations in allowing the SingTel-owned NetLink Trust to buy out the country's fibre network builder, OpenNet, after six Singapore broadband players and a coalition of Asia-Pacific carriers have jointly opposed the move; and (b) whether IDA will review the need and funding for a second NetCo to enable greater network and exchange independence for the future.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 to 10 together?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, IDA is still investigating the incident. It has formed a review panel, comprising relevant telecommunications network and fire experts, to assist in the investigation. The investigation will cover the following areas: (i) the cause of the incident; (ii) whether the incident could have been avoided; (iii) whether operators took all necessary action to restore services expeditiously; (iv) whether affected businesses had acquired diversity options and, if so, whether these options were effective when the incident happened; and (v) determine measures to be

Page: 36

put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. Last week, SingTel revealed the preliminary findings from its internal investigation on the cause of the fire. However, as IDA's investigation is still on-going, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the facts of the case, or to draw any conclusions.

Madam, the Government takes this incident very seriously. We recognise that a resilient telecommunications network is very important to the country. There are four components to the concept of resilience. The first is Diversity. The second is Resistance. The third is Redundancy, and the fourth is Recovery.

"Diversity" means providing more than one way for telecommunications signals to be routed. "Resistance" refers to the ability of the infrastructure to withstand threats, including foreseeable and avoidable human errors, with minimal disruption or failure such that operations continue. "Redundancy" refers to the concept of having "spares". It means putting, on standby, additional equipment or services which cut over if the primary equipment fails. Recovery means the ability to respond to incidents and to restore services expeditiously with minimal delay. Getting the most optimal level of resiliency means making the right investments in Diversity, Resistance, Redundancy and Recovery.

Focusing on diversity alone does not make the network more resilient. For example, if an operator built a duplicate network, but did not invest in adequate facilities to recover from an outage, it would end up with two networks that are not resilient. It is the combination of enhancements to Diversity, Resistance, Redundancy and Recovery that matters.

A second NetCo, to be fully diversified, must have a completely different set of exchanges, cannot share the same routes through which cables run, cannot share any common point, including ducts, and must separately run into every premise. It will be many times more expensive than the Next Gen NBN, which avoided the expense of having to build its own ducts and exchanges. For the consumer, they will still have to choose between one of the two networks. So, the service that the consumer buys will still not be diversified.

Let me turn to what actions the Government will take even as investigations continue. IDA has, over the years, taken steps to progressively improve resiliency. Since 1998, IDA has put in place the Telecom Service Resiliency Code which places strict requirements on operators of key network infrastructure. This is to ensure that they invest in and enhance the resilience of their networks

Page: 37

to prevent outages, as well as having processes for quick service recovery in the event of an incident. IDA has penalised operators under the Resiliency Code where IDA believes operators could have prevented or taken shorter restoration time.

The Member asked what lessons have been learnt from this incident. We take the opportunity to learn from every incident that happens, and review policies and regulations to enhance resilience. In January 2013, M1 suffered a mobile telephone outage. IDA conducted an in-depth review of the resiliency of the three mobile operators' networks. So, apart from imposing a record fine on M1, IDA's investigation also identified areas of improvement for the sector. While the review highlighted that the three mobile operators' networks generally meet international standards, IDA felt that further improvements can be made. For example, international experts indicated that no country has required its operators to build a full geo-redundant mobile network at the core level. This is where an operator puts in place at least two sets of replicated network equipment, housed at different geographical locations, so that in the event that one location is brought down, the other location is capable of immediately taking over the full load and capacity. This is an option that IDA is currently considering. IDA will implement an audit framework by the second half of next year and is in discussion with the mobile operators on the scope of the audit, which would cover the network design, technical processes, business continuity planning, and infrastructure and facilities to support the mobile network. IDA will also work with the mobile operators on implementing enhancements in areas, such as network design, by minimising the number of single points of failure, upgrading network architecture to support full redundancy, and implementing better business continuity planning.

In the same way, Government intends to wait for the outcome of IDA's investigations. Based on the findings, we will review if further policy measures are necessary, including having similar audit framework for other networks. In the meantime, certain works have been suspended, pending a full review of various procedures.

Let me address the issue of what end users can do. For critical sectors, such as the financial sector, regulators, such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore, require financial institutions to maintain resilience in their systems. End users and businesses that require higher resiliency can adopt various strategies, by diversifying the risk through path or exchange diversity from the same operator, by using different technology platforms, for example, fibre vs wireless, or by purchasing services from different network operators. As their needs vary, it would be impractical to require the telecom operators to offer only a fixed menu

Page: 38

of tiers. Rather, end users need to work closely with their telecom service providers in order to ensure that the telecom service offered is well integrated into their enterprise systems.

While telecommunication service providers are required to provide sufficiently clear explanations to consumers and businesses on their resiliency service offerings, consumers and businesses may make the effort to have a better understanding of these offerings before deciding on an approach that suits their needs. In this regard, I urge users which have certain business requirements, to relook at their diversity options and ensure that they have good alternatives in place.

Finally, Madam, on the Consolidation Application of OpenNet, I would like to reiterate that the sale of Open Net is unrelated to the incident at the Bukit Panjang Exchange. IDA had correctly stated that ownership should not be confused with diversity. I understand that IDA has received feedback from various parties concerning the Consolidation Application and is reviewing them. They will be able to issue a decision soon.

The Telecom Competition Code requires the IDA, when assessing consolidation applications, to take into account all factors in accordance with the standards spelt out in the Code. These include ensuring that the proposed consolidation does not result in a substantial lessening of competition in any telecommunication market in Singapore or harm the public interest. In its review, IDA will take into account the feedback received from the public consultation exercise, including the submission from the industry coalition.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. He spoke about Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Planning, and there was quite a bit of stress in terms of infrastructure. Such things also involve typically process and ensuring that there is regular updating of these processes and performance of the tasks, like how you would do fire drills. What is IDA's framework with regard to this, and has SingTel been performing these exercises prior to the fire?

Also, do the requirements involve the other operators? I also note that M1 and Starhub were also affected as they link back to the OpenNet infrastructure.

The Minister also touched on IDA's new audit framework that is to be launched in the second half. Will that also mean that IDA will now practically audit service providers? The proactiveness is important. Is it also time to look

Page: 39

at more stringent requirements because of our heavy dependence, compared to other developed countries, on the communications infrastructure today?

To answer the second question first, the Member is right that when we have the audit framework in place, it means that we will have to go out and check on a regular basis as to whether the requirements that we have put in place in the Code are being implemented by the operators. We want to look at our requirements in a comprehensive manner. I mentioned just now the example of the M1 outage and what we have learnt from that incident. We have reviewed some of the requirements that we want to put into the audit framework, which we have now released to the public for consultation. We will do so for other networks that I mentioned in my reply earlier. We think this is the best way to move forward, because it is important for us to ensure that, given the complexity of the systems, that our requirements must be heightened to meet all possible circumstances.

On the first question: at the moment, what we have is a resiliency code that places certain requirements on all our network operators, especially the large operators whose network has a wide impact. They are supposed to follow the requirements, and as and when an incident happens, an audit would be done by IDA to find out whether they had adopted the requirements.

Finally, we will leave it to the operators to do their own audit checks and their own internal assessments to make sure that they have all the requirements in place. At the network level, we want to have certain redundancy and resiliency. At the business end, as I had mentioned in my reply, it is something for the operators and the businesses to decide what level of redundancy and resiliency the businesses would like to have.

We are concerned about the critical infrastructure, and, at the network level, we have requirements which are in place; at the consumer end, we have basically left it to them to decide on a commercial basis.

Going forward, with the audit framework in place, we hope that would further strengthen, not only the resiliency code, but the regular audits will also ensure our operators are in line. We cannot be too prescriptive because we recognise that technology moves ahead at different speeds. What we want to do is to impose certain requirements that are necessary to ensure the operators have good recovery in case an incident happens, a certain level of resilience should be built within the operators' network, and the need for certain types of

Page: 40

network diversity.

11 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for Education whether Primary schools are entitled to test students beyond what they teach and, if so, what is the rationale for allowing this.