Hansard, Monday, 14 February 2022

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the agreement to realign the boundary between the Jakarta Flight Information Region (FIR) and the Singapore FIR (a) what is the expected short- to long-term impact on our air services industry and other related sectors; (b) how will this allow Changi Airport to grow in the long term as an international air hub; and (c) what are the strategic plans beyond 25 years in terms of managing the airspace and ensuring air traffic control safety.

2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the realignment of the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary between Singapore and Jakarta and, in particular, the return of FIR over the Natuna and Riau Islands to Indonesia, improve civil aviation safety and efficiency and allow Changi Airport to grow in the long term; and (b) what are the handover measures to ensure a smooth and safe transition.

3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport given the agreement between Singapore and Indonesia to realign the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundaries (a) how does the Ministry intend to ensure the continued safe and smooth flight operations for Changi Airport; and (b) what is the estimated timeline for ratification of the FIR Agreement.

4 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport what are the implications for Changi Airport in view of the agreement between Singapore and Indonesia covering a change in the Flight Information Region.

5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Transport arising from the agreement at the 5th Singapore-Indonesia Leaders' Retreat in Bintan, what will be the status of the Singapore and Jakarta Flight Information Regions (FIR) respectively, should both Governments fail to come to a new agreement after 25 years.

6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Prime Minister what are the projected benefits of the joint collaboration with Indonesia under the latest mutually beneficial agreements signed.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 to 6 as part of the Ministerial Statements to be delivered by me and Minister for Transport Mr S Iswaran later in the Sitting, please?

Yes, you may.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Tin Pei Ling –

7 To ask the Prime Minister in view of the recent phishing scams affecting several OCBC customers (a) what other actions will be taken to help victims who have lost their life savings through phishing scams; (b) what will be done to enhance digital banking security across all banks in Singapore; and (c) whether there will be a rethink of the use of one-time passwords for banking transactions.

8 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister (a) what lessons can be learnt from the recent banking scams; and (b) how can consumers be better protected from such scams.

9 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister with regard to phishing scams where fake messages have been inserted into SMS threads used by banks (a) whether the Government has data on (i) the number of customers who were affected (ii) their total losses (iii) the amount of funds recovered or reinstated and (iv) the number of customers who experienced delays in escalating this issue with their banks; (b) if so, what are they respectively since 2020; and (c) whether MAS will review how the interests of customers can be better balanced and safeguarded.

10 Mr Don Wee asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent phishing scams via SMS notifications, what measures will the Government consider implementing to ensure the security and integrity of digital banking platforms, speedy detection of fraud and the remediation action to customers.

11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he can provide an update on the review of the liability framework on scam payment transactions; (b) whether the SMS SenderID protection registry will be mandated for all banks and, if so, when; and (c) whether MAS will consider mandating banks to have a dedicated 24-hour hotline manned by relevant personnel to respond to calls expediently about ongoing fraudulent activities.

12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there are any Government regulations requiring banks to (i) provide channels for bank customers to urgently alert that a scam or fraud involving their account is actively in progress (ii) have a daily 24-hour response team on standby for such incidents (iii) have a process for escalating such distress calls from customers and (iv) provide recourse to an affected customer who has suffered increased losses caused by delayed bank response; and (b) if so, what are these regulations.

13 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent spate of scams targeting consumers of financial institutions (a) when will MAS' review of the framework on responsibilities of consumers and financial institutions in relation to fraudulent payment transactions be released; and (b) whether MAS will consider implementing the recently released guidelines on technology risk as a directive or notice instead.

14 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Ministry will consider publishing a list of financial institutions that have signed up for the Singapore SMS SenderID protection registry pilot scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry will make it mandatory for all financial institutions to sign up for the registry and, if not, what are the reasons for not making it mandatory.

15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there are any guidelines requiring banks to call and check with their clients before allowing suspicious transactions; (b) whether banks will be encouraged to explore other secured procedures to verify their clients' identities without asking for these details over the phone; and (c) what other measures will be considered for implementation to plug this security gap.

16 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent spate of SMS phishing scams impersonating local banks (a) whether there are plans to introduce further safeguards in addition to the new requirements announced by MAS and the Association of Banks in Singapore on 19 January 2022; (b) what is the number of similar scams that are reported over the last five years; and (c) whether the Government will consider any outreach programme to educate the public.

17 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the lapses that resulted in OCBC customers falling prey to the recent phishing scams; and (b) what measures will the Government take to prevent this from happening again.

18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister whether he will review the apportionment of liability between banks and their customers in cases of scams.

19 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) what regulatory actions have been recently taken by MAS on anti-phishing measures; and (b) whether the Government will convene a workgroup to review current legislation against financial scams with a view to strengthening consumer protection.

20 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister (a) what was the date that OCBC first notified MAS that it was being subject to a sophisticated phishing operation; (b) what actions did MAS pursue to constrain the phishing operation since that time of notification; and (c) whether MAS has since investigated whether OCBC's cybersecurity standards are sound.

21 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Prime Minister (a) how many victims of the recent spate of scams targeting OCBC customers are awaiting investigation results and reimbursement; (b) whether MAS has concluded their investigations; and (c) whether the Government will improve the legal and protective safeguards for scam victims who do not flout e-banking protocols, such as providing one-time passwords to external parties.

22 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS will consider introducing a legally-binding risk-based approach framework in tackling the security of digital banking as has been done in Notice 626 which deals with Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism; and (b) whether MAS will consider implementing a customer risk profile assessment, based on objective assessment, to determine the level of controls that financial institutions maintain over a customer's account.

23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent spate of OCBC scams via SMS notifications, what efforts has the Government taken to (i) assist in the recovery of monies lost to the perpetrators and (ii) locate the perpetrators with the assistance of foreign authorities with the view to bringing them to justice.

24 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) whether MAS can mandate banks to (i) proactively monitor, flag out and pause transactions that have a significant likelihood of being connected with scams, based on clearly defined criteria, until verification of the customer's identity and (ii) provide customers with the option of setting a default cooling-off period for transactions beyond a specified quantum; and (b) in the ongoing review of the liability framework on fraudulent transactions, whether affected consumers can be assured of full compensation if they did not act with gross negligence.

25 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister whether financial institutions can be legally required to make at least a partial compensation to victims of online scams in order to place a greater onus on them to take all possible technical and customer education measures to prevent their customers from falling victim to scams.

26 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there are any plans to require the mandatory pre-registration of alphanumeric SMS sender IDs for businesses and organisations; and (b) whether there will be plans to beef up telcos' defences against scams and spoof attempts.

27 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Cyber Security Agency's (CSA) assessment of the recent spate of telecommunication scams targeting bank customers and others; and (b) how does CSA work with financial institutions to ensure our Critical Information Infrastructure is protected from any malicious attempts to undermine confidence.

28 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact of the recent telecommunication scams on the SG Digital Office's (SDO) efforts in promoting digital adoption; and (b) how does SDO intend to ensure the public remains confident in the security of their online transactions.

29 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether there have been any studies on the effectiveness of the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry for reducing the prevalence of unsolicited calls and text messages; (b) whether these measures of effectiveness also evaluate prevention of financial scams; and (c) what are the remaining challenges that inhibit the further reduction of unsolicited calls and texts despite the presence of the DNC registry.

30 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the challenges posed to our efforts to educate Singaporeans and, in particular, our seniors on anti-scam precautions and measures; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to enhance its outreach to further strengthen digital resilience among Singaporeans.

31 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider adopting for the health sector some of the cybersecurity measures recently announced by MAS and the Association of Banks in Singapore, such as removing clickable links in emails or SMSes, given the sensitivity of health data, the prevalence of scams and the vulnerability among some segments of the community to fall prey to such scams.

32 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, what is the number of scam-related crime; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to devote more resources to investigate scam-related crime; and (c) how is SPF working with banks and other agencies to reduce scam-related crime in Singapore.

Question No 7.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 7 to 32 as part of the three Ministerial Statements to be delivered by the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Smart Nation and Cybersecurity Mrs Josephine Teo, the Minister of State for Home Affairs Mr Desmond Tan and myself, at tomorrow's Sitting.

Yes, you may.

33 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can provide an update on the internal investigations conducted against the Police officers involved in the case of Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187.

I thank the Member for the question. In respect of the case, the Police's Internal Affairs Office (IAO) has completed its internal investigations relating to the Police Investigation Officer (IO) and his supervisor.

Generally, the IAO will take this approach: one, look at the facts of the case, the actions of the officers involved, how they have handled any lapses; two, listen to the explanations given by the officers; and three, assess and recommend the disciplinary action, if any, to be taken.

When the IAO started its investigations against the two officers, I made clear the following two points, which I have made in the past in the House as well as outside.

First, our approach must always be to do our duty, conduct investigations without fear or favour.

Second, at the same time, we do not look to scapegoat or act unfairly. We do not go out to blame and punish, just because there has been a lot of public interest in the matter and because some call for heavy punishment. We must deal with this case as we would deal with any other case, regardless of publicity. We must deal with it professionally and properly.

This is important for the public and the Police to know. Police officers have to often exercise their judgement and discretion in the course of their duties – sometimes on an urgent basis but always under some sort of pressure.

We want our Police officers to be confident in exercising their discretion, when they are performing their duties. We cannot fault officers, just because we think, with the benefit of hindsight, that we would have exercised our discretion differently in their situation or just because we do not agree with their judgement or exercise of discretion. And the officers must know that action will be taken against them, only if there are discipline issues or misconduct, or some breach. The management culture, all the way from the top, must be that we ask that the matter be dealt with fairly, be prepared to explain in public what action is fair and why.

The investigations in this case found that both the IO and his supervisor had neglected their duties. Neglect of duty means the failure to take proper action to perform a required task. The penalty for neglect of duty depends on the officers' degree of culpability and the harm caused by their actions. Penalties can range from a reprimand, or financial penalty, to demotion and dismissal from service. The maximum financial penalty imposed under the Public Service Commission (Delegation of Disciplinary Functions) Directions is a fine equivalent to the stoppage of increment for two years. There are, of course, other more severe penalties possible, under legislation, and that really depends on the conduct.

The IO who handled the Police report handled it as a routine theft case; and it was so. But there were some lapses. The lapses include the following.

First, the IO did not visit the scene of crime promptly to carry out investigation and gather evidence. This contributed to a break in the chain of custody for some exhibits.

Second, the IO did not properly verify some of the claims made by the parties during the investigation.

Third, his supervisor did not provide sufficient guidance, which contributed to the lapses.

The IAO also took into account the intense pressure that the IO was working under. He was handling many ongoing investigations, prosecutions and conducting arrest operations at the same time. I have spoken before about the workload challenges that Police IOs face. The only way to deal with this is to increase Police's headcount. We have not solved that issue yet. It is a difficult problem and not easily solvable because of the general manpower shortage.

In the event, a financial penalty, equivalent to the medium range, was imposed on both officers for neglect of duty. The Public Service Commission, as the authority for disciplinary control of civil servants, has concurred with the penalty imposed on both officers.

As I said, the two Police officers were doing their jobs under difficult circumstances and, up until this incident, they have discharged their duties dutifully. I have sympathy for the situation that they find themselves in. But they have fallen short of expectations, and they have been dealt with in the way other officers would have been dealt with in similar circumstances.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

I thank the Minister for the clarification and the answer. I am heartened to see that we are putting our officers at the heart, front and centre of the things that we do, even during investigations. Our officers are all human beings. They face pressures of family, professionally and personally as well. I am heartened that there is some form of review on the workload distribution and the manpower challenges.

In this regard, may I ask if there are any avenues for our officers to escalate the pressures of the workload or the stressors that they are facing, both at work and elsewhere, within the institution of the Police organisation and the investigation body? So, whether or not there could be a bit more support in terms of counselling, mentorship, perhaps? I note that the supervisor in this case has been found to have lapsed in his supervision, but could there have been other channels of oversight or avenues for the officer to escalate those stressors and the pressures that he may face?

Thank you, Sir, I will make two points in response. First, we put the officers at the heart of what we do because there is something even more central and fundamental – which is public interest. The officers are there to serve public interest and if public interest is affected in some way, we have to take action. But the institution can only do well if the officers are treated fairly. The officers have to be treated fairly so that they can do their job and so that public interest – which is the fundamental, primary, central goal – is achieved.

So, it is not putting officers above the public but serving the public through making sure that there is a strong institution. And in order for there to be a strong institution, there have got to be good officers who know that they will be treated fairly. So, that is the approach.

On the second point, how do we take care of the officers, there are many avenues. In every context, there are officers' senior officers who are tasked to take feedback, collect, understand and, in fact, part of leadership, that has to be emphasised – not just in SPF, but in other places, too – is to make sure that the morale of your officers remains high. Surveys – both internal as well as independent – show that the morale of Police officers is high. And public confidence in the Police force, despite some scurrilous attempts by some third parties to continuously run down the Police, remains extremely high. Contrary to the way people perceive police forces in many other parts of the world, the Singapore Police officer is held in very high esteem, very high regard. And we have to continue with that.

As to whether we can do more, I have explained the difficulties. The fundamental difficulty is that there are not enough officers. There is only so much more that you can do when your central problem is that there is more work than can reasonably be done by the workforce we have. And I have said we do our best in those circumstances.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister on what he just told the House. First, he mentioned that the punishment that was recommended for the two officers, meaning the IO and his supervisor, was a fine which was equivalent to a stoppage of pay, or something along those lines. So, I would like to ask him whether he means that the officers concerned will not receive their pay for a few months. That is the first question.

The second question is, were the IO and the supervisor punished similarly? In other words, was one assigned more responsibility than the other and will one have stoppage of more months of pay compared to the other?

I thank the Member for that question. In context, what happened is that a fine was imposed on them, plus, in addition, a number of months of increment are forgone. So, there were actually two penalties imposed on them. The number of months differs for the two officers but, as I have said, it is at the mid-point of what could have been imposed.

And how were the two officers approached? On the respective roles that they played. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 14 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 47, Clarification section.]

34 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education in view of the recent death of the twins in Upper Bukit Timah, what lessons can be learnt on the protection of children with special needs and the guidance and support for caregivers, at the national, community and family levels.

35 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students are there currently in mainstream schools who have been diagnosed as requiring extra learning support or having special needs; and (b) what additional support has been mandated and available to these students and their families.

36 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education (a) in the last three years, whether there is an increase in the number of persons with disability, particularly among the student population; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to improve the support for caregivers of persons with disability.

37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will strengthen its support for (i) parents and caregivers of children with special needs and (ii) ageing parents who are caring for their grown-up children with special needs.

38 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what further steps can be taken to ensure that the mental health of caregivers of special needs individuals, children and the elderly are sufficiently supported and that such caregivers will know where to turn to for help.

39 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what measures are in place to reach out to caregivers and promote assistance programmes like respite care through social service agencies; and (b) whether there are interim caregiving services available for highly-stressed families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to have the next six questions to be taken together by Minister Masagos and myself, please?

So, that is Question Nos 34 to 39? Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, we are all deeply saddened to learn of the deaths of 11-year-old twin brothers Ethan Yap and Aston Yap on 21 January. My MOE colleagues and I mourn their passing and we extend our condolences to their families, friends and schoolmates. I believe all Members of this House will agree with us that the pain hits especially hard, because such young lives have been lost.

Soon after the twins' deaths were made public, the media reported that the boys had special needs. Today, I will not touch on the specifics of this case as it is before the Court, and I urge members of the public not to speculate on the incident or to prematurely draw conclusions on what should be done. But, today, together with Minister for Social and Family Development Minister Masagos, I will address how the Government and all of us can take a whole-of-community approach to provide targeted support to children with special needs and their caregivers across different life stages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our goal for children with special needs to reach their full potential, to be confident in themselves and to be equipped with life skills and values so that they can grow up to lead, as much as possible, as normal, as independent a life as possible.

This starts from the early years, where early detection and timely intervention are critical. Parents are encouraged to refer to the developmental milestones in the Health Promotion Board's Child Health Booklet as reference points and take their children for regular childhood developmental screenings at general practitioners' clinics or polyclinics. If any delay in the child's development is detected, the child will be referred to paediatricians for further diagnosis of developmental concerns. In the preschool, teachers may also flag up children with suspected developmental delays to early intervention professionals, who will work with paediatricians to determine the children's needs. Those children identified to require early intervention, or EI, will be referred to the appropriate EI programmes based on the level of support needed. Depending on the programme, children may receive EI support within their preschools or at EI centres.

For the schooling years, to help parents decide how to best support their children's special educational needs, MOE has collaborated with hospitals, EI centres and special education, or SPED, schools to develop common standards to guide professional assessments and align the recommendations we give to parents. Based on these assessments and recommendations, parents decide whether to enrol their children in a mainstream Primary school or a SPED school. MOE also holds an annual Parent Forum, in collaboration with KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital (NUH), to help parents better understand how mainstream and SPED schools can support their children's needs. Parents of children with special educational needs are invited as speakers to share their experiences in choosing a school and working with the school to support their children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, some 27,000 students with mild special educational needs attend mainstream schools, supported by teachers who implement inclusive classroom practices and Allied Educators who specialise in learning and behavioural support. Because of their additional needs, some may need pull-out support during or after curriculum time. Those who need additional support in literacy and numeracy join the Learning Support Programmes in English Language and Mathematics in Primary 1 and 2. And those with Dyslexia may join the School-based Dyslexia Remediation programme for Primary 3 and 4. Last year, we announced that we are rolling out the TRANsition Support for InTegration, or TRANSIT programme, for Primary 1 students with social and behavioural needs. Thirty-seven schools have implemented this programme, and more will be coming on board.

When children have higher support needs, professionals will recommend a SPED school because these schools have specialised instruction and customised facilities, specially-trained teachers and Allied Professionals. Currently, approximately 7,000 students, or about 20% of all students reported with special educational needs, attend the existing 22 SPED schools. These students have moderate to severe special needs. Across mainstream and SPED schools, the number of students reported with special educational needs has risen by about 5% in the last three years, largely due to growing awareness and early identification.

Parents are our key partners as they provide valuable insights into their children's unique needs. This is why schools engage families early to find out their children's needs. Schools then provide details of the support available in school and how the school and parents can work together to support their child. When schools and families communicate, they build relationships and share strategies that can be used both in school and at home.

In some cases, parents of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools may find that the mainstream environment does not suit their child. With the advice of MOE Educational Psychologists and the school's teachers and Allied Educators, they may conclude that their child is better supported in a SPED School. MOE also provides Post-Diagnosis Educational Guidance to render emotional support and assistance to parents in the journey towards acceptance of their child's special needs.

In SPED schools, teachers work closely with parents to exchange information on their children's progress and support the application of skills at home and in the community. Each school has a social worker who can help families with additional emotional or financial needs, if needed. Families can access programmes outside of curriculum hours, such as holiday activities and outings run by the schools or Social Service Agencies (SSAs), in collaboration with external organisations and volunteers. There are also Special Student Care Centres, which provide before-and-after school care services for school-going children with special educational needs. SG Enable as well as SSAs also organise parent and sibling engagement activities, including workshops and camps, where participants provide mutual support by sharing experiences and advice.

To help students and families transit from SPED to post-school life, MOE works with the SPED schools to implement school-wide processes of transition planning for students at the Secondary years, where each student has an Individual Transition Plan reflecting his or her post-school interests, strengths and aspirations. MOE also works with MSF, SG Enable and the SPED schools for the School-to-Work Transition Programme, to support work-capable students in transiting from school to work. For SPED graduates who do not transit to employment due to higher needs, MOE works with SPED schools and SG Enable to facilitate their transition to post-school options based on their abilities and needs, including for students identified for MSF-funded services.

Mr Speaker, all parents plan on providing for our children in every possible way until they reach independence as adults. So, we can all understand when parents discover that their child will need a lot more support for a lot longer, even into adulthood. We can experience their heartache, shock and even fear. This is an unplanned journey and can be a challenging one. Many of us know of such families, amongst our friends, relatives or in the community. Some of us are ourselves family of a special person.

I am heartened to hear of families which have drawn strength from circles of support and who have, in turn, given support to others, allowing them to cope with the stress and challenges of journeying alongside their special child.

So, let us do our part to serve as a circle of support for these children and their families. We cannot say, "Let the other neighbour help. Let the other relatives help. Let the other company hire him." We need not wait for one another – let us all take the first step. Let us all let them know that we value them and their children. Let us remind them that they are not alone. When the parents need a break, let us step in to play with or accompany their children. When they seek an understanding employer or colleague, let us be that understanding employer or colleague. Let us be a community that reaches out in both words and deeds to demonstrate care and kindness. Let us be an inclusive society that uplifts one another, leaves no Singaporean behind and moves forward as one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have Mr Masagos make his reply?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 37 to 39 together, please?

Yes, please.

Minister Chan spoke about the support available for children with special needs and their caregivers during the schooling years. I will share more on the support available for caregivers of persons with special needs or disabilities beyond the school setting.

SG Enable was set up in 2013 to support persons with disabilities and is now the single touchpoint for disability and caregiver support services, as well as public education efforts. Caregivers of persons with disabilities who need information to better care for their loved ones and themselves may access the Enabling Guide at www.enablingguide.sg. This is SG Enable's first-stop resource portal for caregivers to learn more about disabilities in general, as well as available disability services, schemes, caregiver training opportunities and informal caregiver support groups. Caregivers of persons with disabilities who need more information on caregiver support services can also contact SG Enable at caregivers@sgenable.sg.

Aside from the Enabling Guide, MSF and SG Enable work with Social Service Agencies to increase awareness of services. Touchpoints occur early as children are diagnosed with special needs at birth or as they develop. This is also the opportunity to begin better equipping caregivers of such young children. For example, SG Enable runs the "Start Right" workshop twice a month to provide information on Early Intervention (EI), the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, or EIPIC, strategies for caregivers to engage their children at home, as well as available community resources and support.

EI centres also provide caregiver engagement and training under EIPIC, so that caregivers are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support their children at home. ECDA is also developing a guide for parents of preschool-age children who require early intervention, arising from a recommendation by the Inclusive Preschool Workgroup to strengthen support for parents. The parents' guide will include information on developmental needs, ways to access EI services, support available to facilitate the child's transition from the preschool years to school-age provisions, as well as self-care strategies and resources. We expect the guide to be ready by April this year.

We want to assure caregivers that they are not alone in providing care for their loved ones. There are various care services that they can tap on. EI centres, as well as many preschools, provide support for children under the age of seven with developmental needs. Special Student Care Centres, or SSCCs, provide before-and-after school care service for children aged seven to 18. Day Activity Centres, or DACs, offer day programmes for adults with disabilities aged 18 and above on either a full-time or part-time basis. Children Disability Homes, or CDHs, and Adult Disability Homes, or ADHs, provide both long-term and short-term residential care services for persons with disabilities.

SG Enable's "Take-A-Break" Pilot Programme provides short-term home-based respite services.

Supporting the mental health and well-being of caregivers is essential to enable them to take good care of their loved ones and themselves. Caregivers who are distressed and need someone to speak to can call the National Care Hotline, the Institute of Mental Health's Mental Health Helpline, or the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) for support. In addition, MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have worked with Social Service Agencies to set up caregiver community outreach teams, to provide emotional support for caregivers of persons with mental health conditions who have or are at risk of developing mental health needs. Caregivers of seniors and persons with mental health needs can visit the AIC website for information on eldercare services, community mental health services and caregiver support measures, such as financial support schemes and respite care.

MSF has also appointed 10 Parenting Support Providers that offer evidence-based parenting support programmes for parents and caregivers of children. These include the Triple P Programme and Signposts that equip parents and caregivers with strategies to manage the child’s behaviour. MSF's evaluations indicate that attendees reported sustained reductions in parenting stress and improvements in children's behaviour.

Parents and caregivers of children who require low levels of early intervention support and whose children require behavioural support can tap on such programmes as well.

Mr Speaker, supporting caregivers requires many helping hands. It is a whole-of-society effort involving not just the Government, but the community as well. One example is Project 3i, under the SG Together Alliance for Action for Caregivers of Persons with Disabilities, formed by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) and SG Enable.

Project 3i was started by CaringSG, an organisation set up and led by caregivers, for caregivers. Project 3i aims to strengthen community support for caregivers by connecting caregivers with others in the community, providing befriending and peer mentorship by trained caregivers, and providing caregivers and families with complex needs with advisory support from professional volunteers, including doctors, therapists, teachers and psychologists, to help them better navigate and access mainstream health and social services. We welcome more of such community-led and caregiver-led initiatives.

To all caregivers who are facing the challenges and stressors of taking care of their loved ones, please do reach out if you need any assistance. The caregiving journey can be a stressful one and caregivers need our strong support. In addition to having services and programmes available for them and their loved ones, it is equally important for family, friends and other caregivers to provide emotional support. Let us all play a part by extending a helping hand or a listening ear when we see someone in need.

Ms Denise Phua.

I thank the Ministers; very grateful for the heart and hard work that both Ministries have put in. I speak as a disability service provider, a volunteer, a parent of a special needs adult and a parliamentarian. My worry is that the spate of unfortunate events concerning the recent two families will not be the last of it.

Yes, it takes a village – all of us, the Government, disabilities agencies, families, volunteers. We need to take our place and organise better, to get better outcomes. I think when each party thinks that the other party should do it – whether the Government or somebody else – then no one will do it because no one wants to catch the ball alone. It is just too difficult. There are lots of things going on, quite a lot of overlaps, differing standards, noise and so forth.

So, two supplementary questions; I seek the Minister's assurance. One, at the macro level, to share more strategic information, not just when things happen or in Parliamentary settings. Also, involve the ground better.

Strategic information, such as sizing the issue, validating the planning assumptions of the Government Ministries, communicating plans ahead for inputs, ensuring the right partners are onboard and information, such as how many students or adults with special education needs or disabilities are flowing through the system.

And what is the plan? What are the planning assumptions? Where do students go when they exit? What are their prognoses like? How are the current support models, especially in the mainstream schools where the two recent cases are cited? What can be done further to make it more effective? And what are all the immense challenges in the adult disability space?

The issues are really not easy to be settled by just one party: whether it is people, public or private sector. It is all of us.

And then, how can we better tap on, especially train and support ground volunteers, such as those in the grassroots movement? I think there are many of them that have the hearts, but just not so organised, together by us. SG Cares volunteers, even parent groups themselves – how can we involve them and get just better outcomes?

So, that is my first question: how to share more strategic information throughout and involve the ground better?

The second question is, how can we have stronger and more focused work to join the many dots, to peel the onions underneath all the wonderful programmes the Minister listed, to peel the onion further to get to the root causes and then get better outcomes. For example, we need to prevent so many overlaps, so many groups doing the same thing and to ensure better outcomes in not just caregiver support, but also awareness building and so forth.

Hence, I just want to seek the Minister's assurance. I want to thank the Ministries and everybody who has been helping out, for helping out.

I thank the Member for her very passionate supplementary questions. Among all of us, we know Ms Denise Phua, and we take a lot of instructions from Ms Denise Phua, from the way we organise and also, to the way we are shaping the disability space. Since I came into Parliament together with Ms Denise Phua, things have actually got so much better. By the time I arrived in MSF, it may look like a mess but it is because more things are being done. And, certainly, coordination must be made.

If it were only the Government, I think it is much easier to organise and coordinate but many helping hands are involved. They are really passionate people. People who are directly involved either as parents or people who really care. We want them to thrive, we want them to progress but we also have to be careful about over-organising them.

In terms of institutional support, we have, for example, special student care centres, we have eight of them. They are mostly in the SPED schools. The question is, do we need more? How can we increase the effectiveness in terms of how we reach out to the parents who need them?

Fortunately, today, since last week, for the longest time that we have been organising, we now have better touch points on the time because we now diagnose the children early, we know who the parents are and, therefore, we can do these touch points earlier. However, there will always be parents whom – because we did not, or during their time, did not have interventions early enough – we may not be able to identify who they are. But we know their families know them, we know their neighbours know them and even when I do house visits, I have met some families who have not been part of our system or did not know that these are available help that they can tap on.

Therefore, I call upon the community, even if we think that no help is being extended to them, or it does not look like help is being extended to them, please reach out to us so that we can do this.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question relates to children who need extra support in schools. I have a few questions. First, how does the Ministry track how these children are doing in school? Secondly, how does the Ministry track how successful these measures of support are? And, finally, are there any proactive steps being taken within a framework, some kind of formal screening available, to identify students who might have learning difficulties or special needs and benefit from these forms of support, and also their families, their parents and their caregivers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to Ms He Ting Ru's questions, I will just make the following points. The tracking is on a continuous basis. Of course, the tracking is not based on the usual academic standards that we use. Very often, for the students with special education needs, if they are following the mainstream curriculum, then we track their progress. But very importantly, in this progress, we are not trying to measure themselves against other people. As I have always said, for us, it is more important to surpass ourselves than to surpass other people. For many of our children with special needs, the goal is really for them to improve over what they have been able to achieve the previous day, the previous year, to give themselves a sense of confidence, a sense of independence. And that is what, if you like, broadly how we measure our success, in a very broad way.

The second point I would like to make is that we are always in close contact with the parents and the families, so that we can work hand in hand between the school and the families to help progress our children, each according to their potential. Where necessary, we will bring in the education, the professional psychologist to help equip both our teachers with the necessary skill-sets and also the parents with the necessary skill-sets to cope and to care for the children with special needs. So, it is not the kind of usual tracking that we would use for the usual academic yardsticks or performance yardsticks for typical children, but I think for each of the children with special needs, we have to customise the programme according to their needs.

And I would like to make this point that, while we generally use the word "special needs", the special needs community is not homogeneous. Every child with special needs is special in their own ways and they do need different levels of support with different learning needs as well. So, that is why, to add on to what Minister Masagos says, because of the spectrum of needs, we also need a spectrum of solutions in order to best cater to the respective needs.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank both the Ministers for the very comprehensive replies. MSF has, over the years, issued transport concession cards to persons with disabilities; it has the registry and has been helping them. So, I would like to ask if MSF would consider having a similar registry for the caregivers of persons with disability and proactively reach out to them, either through the Ministries or through the community, so we can all help them?

I echo what our fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua, has said. Many of us want to try to help the caregivers in our respective constituencies, but we also lack resources and the know-how to help them. So, we really hope that the Ministry can come up with programmes and roll them out fast, besides the 3i initiative that we have. We really hope that the Ministry can work with the different segments of society, the population as a whole, so that we can all work together to better prevent this very sad case of a double murder.

I thank Mr Ang for the question. The Alliance for Action (AfA) was launched, basically, to get more feedback from caregivers, organisations, parents on what more we need to do. We hope that this will be completed within this year, if not, earlier. And we will take those inputs on board, including the suggestion by the Member, to have a registry. Whether we want to actually do this from the Government, top-down view, my view is that we want to ask the caregivers and see whether this will help them, how it will help them and, at the same time, also have enough protection for their confidentiality, if they want it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to pull a few of the threads together, maybe I will just make the following concluding points.

First, I would like to thank all the professionals, teachers, caregivers and families who have extended help to our children with special needs and their families. I know it is very difficult when such an unfortunate incident happens. We will always ask if we could have all done more together to avoid this tragedy. We know that many of our professionals, families, caregivers and volunteers would want to do more.

But deep in our heart, I think we also know that, sometimes, such cases are very hard to prevent altogether. Because it is so hard, I think we are all even more determined to want to do better.

So, the first point is, yes, MOE and MSF, we are regularly reviewing the master plan on how we can provide the continuum of care across the entire life cycle stage, for both the special needs children and their caregivers.

I know that for many of the special needs families, the part that is most challenging, the part that is most worrying for all the families with special needs children is: "what happens when we are no longer around?", "what is the care arrangement, what are the financial arrangements that we need to put in place to take care of our children with special needs?"

And this is where we will double down our efforts to see how we can provide a more seamless continuum, from the school years to the post-school years in terms of care, work arrangements and also financial independence.

Secondly, we would also like to thank all of the volunteers for their efforts to step forward and chip in and, to the extent that we can, both MSF and MOE would like to work with our partners, the volunteers, the caregivers, and we are prepared to try out different ideas, new ideas, to cater to the spectrum of needs that we have discussed in this House. Because we really need a variety of solutions, a variety of know-hows, a variety of resources. Many of these things are very difficult to do because they require staying power, they require us to walk through those dark valleys of life with the person in need and their families. And we really, really give thanks for the many volunteers who have walked this journey.

So, I do not want the volunteers to feel that just because an unfortunate incident has happened, that, somehow, they have not done their part or they have not done enough. I think we also want to affirm the volunteers and professionals who have taken care of our children with special needs and their families as well.

Minister Shanmugam.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to make a clarification.

In answer to Ms Sylvia Lim's question, I pointed out that the amounts of fine imposed on the two officers are different. They are different. I should clarify that they were calculated by reference to the number of months of increment that they would have gotten. The number of months is the same for both officers, but the amounts they paid are different – and that is the fine that is being imposed. [Please refer to "Update on Internal Investigations into Police Officers Involved in Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187 Case", Official Report, 14 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 47, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

40 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the public transport operators are required to train their bus captains in inclusive service delivery to assist commuters with special needs; (b) if so, what is the current proportion of bus captains who have been trained; and (c) whether the Ministry studies feedback from such commuters on service rendered to them by bus captains.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all public transport operators (PTOs) have training programmes to equip bus captains (BCs) with the skills to communicate with and assist commuters with special needs. PTOs also often share information on commuter inclusiveness to all BCs through their mobile applications to reiterate the importance of inclusivity.

In addition, since November 2016, all new BCs are trained to identify and assist commuters with special needs as part of the Enhanced Vocational Licence Training Programme. This programme is conducted by the Singapore Bus Academy and all prospective BCs are required to attend it before obtaining their Omnibus Drivers' Vocational Licence. To date, over 6,300 BCs have graduated from this programme.

Training materials are regularly reviewed based on feedback from commuters with special needs, as well as their caregivers, other members of public and various social service agencies.

The Caring SG Commuters Committee, which was set up in 2020, also conducts regular engagements with commuters, including those with special needs, to gather feedback on their public transport experience. The Committee also works with the community to co-create solutions to improve their commuting experience and build a gracious and caring commuting culture. For example, through the Caring Commuter Champion initiative, we are growing a group of volunteers trained to offer assistance to commuters with mobility needs during their daily commute.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed answer. It is especially good to hear that there is a detailed programme on inclusive service delivery. The reason why I asked this Parliamentary Question is also because of a resident's feedback, in the case of a child with special needs on a stroller that tried to get on board a bus. The bus captain did not offer any help simply because of the definition of a stroller, compared to a wheelchair, in that sort of scenario.

My supplementary question is, despite the detailed programme on inclusive service delivery that has been laid out by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now, whether in the interim, in the transition, can we improve discretionary elements embedded by bus captains going forward to deal with such issues, especially the definition of "strollers" for special needs children or adults, relative to "wheelchair" definitions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for all wheelchair users on buses, the bus captains will be trained to activate the ramp to enable the wheelchair to go on board. In the case of a stroller, it might be less evident that the child or the caregiver has needs that the BC should offer assistance.

But, in general, when commuters have mobility needs or are with children in strollers, they definitely should and could approach the BCs for help if they need to. That is why, in this journey of us providing a more inclusive commuting experience, it is a continuous effort to equip the BCs to be mindful of the different needs of different commuters and some needs are invisible. A child or person with special needs may, sometimes, not be apparent to others that that person needs help.

That is why we also introduced a lanyard, where people with such needs can wear so that they are more identifiable by PT workers.

I would suggest to the Member that his resident or commuter with such experience should give the direct feedback to the PTOs, so that the PTOs could incorporate such anecdotes into their training programme and the BCs are better equipped with knowledge to look out for such cases.

I would just want to add also that for a successful inclusive commuting culture, it is not just the work of PTOs, BCs or PT workers. It is where every commuter can play a part as well. So, in that case, the caregiver, the mother could have also asked a fellow commuter whether the person could help her to bring the stroller up to the bus.

That is why the Caring SG Commuters Committee is promoting a caring and gracious commuting culture within our public transport services. And the launch of the online training course for the certification and training of Caring Commuter Champions will help us to reach out to more commuters. We hope that more members of public will come on board this Caring Commuter Champion initiative.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui –

41 To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) to date, what is the take-up rate of the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS); (b) what is the number of companies not supported by TRECS; (c) what is the cost delta impact on these companies and the reasons for not being supported; and (d) whether the Ministry intends for TRECS to continue for an extended period of time.

42 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the effect of the exit of various electricity retailers in 2021 on the electricity bills of small and medium enterprises (SMEs); and (b) how is the Government monitoring or managing the capacity of the remaining retailers, so as to facilitate SMEs having options to manage their electricity costs.

43 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of five electricity retailers ceasing operations last year and many small and medium businesses (SMEs) having to shift back to SP Services' wholesale electricity plan, what support can be extended to these SMEs to provide more certainty to manage their business costs against very high increases in their monthly electricity charges, particularly those with average monthly electricity consumption of 4,000 kWh and above.

44 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an update on the Temporary Electricity Support Scheme (TRECS) since it was introduced in December 2021; (b) whether the TRECS will be extended beyond February 2022; and (c) whether EMA will consider working with electricity retailers to provide a 12-month fixed electricity plan for smaller business consumers, specifically SMEs with a monthly consumption between 4,000 and 20,000 kWh.

45 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what support is available to SMEs; and (b) what are the options available to affected businesses, when their utilities costs have increased by large factors due to the insolvency of their previous utilities retailers.

Question No 41, please.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 41 to 45, as well as the Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat1 that has been scheduled for a subsequent Sitting?

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, the world has been facing a global energy crunch since September last year. The price of LNG, or spot Liquefied Natural Gas, rose significantly and remains elevated at more than three times the levels as at the start of 2021.

While our piped natural gas (PNG) supply typically helps to moderate the impact from higher LNG prices, there was a series of disruptions and planned depletions to our PNG supply since the second half of 2021. This confluence of factors has resulted and caused increased volatility in wholesale electricity prices. Since October 2021, EMA, or the Energy Market Authority, has implemented a set of measures to enhance Singapore's energy security and stabilise SWEM, or Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market, prices.

Nevertheless, some market participants were adversely affected by the volatility. Between October and December 2021, six electricity retailers exited the market and another two retailers prematurely terminated some of their customers' contracts. As a result, about 9% of all electricity consumer accounts were affected.

All affected households and businesses with an average monthly consumption of less than four megawatt hour (MWh) can switch to Singapore Power's regulated tariff at any time. Some businesses consuming four MWh or more managed to secure plans with other retailers.

There remains about 11,000 business consumer accounts – accounting for about 1% of consumers – which have to buy electricity directly from the Singapore Wholesale Electricity Market, or SWEM, and are thus exposed to more volatile electricity prices.

To help these businesses, EMA worked with the generating companies, or gencos, to offer monthly fixed price plans under the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme, or TRECS for short, in January this year – that is, last month. The TRECS plans were fully subscribed for January. For the month of February, the initial offering of TRECS was also fully subscribed. In response to requests for more such contracts, EMA worked with gencos and electricity retailers to offer about 645 megawatts of TRECS and other plans with significant fixed price components. At least 200 megawatts of the contracts are still available and we are extending TRECS for March, April and May.

We encourage all consumers without a retail plan to consider taking up these contracts for greater certainty.

Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the issue of electricity prices. Singapore imports all of our energy and cannot be fully insulated from developments in the global energy market. Well, let me make a correction – Singapore imports a vast majority of our energy, not all of our energy. We still have some from solar. The higher fuel prices feed into our electricity bills to reflect the higher costs of electricity production.

As I had mentioned during the Committee of Supply debates last year, we had been enjoying artificially low electricity prices for several years due to an over-investment in capacity and fuel by the gencos. I have also alluded to the fact that that was also below the cost of generating electricity; and thus, it was not sustainable. In fact, if Members of the House remember, I also put up a chart that clearly demarcated and showed that the cost of generation was higher than the cost of the electricity tariffs at that time.

An electricity price correction was, therefore, unavoidable and the current global energy crunch has precipitated and exacerbated this correction.

Again, Members of this House would have asked what help is, therefore, available for the affected businesses. Household and small consumers which need help with their electricity bills can apply to SP Services for instalment payment plans. Businesses which need financing support can also make use of ESG's programmes, such as the Temporary Bridging Loan and Enterprise Financing Scheme SME Working Capital Loan.

The 11,000 or so business accounts without a long-term retail contract bear the brunt of the electricity crunch. To help them weather the storm, EMA has worked with gencos and electricity retailers to reduce the volatility and lower the cost of buying electricity through TRECS, additional monthly contracts offered by gencos, and on the wholesale market for businesses, as I had mentioned earlier. For example, Sembcorp Power Pte Ltd is offering one-month fixed price plans at preferred rates to consumers with average monthly consumption of between four and eight MWh.

EMA will also continue to monitor closely market developments, including heightened geopolitical tensions and their potential impact on global energy prices, and put in place the necessary measures to secure our energy supply, enhance stability and ensure the orderly functioning of the market.

Mr Speaker, Singapore has an open and competitive electricity market where prices will rise and fall depending on demand and supply conditions and developments in the global energy market. Over the last 20 years, our energy market has served us well. Our electricity supply is one of the most reliable and price-competitive amongst major developed cities.

Our energy market is now being tested by unprecedented shocks and volatility in the global energy markets. Nevertheless, we are committed to ensuring that Singapore's power supply remains secure and reliable, and to supporting our vulnerable customers during this period.

My only exhortation and urging is for all consumers to use energy prudently and to adopt energy conservation as a way of life. We will also learn from this episode to see how we can strengthen and fortify our energy reliance, resilience and our electricity market. And I am confident that, together, we will emerge from this stronger.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very heartened to hear from the Minister that TRECS will be extended and also that there are more fixed monthly plans available to the SMEs; the shocks have been quite real for our SMEs because some were hit about three times.

While we all understand that, we are takers of energy prices. So, on Minister's last plea, can I ask this question of MTI: what measures are in place to support our companies and, especially our SMEs, in terms of moving to more sustainable practices as well as better energy consumption practices?

The reason I ask this is because in resource-scarce Singapore, where we are moving more to automation and digitalisation, our companies are actually relying more on energy. So, it is good that we are focusing on reliance, resilience of our infrastructure – and we must – but we need to also help our companies pivot and move to being more energy-efficient as well. I hope the Minister can share with us what measures will be in place to support them.

I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her very poignant reminder to all of us. There are quite a number of initiatives that we have moved on to. We have encouraged many businesses to consider using energy-efficient power systems, including energy-efficient light bulbs and even air conditioning. We have worked very closely with MSE where we would encourage companies to use devices or appliances with the triple-tick marks to improve energy efficiency and conserve energy.

We have also started giving grants to help companies to pivot into using more solar photo-voltaic panels. On top of that, over at EMA, given the fact that we do not have a very constant and consistent supply of solar energy, we are also, in parallel, developing a series of energy storage systems in the form of ESS, so that, during the time when there is peak solar power, we can store up that energy to allow it for use later on.

On top of that, in terms of the building of efficiency, we have encouraged industries to go green, where they can use natural ventilation, to even working with design consultancy firms in the entire built environment to see how we can actually reduce the need for lowering the temperature in terms of using the air conditioning.

There are multiple initiatives and they are probably too numerous for me to go through at length. These are just some very clear examples of what we have started to work with the industry on.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Sir. Several businesses in my constituency have shared with me they are shocked at seeing their electricity bills jump threefold or more despite their efforts to reduce electricity usage. Businesses with consumption of more than four MWh but less than 20 MWh, which include many neighbourhood kopitiams, have to buy electricity from SP Group at the wholesale electricity price, which is very elevated and volatile now. They are also facing difficulty buying electricity from retailers because many retailers are not offering contracts until later in the year or even next year.

Can EMA extend TRECS for another six to 12 months beyond May 2022, in view of the current economic and energy supply situation? If this is not possible, can EMA allow these SMEs to buy at the regulated tariff instead, so that their operational costs do not skyrocket?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned that TRECS was fully subscribed for the months of January and February. How many businesses have applied for, during these two months under TRECS, but were not able to obtain contracts? Are there plans to expand the number of slots in TRECS available for those who need it?

I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his questions. Can I answer the second question, and then I will go back to the first one? For TRECS, in January, it was oversubscribed. As I have shared earlier on in my main reply to a Parliamentary Question, for February, there still remains about 200 megawatts, and I was encouraging many of these SMEs to consider going into this particular retail plan.

As far as the extension of TRECS for another six months is concerned, we have now extended for March, April and May. That is three months. Our estimates also tie in, generally, with the consultants, and these are global market consultants, who look at the trend of energy prices. Of course, we hope that the situation in Eastern Europe, namely, between Russia and Ukraine, does not get worse. But once winter is over, we are cautiously optimistic that natural gas prices will ease somewhat. So, we may not need to extend TRECS beyond six months.

At this particular point in time, we are monitoring the situation very, very closely. In fact, we do not monitor on a month-to-month basis, but we monitor it on a weekly basis, and, sometimes, even on a daily basis.

I hope that answers the Member's question.

Today, TRECS will be extended for March, April and through to May. But other than TRECS as a scheme, we are also now working to see whether there are any other assistance measures that we can roll-out to help. So, I hope that answers the Member's second point,

For his first question, in terms of the assistance, we have worked with electricity retailers and gencos to lower the cost of buying electricity through eligible contracts to support those businesses that have been affected. I do not have the data for how many businesses have not been able to subscribe to TRECS in January but, as a follow-up, what I can do is to try and get the statistics and then answer that either in another Parliamentary Question that the Member can file later, or I will see how to get that answer across.

We are also contemporaneously working with gencos to see if they can offer additional temporary discounts at their end.

I just want to also manage expectations. These offsets will not be able to help account for the price increase completely. Because, as I have said before in the past, this has gone up by threefold since the start of 2021. But, certainly, it will go some way to help companies to adapt to the sudden surge in prices. I hope that clarifies.

Mr Gerald Giam.

There is one question which I think was not answered, which is, is it possible for EMA to allow SMEs to buy – I am talking about SMEs which use between four MWh and 20 MWh of electricity a month – at the regulated tariff, instead of at the wholesale electricity price?

The reason why we created TRECS was because we took into consideration the fact that, to expect Singapore Power, or SP, to suddenly open it up to everyone for them to buy, I think SP may have difficulty in supplying all that incremental needs in the short run.

So, we need to also understand how the market works. Electricity which is offered through the regulated tariff is purchased by SP through existing long-term vesting contracts with the gencos. SP has contracted a limited quantity of such long-term electricity contracts and we have to reserve them for households, for small business consumers, who, traditionally, do not have the bargaining power to negotiate for better retail prices.

If we allow for large consumers to switch to the regulated tariffs, then this means that the SP Group will now have to contract for additional supply with gencos at higher prices and/or buy additional electricity supply from the SWEM at the prevailing Uniform Singapore Electric Price, or USEP. This will then cause the regulated tariffs to rise. So, all households and small consumers, who are, today, on the regulated tariff would then have to bear the costs of price stability for the large consumers. This may not necessarily be fair to household consumers and small business owners.

Hence, as a result of that, we wanted to make sure that we can segregate it and protect the existing consumers, of which many of them are your residents as well, by making sure that we move and negotiate for a new scheme, TRECS, to help those that are in the four MWh to 20 MWh range. I hope this answers the Member's question.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. It seems that we have an idea of how many businesses are affected by the exit of all these gencos. But this increased business cost adds to the cost pressures on goods and services in general and this, ultimately, goes down to consumers and individuals or residents in the end.

So, I would like to know, does the Ministry or the Government track or study the impact that this episode has actually had on the cost of living for individuals? And what are the findings of any such study?

I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her question. I do not have the answer at this particular point in time. I understand the concerns that the Member has. If I may humbly request that she file a Parliamentary Question. We, certainly, will look into it and, probably, give her a more robust and detailed answer.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, I understand that the reason the gencos were able to offer TRECS to the mid-sized consumers, the business consumers, is because they can draw on the standby LNG facilities set up by EMA. So, can I ask the Minister, is that the constraint why we cannot expand this TRECS scheme further to even larger consumers?

Secondly, I am also concerned that if we keep tapping on this standby facility, in the event that there is an outbreak of conflict in Ukraine and so on, and LNG prices were to shoot up, do we have enough to manage the volatility that is to come and to secure the energy supply for our consumers?

I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his two fairly insightful questions. The first point in terms of the S-LNG, the emergency supply, the stock pile, whether it has become a constraint, the answer is no. As I have shared many times, for natural gas, we are sufficiently provided for and we will ensure that we continue to monitor very closely and, if necessary, invest in infrastructure to continue to make sure that our energy resilience and our sufficiency in terms of supplies will not be compromised.

To the Member's question why larger companies cannot enter into longer-term contracts rather than on a month-to-month basis, it is, I think, because of the volatility in terms of the prices as well as the uncertainty that is evolving today, large companies which want to enter into contracts are now entering into contracts at new, very high-priced levels. If they were to lock in long-term contracts of a year or two years today, and if the stability comes back to some level of normality, they may find that they are at a disadvantage. Then, would they want to unwind the contract that they had gotten themselves into?

Likewise, from the gencos' perspective, they are also not sure whether they can continue to buy or procure gas at current spot prices. In the event that they procure and they sign up, and the spot prices go up even further, they would take a bigger loss and a bigger impact.

So, it is that kind of bottlenecks that we have today. And so, that is why EMA has stepped in to see how we can manage for the current volatility, on a short-term basis, by offering these one-month temporary retail electricity contracts. I hope that clarifies.

46 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what types of jobs have been created by new investments brought in by EDB in the last three years; (b) how have the profiles of new investments changed and what are the anticipated trends in this area; and (c) how well is the local workforce positioned to benefit from the new investments in terms of skills and experience.

47 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how has the profile of investments in Singapore changed over the past 10 years; (b) given that electronics and biomedical manufacturing are the top two sources of investments in 2021, how well is our local workforce prepared for this growth; and (c) how can we continue to attract local talent in the electronics and manufacturing industries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 46 and 47 together, please.

Yes, please.

EDB attracts investments in a wide range of sectors including manufacturing, professional services and infocommunications and media. Over the years, the profile of investments has moved towards higher value-added and innovation-focused activities, including in the semiconductor and biomedical manufacturing industries. For example, best-in-class companies, such as GlobalFoundries, Arkema and Sanofi, have chosen Singapore for their new manufacturing investments. We expect to attract more investments in advanced manufacturing, the digital economy and the green economy in the coming years.

We attract these investments so that Singaporeans can benefit from the jobs that these investments create and to secure our economic future and resilience. Each investment strengthens our ecosystem and competitiveness, each investment creates more opportunities for firms to collaborate with one another, including between our SMEs and MNCs, and these, together, make Singapore more relevant to the world.

Over the last three years, EDB attracted investments which created about 54,000 jobs across functions, such as production, digital, business services and innovation. These include jobs, such as software engineers, data scientists, lab technicians and consultants, and the majority of these are good paying jobs which are filled by locals.

One reason why companies choose Singapore is our talent pool of local and complementary global talent. The Government and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) work closely with industry and the Labour Movement to equip our local workforce with relevant skills which companies need. By doing so, we can respond swiftly to the changing global economic landscape and opportunities. For example, Workforce Singapore's Career Conversion Programmes help locals to take on jobs in growth areas, as well as in redesigned job roles due to technological changes.

The Government also works with larger companies to become "Queen Bees" by providing training opportunities for the whole ecosystem. For example, Bosch Rexroth partnered Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, SSG and JTC to establish the Bosch Rexroth Regional Training Centre, which aims to train 1,500 workers in Industry 4.0 methods and technologies over the next five years. Last year, Siemens also expanded their Advance Manufacturing Transformation Centre (AMTC), in partnership with JTC, SSG and other partners. AMTC will showcase Siemens' digital and industrial software, provide R&D platforms and resources for SMEs, expand training facilities and curricula to help upskill local and regional talent in Industry 4.0 capabilities.

Besides training, MTI has also been working with industry players and IHLs to make engineering and manufacturing careers more attractive to locals, as part of our Manufacturing 2030 strategy. More details will be announced in due course.

Even as we continue to grow our local timber, employers have provided feedback that they find it increasingly challenging to access the talent they require, especially in areas where there are skill shortages. This is a critical challenge we must overcome together, given the slowing growth in our local workforce and the aggressive competition posed by many cities and tech hubs for talent from all around the world.

To stay competitive and resilient, Singapore must remain open to complementary talent. The Government will continue to calibrate changes in our foreign manpower policies to allow companies to access the talent and skills they need to grow our economy and to also ensure that these growth opportunities will create even better jobs for Singaporeans.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is: of the 54,000 jobs that were created in the last three years from the investments brought in by EDB, that Minister of State has mentioned, could he share, specifically, what is the percentage of these jobs that went to Singaporeans?

Also, related to that question is, for jobs where Singaporeans are currently without the skills or for areas where there are few qualified Singaporeans, how is EDB structuring the new investments such that firms are incentivised to tie the training of local staff and localisation of key positions to their business plans?

I thank the Member for her questions. If I could share about the commitments of the companies and also the incremental number of jobs that will be created when the investments are fully realised, for the investments that EDB has attracted – and I focus on 2021 and these are the companies' own projections – approximately 80% of the jobs with salaries of more than $4,000 will be held by locals. However, this will, obviously, ultimately, depend on prevailing labour market conditions and also the ability of the companies themselves to identify suitable local talent.

On the Member's question how do we then encourage or put our local workforce in the best possible stead to take on these jobs, I want to assure the Member that we take a multi-pronged approach to ensure that Singaporeans can benefit from all of these investments and all of these jobs that are being created. EDB and other agencies, like ESG, SSG and WSG, partner our companies on initiatives to develop their workforce and to create better career pathways for Singaporeans. Bosch and Siemens, which I mentioned in my main reply earlier, are such examples.

We will also continue investing in Singaporeans through our education system and through various continuous education and training programmes such as Adapt and Grow, the Professional Conversion Programmes and SkillsFuture initiatives, for Singaporeans to upgrade themselves and to gain the relevant skills and experience to access these new jobs that we have brought in and the new jobs that are being created.

We also have strong measures in place to ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against recruitment practices, such as the Fair Consideration Framework.

I also wanted to supplement this by saying that we regularly get feedback from companies on their challenges to find and also retain talent. Our agencies will continue their efforts to ensure that Singaporeans are equipped with the relevant experience and skills to seize these new opportunities that agencies like EDB bring in and create.

At the same time, this highlights also the necessity of welcoming complementary global talent with the skills, networks and expertise to enable our businesses to grow.

We are also being more focused to attract investments which are capital- and skills-intensive, rather than labour-intensive. In fact, many of the investments that we attracted last year – for example, those from Global Foundries, Sanifi, Dell Technologies – are expected to be highly productive and also to operate with lean workforces.

48 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry can provide the respective breakdown on the financial aid per capita that is currently provided to students studying in (i) NUS (ii) Yale-NUS College (iii) Polytechnics (iv) Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and (v) private Universities, such as SIM.

Mr Speaker, Government bursaries are available to Singaporean students from lower- and middle-income households at our publicly-funded Institutes of Higher Learning. The bursaries are tiered, with a higher level of support extended to those from lower-income households.

The highest level of Government bursary support is for Singaporean students with gross monthly household income up to $2,750 or household per capita income up to $690. This corresponds to around the bottom 20% by household income. Autonomous University graduates from these households, including those from Yale-NUS College, can each receive an annual bursary of $6,200. For students enrolled in NUS and NTU general courses, this is equivalent to about 75% of annual tuition fees.

Those enrolled in diploma programmes at the Polytechnics would each receive an annual bursary of $2,750, which is around 90% of annual tuition fees.

Those enrolled in Higher Nitec and Nitec programmes at the ITE receive an annual cash bursary of $1,500, on top of having their annual tuition fees fully covered. Institutions also provide their own financial aid to students to further reduce any remaining out-of-pocket expenses and these are typically funded from donations.

In addition to Government and institution bursaries, students have access to Government-funded loans that can be used to pay tuition fees. These are not means-tested and are interest-free during the course of study and payable only upon graduation or leaving the institution.

Private education institutions (PEIs) are not part of the public education system and hence Government assistance is not extended to students at these institutions. PEI students may apply for financial aid offered by PEIs or tap on education loans offered by commercial banks, to finance their studies.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 49-63, 71-75, 77-81, 85-92, 94, 96-98, 101-104 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Indonesian President Joko Widodo held their Leaders' Retreat on 25 January 2022 in Bintan, Indonesia. This was our first Leaders' Retreat since the start of COVID-19. It was also significant because the Leaders witnessed the signing by the respective Ministers of a set of agreements on three long-standing bilateral issues under an Expanded Framework.

These agreements are: first, an Agreement on the Realignment of the Boundary between the Jakarta Flight Information Region (FIR) and the Singapore FIR; second, a Treaty for the Extradition of Fugitives (ET); and third, a Joint Statement between the Defence Ministers on the 2007 Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA).

My Indonesian counterpart, Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investments, Luhut Pandjaitan, and I also signed an Exchange of Letters in which our governments committed to bring these agreements into force simultaneously.

Following the Leaders' Retreat, several Members have filed Parliamentary Questions, regarding the nature of the agreements and their impact on Singapore. Minister Iswaran and I will address Questions for Oral Answer filed by several Members, namely, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Pritam Singh and a Question for Written Answer filed by Miss Cheryl Chan from today's Order Paper, as well as the Question for Oral Answer filed by Mr Gerald Giam1 for a future Sitting.

I will cover the principles upon which the Expanded Framework was negotiated, the main elements of the agreements, their implications for our bilateral relations and the implementation of the agreements. Minister Iswaran will elaborate with further details on the FIR Agreement.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I please ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the agreements under the Expanded Framework for Members' reference?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Thank you. The FIR, extradition and military training issues have been on our bilateral agenda for several decades. I had been personally involved in handling some of these issues at various points in time during my previous career in the SAF and, subsequently, as a Cabinet Minister.

Over the years, we have been working with successive Indonesian governments to resolve these issues. We first signed agreements on the FIR and military training 27 years ago in 1995, but the FIR Agreement could not be implemented due to external factors in the process of submitting it for approval by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The 1995 military training agreement was implemented but lapsed after a few years.

In 2007, we made another attempt and concluded agreements on the DCA and ET, and agreed to implement them simultaneously. However, the agreements were not ratified by Indonesia.

In 2019, President Jokowi was elected to a second term. Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi enjoy a good relationship, and our two countries and governments have strong ties. Both leaders were of the view that the conditions were right to discuss and resolve the outstanding issues decisively, in an open, constructive and mutually beneficial manner.

Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi tasked me and Coordinating Minister Luhut, whom I know well, to put maximum effort into this. We worked out a Framework for Discussions as a basis for our two governments to discuss the FIR and Singapore's military training in the South China Sea. This Framework was endorsed by Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi at the previous Leaders' Retreat in October 2019 to resolve these two issues separately but concurrently.

The Framework laid out a set of considerations and principles, and acknowledged that the core interests and rights of both countries must be recognised and respected.

In the course of the negotiations, in April 2021, at Indonesia's request, we expanded this Framework to include the ET. Our two countries have worked together on this issue before. It was in our interests to reach an agreement on the extradition of fugitives that would strengthen our bilateral cooperation in tackling criminal matters. The inclusion of the ET would help conclude a set of agreements on these three outstanding issues that would be acceptable to both sides.

The set of agreements under the Expanded Framework for Discussions was carefully negotiated to achieve a good balance of benefits for both sides which are durable and for the long haul. It is underpinned by full respect for the sovereignty of both countries. It is in accordance with international law, in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and protects our mutual interests.

At the Leaders' Retreat, both governments also exchanged letters undertaking to bring the three agreements that we have reached – on the FIR, Extradition and Defence Cooperation – into force simultaneously.

Let me now touch on each of the agreements.

FIR arrangements are established under ICAO for the purpose of managing civil aircraft in order to ensure the safety and efficiency of air traffic and to advance international civil aviation. Members would be aware that Indonesia had expressed its desire to realign the FIR boundaries in accordance with its expanded territorial waters which include archipelagic waters newly provided for under UNCLOS in 1982. Singapore's interest was the present and future needs of Changi Airport, which Indonesia accepted.

The FIR Agreement that we concluded under our Expanded Framework addressed these key considerations. Singapore and Indonesia agreed to realign the boundary between the Singapore and Jakarta FIRs, largely taking into account Indonesia's archipelagic and territorial baselines, which were deposited with the UN in 2009.

Indonesia will also delegate to Singapore the provision of air navigation services in portions of the airspace within the realigned Jakarta FIR, to ensure that present and future traffic to Changi Airport and nearby Indonesian airports continue to be managed safely and efficiently.

The delegation arrangement will last for 25 years and shall be extended by mutual consent if both countries find it beneficial to do so.

When all the agreements under the Expanded Framework have been ratified through our respective domestic processes, Singapore and Indonesia will jointly seek ICAO's approval for these new FIR arrangements.

We believe that the FIR arrangements will benefit the aviation sectors of both countries and airspace users in the region.

Minister Iswaran will elaborate further on the specifics of the agreement in his Ministerial Statement.

On military training, the Singapore and Indonesian governments agreed to ratify and bring into force the DCA and the Implementing Arrangement between the SAF and the Indonesian Armed Forces for the Military Training Area in Indonesia – both agreements as signed in 2007.

Our two defence establishments have enjoyed decades of close friendship. As common security challenges become more complex, we need to work together closely all the more.

The DCA will strengthen cooperation between our armed forces and advance our bilateral defence relations. It will facilitate the discussion and oversight of new areas of defence cooperation between our two defence establishments.

The SAF has been conducting its training in the designated South China Sea Danger Area (SCSDA) since the 1960s, when the area was international waters. Subsequently, parts of the SCSDA became Indonesian archipelagic and territorial waters and airspace under UNCLOS. However, the SAF's training activities in such areas continue, as a right provided for under Article 51 of UNCLOS.

When the DCA comes into force, it will provide clarity on the arrangements for the SAF's training in Indonesian archipelagic and territorial waters and airspace, with full respect for Indonesia's sovereignty over its territory, while preserving Singapore's rights.

The third agreement we signed was the Extradition Treaty or ET. Under the ET, Singapore and Indonesia will grant extradition for a comprehensive list of extraditable offences covered by the treaty, in accordance with the laws of both countries and subject to the requisite safeguards and provisions in the ET.

The ET is substantively similar to the treaty that we had signed in 2007. The only change is in its retrospective application to extradite fugitives for crimes committed 18 years ago, as compared to 15 years in the 2007 agreement, starting from the time that the ET comes into force. This change was made at Indonesia's request. We believe that the extension will provide more flexibility in the scope of cooperation for both countries.

The benefits of the ET to both countries are clear. It will strengthen cooperation between our law enforcement agencies in combatting crime. Our hope is that the ET will also be helpful to Indonesia's own efforts to prevent suspected criminals from fleeing overseas and for them to be apprehended in Indonesia.

Even without an ET, we already work closely with Indonesia to tackle these criminal matters. The ET will complement our existing cooperation with Indonesia through the ASEAN Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (ASEAN MLAT) and other multilateral treaties that we are party to. It also adds to Singapore's extradition arrangements with many jurisdictions across the globe.

More fundamentally, the ET reflects both countries' commitment to work with international partners to combat crime and uphold the rule of law. This will help to enhance Singapore's role as a responsible and effective member of the international community, with a positive impact on our already good standing and reputation as a global financial hub.

Mr Speaker, I have covered in some detail the scope of the agreements under the Expanded Framework to help Members of this House better understand how the conclusion of this set of agreements is a significant milestone for Singapore-Indonesia relations and is beneficial to both countries.

We have had negotiations on these issues since the 1990s. Singapore has always approached these discussions with our close neighbour Indonesia with sincerity and in the spirit of cooperation. We strive to reach a balance of benefits, taking into account each other's rights and interests. This was our approach in 1995 and in 2007, when we had previously reached agreement on these issues, though the agreements had subsequently either lapsed or could not be implemented for reasons beyond our control.

We have maintained this same spirit and approach through the years. The negotiations to arrive at this set of agreements under the Expanded Framework involved many rounds of negotiations since 2019, made even more challenging by the fact that most of the negotiations were carried out during the COVID-19 period. Our negotiators spent many weeks in quarantine as a result of that and we have many Zoom meetings.

We were able to reach agreement between Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi because both had a strong desire to resolve these issues decisively and amicably, based on the Framework they endorsed.

This set of agreements represents a win-win outcome. They are balanced, mutually beneficial and durable agreements for the long haul. They will provide a strong foundation to further strengthen our bilateral relations.

Both sides are currently going through their respective domestic processes to ratify these agreements. Both Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi have expressed the desire to ratify and bring these agreements into force simultaneously, soon.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Pritam Singh asked what will happen at the end of the 25-year duration of the FIR Agreement. I should first say that the duration of the FIR Agreement, 25 years, will provide a durable and firm basis for cooperation in this important area for a generation or more. The focus of both sides now is to implement this set of agreements by bringing all of them through our respective domestic processes and, in the case of the FIR, subsequently, to ICAO.

This agreement shall remain in force for 25 years and shall be extended by mutual consent if both countries find it beneficial to do so.

Singapore and Indonesia recognise that we will always be neighbours and that we should continue to work together as partners. This agreement and the principles underlying it provide a good basis for future cooperation where each side brings something to the table and we work together to create a larger outcome, where the whole is bigger than the sum of all its parts. We certainly hope and have confidence that, after 25 years, this same spirit will prevail.

We had a capable and cohesive negotiating team, who identified our interests clearly and pushed for them energetically and diplomatically. We had capable and committed negotiating partners, too, on the Indonesian side, who also worked very hard to push for their interests. But both sides also knew that we had a shared interest in closer bilateral cooperation and the benefits that that would bring. As a result, we were able to reach a good set of agreements that are win-win.

The most important factor to ensure that Singapore always has a good hand to bring to the table in any negotiations, is to have a strong, clear thinking, trustworthy and capable Government which is supported by a united people. It is this trust and unity of our people behind us that allow us to conduct negotiations with consistency and confidence. This provides the foundation for building good relations and creates a conducive environment for negotiations, so that we can arrive at a good outcome.

Mr Speaker, in closing this Statement, it has been my honour and privilege to work with our Indonesian counterparts and witness our bilateral relations strengthen over many years, from the 1970s onwards. It gives me particular satisfaction to have played some part in this latest chapter in our long-standing cooperation. The signing of this set of agreements and our ability to resolve long-standing and complex bilateral issues in an open and constructive manner demonstrate the strength and maturity of our bilateral relations.

I would like to thank my counterpart Coordinating Minister Luhut and the teams of Ministers and officials involved on both sides who have worked hard to attain the best results in the best interests of both countries. I am confident that, when implemented, these agreements will create opportunities for even closer collaborations in civil aviation, criminal matters and defence cooperation, and also pave the way for us to advance our bilateral relations with Indonesia with friendship, mutual trust and confidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now request that Minister S Iswaran make his Statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean has explained the key considerations underpinning the agreements signed at the Singapore-Indonesia Leaders' Retreat on 25 January 2022, the main elements of the agreements, their implications for our bilateral relations and the implementation process.

I will now bring Members through the specifics of the Agreement on the Realignment of the Boundary between the Jakarta Flight Information Region (FIR) and the Singapore FIR and respond to the various questions from Members on the considerations, implications and the way forward for the FIR Agreement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first outline how civil air traffic is managed around the world.

Every state has its own territorial airspace over which it has sovereignty. Then, there are Flight Information Regions (FIRs), which are blocks of airspace assigned by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to air navigation services (ANS) providers, such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), for the purpose of managing civil air traffic. FIRs do not have to follow territorial boundaries.

The provision of ANS around the world falls into three broad models.

The first is where the state provides ANS for an FIR that is within its territorial airspace. For example, the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand Limited (Aerothai) provides ANS for Thai airspace within the Bangkok FIR.

The second is where the state provides ANS within its FIR, but the FIR extends beyond its territorial airspace. For example, Indonesia provides ANS over Christmas Island, which is part of Australia's airspace but within the Jakarta FIR. Likewise, the US provides ANS over Canadian airspace within US FIRs.

The third is where the state provides ANS in the FIR and territorial airspace of a neighbouring state. This is typically done through delegation arrangements. For example, in order to manage traffic for Geneva Airport, Switzerland provides air traffic services for French airspace that is part of the Marseille FIR through a delegation arrangement.

So, territorial airspace, FIRs and the provision of ANS. These come together across the world in different models. But regardless of the model adopted, the paramount objective is to ensure the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation in accordance with ICAO rules.

The FIR issue has been on the Indonesia-Singapore bilateral agenda for several decades. Its resolution will bring clarity not just to both countries, but also to the international civil aviation community. It would also lay the foundation for us to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the aviation sector and across our broader relationship.

Singapore and Indonesia, therefore, agreed to discuss the FIR issue as an integral part of a broader framework, endorsed by Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi, to achieve a durable and balanced set of agreements that meets both sides' core interests.

Our aim was to: first, uphold the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation; second, meet Indonesia's desire to align the FIR boundaries to correspond with its territorial airspace; and third, accommodate current traffic and future growth of Changi and Indonesian airports.

The negotiations entailed significant involvement and commitment at all levels of Government, given the strategic, political, operational and technical considerations.

Based on the parameters endorsed by the two Leaders, Coordinating Ministers, Ministers and officials from multiple agencies were involved in the negotiations. MOT/CAAS officials, especially ANS experts, worked closely with their Indonesian counterparts to address the complex technical details, taking into account ICAO rules.

The outcome of this consultative negotiation process is an FIR Agreement that ensures the safety and efficiency of air traffic, addresses Indonesia and Singapore's interests and needs, and benefits international civil aviation.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about the air traffic arrangements under the FIR Agreement. Let me briefly take Members through the key elements.

First, realignment of the FIR boundary. The boundary between the Jakarta FIR and the Singapore FIR will be realigned to meet Indonesia's desire to realign the FIR boundaries, and largely take into account Indonesia's territorial baselines.

Second, delegation arrangement. Indonesia will delegate to Singapore the provision of ANS for the airspace closest to Changi, to meet Changi Airport's current and future needs.

Third, under the delegation arrangement, CAAS will provide ANS, such as air traffic services, publication of aeronautical information and designing of air routes within the airspace where the provision of ANS has been delegated to Singapore. The FIR Agreement also caters for civil-military cooperation in air traffic management, based on ICAO provisions.

Fourth, the delegation arrangement under the FIR Agreement is for 25 years and shall be extended by mutual consent if both sides find it beneficial to do so. Indonesia and Singapore will consult each other and ICAO prior to the end of the 25 years, to ensure safety and efficiency of international civil aviation beyond the 25 years.

Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the implications of the FIR Agreement. Miss Cheryl Chan also asked the same in a question for written response.

The FIR Agreement decisively resolves a key longstanding issue on the bilateral agenda and paves the way for closer cooperation in air traffic management and other aviation issues. It clarifies how ANS will be provided in this busy and complex airspace and ensures that air traffic flows in our region, including to and from Changi and Indonesian airports, will continue to be safe and efficient. Let me elaborate.

Every major airport in the world has a contiguous block of airspace for its arrival and departure procedures, which is essential for ensuring safety. It is necessary to deconflict aircraft when they are taking off or landing, which are critical phases of flight and when safety risks are the highest. Changi Airport, for example, had nearly 400,000 flights each year pre-COVID-19.

The FIR Agreement allows Singapore to continue providing ANS within a contiguous block of airspace which is sufficient for Changi Airport's present and future needs. It will support the continued growth and competitiveness of Singapore's air hub and aviation-related sectors.

The FIR Agreement will also ensure the safe and efficient management of traffic to Indonesian airports, including Batam, Bintan and Tanjung Pinang airports, which are in close proximity to Changi.

The international civil aviation community will also benefit. The International Air Transport Association forecasts that air traffic in the Asia-Pacific will have the highest growth globally over the next 20 years. With the FIR Agreement and closer bilateral cooperation, airlines and other aviation stakeholders will have more opportunities to tap on the future growth in air traffic in this region, grow their operations, connect more passengers, attract more investments and create more jobs in our regional aviation sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in short, the FIR Agreement is a significant milestone in our bilateral transport relationship with Indonesia, which will bring benefits to Singapore, Indonesia and the international civil aviation community.

Ms Poh Li San and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the implementation of the FIR Agreement. As explained by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, the FIR Agreement, Defence Cooperation Agreement and Extradition Treaty are to be brought into force and implemented simultaneously.

For the FIR Agreement, first, the domestic processes for both sides to ratify all three agreements have to be completed. Second, the technical teams are working through the detailed coordination procedures for the FIR Agreement, which are necessary to ensure a smooth transition in air navigation arrangements and to uphold safety and efficiency. Third, Singapore and Indonesia will jointly consult all relevant stakeholders and submit a Proposal for Amendment for the FIR boundary realignment and delegation arrangement to ICAO for approval. Fourth, once the FIR boundary realignment and delegation arrangements are approved by ICAO, Indonesia and Singapore will agree on a date to implement the FIR Agreement and for all the three agreements to enter into force together.

Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked what will happen after the 25-year duration of the FIR Agreement. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has spoken on this. Let me add from the civil aviation perspective.

This is a durable FIR Agreement. We will have 25 years to implement the FIR Agreement and gain experience from the new arrangements. It will allow both sides to strengthen our bilateral transport ties and it establishes a foundation for further cooperation in the provision of ANS and in other areas.

The aviation sector will continue to develop with advancements in technology and ANS procedures. As air traffic and airports grow, our operational needs and aviation standards will also evolve. All these elements will shape the circumstances under which we will make decisions in the future. Under the FIR Agreement, the delegation arrangement shall be extended by mutual consent, should both sides find it beneficial to do so. Singapore and Indonesia have agreed to consult each other and ICAO before the end of the 25 years, to ensure the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation beyond the 25-year duration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, the FIR Agreement is a key pillar of the Expanded Framework, which will advance our mutual interests.

We were able to achieve this outcome because both sides approached the negotiations with a shared commitment to uphold the safety and efficiency and support the growth of international civil aviation. It has also laid a firm foundation for closer cooperation in aviation and other areas between Indonesia and Singapore.

In closing, I would like to express our deep appreciation to the negotiating teams from Singapore and Indonesia, in particular, our MOT and CAAS officers, for their hard work in concluding the agreement and achieving an outcome that is good for Singapore, Indonesia and international civil aviation.

Clarifications, please? Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question as a follow-up to my Parliamentary Question, which is listed as Question No 5 in the Order Paper.

What vis-à-vis the Framework Agreement is the dispute resolution clause in the event either Singapore or Indonesia cannot come to an agreement after the end of the 25-year period?

Mr Speaker, as I have said, our focus right now is to get the ratification done through the domestic processes of both sides. This is an indication of how both countries can work together and work their own domestic processes for the joint benefit of both countries.

Each of the agreements lasts for 25 years – the DCA and the FIR Agreement. If there are disputes, both sides will consult and reach an amicable settlement. What happens after 25 years is that the existing arrangements will continue until we reach a new agreement.

For the FIR, Singapore will certainly continue to discharge its responsibilities to provide air navigation services in a safe and efficient way for civil air traffic.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications. On the point of what the Senior Minister has said, the focus is to get the expanded agreement in force. So, I guess the question is what is being done now to ensure that those agreements will come into force? How do we get these three agreements into force?

On another question: the Minister for Transport had indicated that these agreements, like the FIR, will benefit Changi Airport and Singapore. But could the Minister provide more information and details on how these would benefit both Changi Airport as well as Singapore?

On bringing the three agreements into force simultaneously, as I have said in my Statement, both Prime Minister Lee and President Jokowi have expressed the desire to bring these three agreements into force as soon as possible. Each side will have to go through their own domestic ratification processes, and I do understand that Indonesia has already commenced this process. We are also going through the process on our side.

Mr S Iswaran.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question, which is an important one, specifically, how this agreement benefits Changi Airport. So, if I may underscore a point that I made earlier, this is an agreement that does not just benefit Changi Airport, it actually also benefits Indonesian airports, for example, Batam, Bintan and Tanjung Pinang and, perhaps most crucially, it also benefits international civil aviation on the point of ensuring its safety and efficiency.

And once we keep that as the baseline, then we can look ahead because what it means is that despite all the forecasts for growth in aviation in the Asia Pacific region, unless we are able to ensure traffic is managed well, smoothly and, most importantly, safely, we will not be able to benefit collectively or individually from that growth. So, what this agreement does is that it not only gives us clarity on an important matter for both sides but also for the international aviation community which has a strong interest in this matter.

With that as the foundation, we can then proceed to work on other important initiatives, whether it is investment in technology, infrastructure and also building closer cooperation between Indonesia and Singapore, in terms of aviation cooperation and, of course, extending beyond that into other areas.

So, I would say that, at its core, this agreement, once it has gone through the entire process and comes into force, it will provide clarity, certainty and, therefore, give confidence to all parties involved to then proceed with the necessary initiatives to prepare for the growth in aviation in our part of the world.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think these agreements are very good for both Singapore and Indonesia. I just have one clarification.

The intention is for all the agreements to come into force at the same time. But if, in the ratification process, say, only one or two get ratified and one or two did not, what will happen to all three agreements in that situation?

The agreement between both countries is to bring into force all three agreements simultaneously. There is good reason for it. It is because the negotiations were conducted concurrently and it has achieved a good balance of benefits across all three agreements. Hence, both countries have agreed that the best way to resolve these three outstanding issues is to discuss them together, come to agreements on them at the same time and then to bring them into force concurrently.

That will provide a resolution to all these three outstanding issues at the same time. I think that will bring many benefits to both countries so that it will reduce any chances of misunderstandings and provide a very strong basis for future cooperation.

I should say that in any negotiation, of course, each side would want to push for its maximum benefits.

But to have a good outcome, each side also has to look at the wider benefits, the wider interests that come from working together and arriving at an agreement, rather than not having an agreement. So, I think that in these negotiations, both sides took that view – that it is actually in our shared interest, in our enlightened self-interests, to come to an agreement on these three outstanding issues so that we can progress our bilateral relations on a broader front.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, under this agreement, before the end of the 25 years, is Indonesia permitted to apply to ICAO to manage the airspace which is delegated to Singapore to manage if they feel that they are ready to provide air navigation services and this could include the airspace closest to Changi Airport? If so, how would the change in ANS provider affect aviation safety and security, the efficiency and the status of us as an aviation hub? Secondly, will the Government be making available the maps of the new Flight Information Regions for the public to have a better picture, literally, of the outcome of these agreements?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. If I may reiterate, the delegation arrangement under the FIR Agreement is for 25 years and it also states that it shall be extended by mutual consent if both sides find it beneficial to do so. Indonesia and Singapore will consult each other and ICAO prior to the end of 25 years to ensure safety and efficiency of international civil aviation beyond the 25 years.

Therefore, this is an agreement and, at its heart, its durability is underpinned by this set of provisions. Any deviations from this will have to be resolved through bilateral discussions and consultation and, ultimately, approval from ICAO, which will also involve consultation with stakeholders. So, I think it would be premature to consider any other alternatives. At this point, our focus is to bring these agreements into force, operationalise them. Because many of the questions that are being posed are hypothetical. Because we need to implement them, understand them fully and appreciate the value and the impact they have on the way we manage collectively air navigation services. Then, that will inform future decisions.

On the maps itself, I think this is something that will have to be through bilateral consultation, the decision. At this point, we are not releasing the maps.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a question for the Minister for Transport. Specific to the arrangement of the delegation of the FIR, may I know what are the benefits direct to Singapore?

If I may paraphrase the Member's question so that I get it clearly, it is really, specifically, how this benefits Changi Airport and Singapore, is that right?

That is right, Minister.

So, as I have said, there is a broader value that this agreement brings for the international civil aviation. Without that assurance, it is really difficult to contemplate how we can move forward for Changi Airport and Singapore, because, ultimately, we are an international aviation hub and, central to that, is our ability to ensure the aircraft landings and take-offs in Changi Airport can be done safely and efficiently. I would say that this is not a unique consideration for Singapore. All airports around the world, especially major aviation hubs, will take this into account, and, in fact, it is central. It would also be the case for Indonesia and its airports. So, whilst we are talking and focusing on Changi Airport, in particular, and our needs, I want to emphasise that this actually brings benefits for all parties, including Indonesian airports.

So, specifically for us, what it means is, with that assurance, we can now focus on also a range of other initiatives which will help to enhance the services that we can provide in terms of air navigation but also others to support the broader aviation sector in Singapore. It also means that in our discussions with aviation sector stakeholders, including potential investors and companies which want to set up operations here, we are now able to give them greater clarity on the matter and we can move forward on that basis. We are, as the Member by virtue of her background would be aware, looking also at various investments in technology and so on, which will enable us to enhance the quality of services that we can provide from Changi Airport. This, again, is going to be an important part of the work going forward.

So, if I may go back to what I said in response to an earlier question, whilst the details will evolve as we see the situation developing, the key thing is that this agreement, at its foundation, gives us the clarity, certainty and confidence to move forward on many issues, not just in the interest of Changi Airport, but also in our bilateral interests in terms of aviation cooperation and how we can better serve the international aviation community as air travel grows in Asia.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Senior Minister Teo Che Hean and the Minister for Transport for the Ministerial Statements and I think it is useful also to say thanks to the officers of the various agencies and Ministries for making this agreement a possibility between both Singapore and Indonesia. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is in relation to what the Minister answered just now broadly. In terms of the FIR Agreement, how does it essentially improve bilateral transport cooperation between Singapore and Indonesia, particularly bilateral aviation ties, which Minister has mentioned, but going forward beyond airports?

My second clarification is with regard to this agreement. It definitely provides a good opportunity for both Singapore and Indonesia to work together better within the 25 years and I think also beyond the 25 years. My clarification is on how we can actually see this as a positive outlook as we look forward in the post-25 year phase as technology changes and, particularly, in the area of air traffic control safety for both countries, Singapore and Indonesia.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his words of appreciation for the various officials who have been engaged in, as Senior Minister Teo described, extensive and intensive discussions on this very important matter and it has been a multi-agency effort involving many Ministries, the Attorney-General's Chambers, and I think it is important that this House puts on record our deep appreciation for their signal contributions to this outcome.

Secondly, as I respond to the Member's question on bilateral ties, I am reminded of today's date and its significance for bilateral relations. I think in that spirit, it is important that we see this as an opportunity to build strong, durable and mutually beneficial ties between Indonesia and Singapore. Of course, specifically, in the context of aviation, because we are talking about the FIR Agreement here, but really as a foundation for doing more together.

So, what it means is understanding – and, in fact, I made this point in my Ministerial Statement. One of the reasons we were able to get to this outcome is because both sides had a shared commitment to ensuring the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation. I think that is key because it means we understand that this is the paramount objective.

Then we have our respective interests that we need to then reconcile. That is what this process has been about. It has been a consultative process, there have been discussions over an extended period and we have now arrived at an outcome that we believe is good for Indonesia, Singapore and international civil aviation.

Looking ahead, I think what it means is it allows both sides to now focus on operationalising the arrangement, getting more familiar with each other in terms of how we can cooperate further, building confidence and building trust. That is essential because, as Senior Minister Teo made it very clear, we are neighbours, and we will be neighbours well beyond 25 years. So, it is important that at the foundation of our relationship, we have that confidence and trust. And that is the basis on which we want to go forward. So, we will be working on these various initiatives and, I might add that it is very hard to anticipate the trajectory of civil aviation over two and a half decades. A lot has happened in the last 25 years. Indeed, a lot has happened in the last five, six years and we must expect a lot more may happen in the next 25 years.

If I may just give you one example. We have the Singapore Airshow on and I met with some aviation officials this morning and one of the focal points is what in the industry they call "network operational efficiencies". This is really about how, between the aircraft avionics and the air navigation service provisions, we can optimise so as to minimise the impediments to smooth flows, because when you have those impediments caused by congestion, weather events and so on, it means aircraft have to circle, burn extra fuel and so on, and it takes on an even more significant hue when we consider these sorts of matters in the context of the broader climate change challenge and the kind of sustainability initiatives that we want to work on. I am just citing that as one example of how we can work together and there are many other areas. But this agreement creates the foundation upon which we can build that stronger, bilateral partnership.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

I just wanted to say that I think it is a great outcome for both countries and, given that it has taken us so much time to get to where we are, as the duration of the three agreements are about 25 years, I wonder whether it is possible that we could have a situation where it is an auto renewal, rather than a review followed by a renewal. I am just changing it slightly with a view that we want to secure the future for both countries and for the global community, particularly for global travel. Something for consideration.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question and I understand fully the intent behind it. I would say we have an agreement today. It is a good agreement. I think the first and most important thing is for us to make sure they are ratified and they enter into force. And then, I think we have the time and opportunity to work on a whole slew of initiatives to foster that closer cooperation and understanding.

As I pointed out in my Ministerial Statement, there are all kinds of partnerships in the provision of air navigation services around the world. So, I would not preclude any option going forward, but the basis for ideas like what the Member has suggested, really is that it must be premised on first having a close understanding and cooperation between all the parties concerned and this must be borne out by experience that it can work to mutual benefit and accommodate the needs of both sides well.

So, I think we need to focus on this first. I would not preclude alternative structures going forward. But neither do I want to hasten into those sorts of discussions at this point. I think, in general, from a Government point of view, what we have today is a good agreement. Agreements can always be better, but the converse can also be true. So, it is about making sure what we have works and works well for all parties. I think that would then give us the basis on which to build for the future.

Order. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister of State Alvin Tan.

[(proc text) "to provide for a financial sector-wide regulation of financial services and markets, the exercise of control over and the resolution of financial institutions and their related entities, the licensing and regulation of digital token service providers, and other incidental and connected matters, to make related and consequential amendments to certain other Acts, and to amend a provision of the Income Tax Act 1947 consequent upon the operation of the Financial Holding Companies Act 2013.", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (on behalf of the Prime Minister) read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in April 2022, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to reconstitute the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore as the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore and to modify the functions of the Singapore Totalisator Board, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs) read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2022/2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to consolidate the law on the suppression of various forms of unlawful gambling and the regulation of authorised gambling services outside of casinos, to repeal the Betting Act 1960, the Common Gaming Houses Act 1961, the Private Lotteries Act 2011 and the Remote Gambling Act 2014, and to make related and consequential amendments to the Casino Control Act 2006 and certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) (on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs) read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2022/2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (Act 14 of 2020).", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (on behalf of the Minister for Health) read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2022/2023, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

The Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2022 amends the Act to provide for tax incentive changes which were introduced in Budget 2021. It also enables the Minister for Trade and Industry to assign various functions and powers to public bodies for the administration of tax incentives under the Act. Let me elaborate on the two key legislative changes contained in the Bill.

The enhancement of the "Investment Allowance for Energy Efficiency" scheme, which is now renamed "Investment Allowance for Emissions Reduction" ("IA-ER"), was announced at Budget 2021. The scheme currently supports companies in improving their energy efficiency. This Bill expands the scope of support to also include investments in equipment that result in measurable and verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, the IA-ER grants a tax allowance on the qualifying fixed capital expenditure incurred within the qualifying period, which can be used to offset the company's taxable income. The scheme's validity period has also been extended from 31 March 2021 to 31 December 2026, to support companies adapting and transiting to a low-carbon economy. This proposed change is in response to industry feedback on how such investment allowances will help them reduce their carbon footprint, especially for manufacturing companies and data centre operators. To give legislative effect to these changes, clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill amend sections 41 and 43 of the Act respectively.

The second change concerns the internal administration of tax incentives. Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new section 3A into the Act, which allows the Minister for Trade and Industry to assign to public bodies various functions and powers of the administration of tax incentives under the Act. This amendment arises from our periodic review of the income tax system to improve tax administration and is aligned with the Income Tax Act. There is no change in policy intent and no impact on tax incentive recipients. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the amendment to expand the scope for the Investment Allowance for Energy Efficiency (IA-EE) tax incentive scheme to include projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions with effect from 1 April 2021 and to extend the validity period of the scheme from 31 March 2021 to 31 December 2026.

Instead of granting approval to a company in respect of a project for improving energy efficiency for just this period, would the Ministry consider extending it to 31 December 2030, so as to be aligned with the Singapore Green Plan 2030? How will the Government direct its R&D funding to achieve Singapore Green Plan outcomes? High upfront capital costs, long pay-back periods and the uncertainty of long-term investments are major challenges facing companies, especially SMEs, seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment will definitely help reduce the barriers and encourage more green investments. I hope that in the upcoming Budget, there will be more such incentives announced, so that we can look forward to another set of similar amendments a year from now.

I am certain that the resultant investments will contribute to Singapore's economy, advance our capabilities and create good jobs for Singaporeans. I appeal for additional support for SMEs to develop their sustainability capabilities and improve their energy efficiency, for example, ESG's Enterprise Sustainability Programme and NEA's Energy Efficiency Technology Centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We need new incentives for both pioneer industries and pioneer service firms to provide investors more certainty of a long-term tax incentive in Singapore so that we boost energy efficiency and also achieve our "30 by 30" goal.

I also urge the Government to provide greater certainty for investments on space use, which is particularly necessary to catalyse the transformation of our urban farming and aquaculture sector. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the vulnerabilities of global trade. We cannot be dependent on other countries' policies and export limitations, particularly for essentials such as food. With this imminent urgency, it is our inescapable duty to every generation of our people to increase our local production ─ it is a heavy responsibility for the long haul. How is the Government helping our industries to build up capabilities and capacities to achieve the "30 by 30" goal?

(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act currently tabled are almost entirely of an operational nature. The bulk of the amendments concerns two elements: clause 2 inserts a new section that will allow the Minister to vest, unto a public body, functions or powers afforded by the Act to the Minister. Clauses 3 and 4, then introduce new definitions of greenhouse gas into the Act's tax incentive schemes, which aligns with this Government's Green Plan as well as the amendments to the Environmental Protection and Management Act, passed last year in this House.

I do not oppose the Bill, but I will offer two additional points for consideration, consistent with both of these primary modifications. The Workers' Party sees little that is objectionable to providing stronger incentives to businesses for incorporating emissions-reducing projects into their capital expenditure plans. Indeed, in my speech for the Motion on Transition to a Low Carbon Society last month, I had suggested that Government agencies should look for opportunities to weave green elements into their capital expenditure projects. Providing analogous tax breaks for the private sector when they do so is entirely consistent with such a whole-of-society effort to address the climate emergency and I am heartened that such efforts are being weaved into our existing legislation.

But if I may say, we should not only look at the tax instrument to effect favourable shifts in corporate behaviour. Subsidies must surely play a part too. And the effects of such positive incentives are even further amplified when they are simultaneously financed by taxes to discourage emissions-generating activity.

In their contributions to the Motion last month, my friends in this House spoke about various ways subsidies can be applied to enhance both the economic and political palatability of the green transition. The Member for Aljunied, Mr Gerald Giam, spoke about putting in place incentives for households to install solar generation capacity in their private homes by subsidising such installation before recovering the cost of the subsidies from the excess electricity produced by these homes. In a similar spirit, the Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan, reiterated how carbon taxes could be channelled to ensure a just transition, especially among lower-income households and workers who may be displaced by moves toward a more environmentally sustainable economy.

In the context of moving beyond tax breaks, I, therefore, wish to ask how the Government plans to continue its financing of economic incentives for firms that adopt environmentally sustainable initiatives. Would these follow the model for existing programmes, such as NEA's Energy Efficiency Fund or BCA's Green Mark Incentive Scheme, via Budget line items, or will there be a more dedicated development fund that is established for this purpose?

Sir, the second point I wish to touch on is how delegation could give rise to a loss of ownership and responsibility. More specifically, the danger I perceive is that after roles are transferred, the sense of responsibility unforturnately fails to follow. This gives rise to the risk – common even among large private-sector organisations – and what this means for public agencies and functionaries could be a loss of ownership and control.

Of course, I understand that the Minister retains full and final de jure responsibility over any vested powers. Even so, as humans, it is often easy, too easy perhaps, for this buck to be passed. The last thing we want is a situation where one party appeals to the so-called Richard Nixon defence, where they did not do anything, since it was executed by an underling and they were unaware, while the other claims the Nuremberg defence, famously presented by Adolf Eichmann and his collaborators in justifying their actions during World War II, which is that they were ordered and they did not have any agency in the matter.

Moreover, it would not surprise anyone in this House that politicians and bureaucrats are held accountable in a different manner: the former by voters during election time and the latter by their peers and colleagues or the public at large. As a consequence, the two face rather different incentives. Politicians are often motivated by the service to the voters that they represent, which in turn influence their re-election prospects. Bureaucrats, in contrast, are guided more by careerist ambitions; if they excel, they can improve their chances for professional advancement, or prospects in the private sector after they exit the Public Service.

This divergence between accountability structures and, in turn, behavioural outcomes, means that policy may actually be more optimally executed by one group or the other, depending on the nature of the task at hand. In particular, research has suggested that complex tasks – premised on ability rather than effort – are better performed when delegated to bureaucrats. Politicians, conversely, are preferable if flexibility over our understanding of society's preferences is important, and this is especially so when there is a need to compensate potential losers arising from any associated policy reform.

Let me put this into more concrete terms using two examples.

The first has to do with monetary policy, which is rather topical, in light of our nation's recent challenges with high inflation. The simple framework I have described suggests that the inflation target – say, keeping core inflation just under 2% per annum – should be chosen by politicians, while the more technically challenging task of choosing the appropriate interest rate, size of balance sheet and the specific exchange rate level would fall under the ambit of our central bankers within the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

As another example, consider efforts to address income and wealth inequality. Here, my argument is that it should fall on elected representatives to determine how much inequality society can tolerate, which redistributive goals would be fair and just, and what types of taxes we should accommodate. The technicalities of getting us there – adjusting specific marginal tax rates, executing efficient expenditures and ensuring a balanced budget – these should then fall back into the laps of professionals in MOF.

Turning back to the Bill in question, I am left to wonder whether there are specific conditions that should be fulfilled, such as when the matter is explicitly technical in nature and when normative decision-making would not be asked for or required before the Minister would then allow for such delegation. And what mechanisms are there in place to ensure that both de facto as well as de jure ownership of decisions remain with the respective Minister?

Minister of State Low Yen Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the two Members, Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, for their support of the Bill and also for the opportunity to make some clarifications.

During Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's remarks, he alluded to the question about the amendments. Allow me to clarify that these amendments would affect the applications for the investment allowance for emission reductions (IA-ER) that are received between 1 April 2021 and the time that the legislative amendments are passed.

I want to assure the two Members that MTI, MOF and the agencies routinely review the effectiveness of our incentives to make necessary adjustments, such as extending the validity of the scheme or to adjust the scheme parameters. These are typically announced by the Minister for Finance at Budget, following which, agencies would then work with AGC to draft the legislative amendments.

Incentive applications during the intervening period may be awarded retrospectively if the legislative amendments are backdated to the announced start date. In this instance, the amendments are being backdated to 1 April 2021, which was the previously announced start date of the IA-ER.

With the expanded scope of the IA-ER and the increased attention that companies are placing on their own carbon footprint, we expect great interest in the scheme going forward.

Mr Don Wee spoke passionately in English and Mandarin about whether the IA-ER scheme could be extended to 2030 to align with the Singapore Green Plan 2030. He also asked how the incentives could further help our SMEs or businesses fulfil the aims of Singapore Green Plan 2030 and whether additional support could be provided.

Allow me to assure Mr Don Wee and also Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that the IA-ER is part of a comprehensive suite of measures to support our industries and our companies based in Singapore in their decarbonisation journey and also to better position themselves to seize the opportunities in the green economy. Other incentives and schemes include ─ and I think some Members would have read about it, but allow me to recap ─ the Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy, the Energy Efficiency Fund, the $180 million Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) that was mentioned by Mr Don Wee, launched by ESG on 1 October last year, and the Low-carbon Energy Research Funding initiative.

Like I have mentioned, many of these programmes have been recently launched. MTI, ESG, and not just within the MTI family, I want to assure the two Members that we are taking a whole-of-Government approach. We will work with the various Ministries, including MSE, MOF and so on, and the relevant agencies to monitor their progress and review them regularly to ensure that, collectively, they remain relevant and effective in supporting our industries, our companies' decarbonisation journey and also Singapore's climate goals.

We will similarly review the IA-ER scheme at an appropriate juncture to determine whether to extend it further or to adjust the scheme's parameters.

Mr Don Wee also asked in his remarks how the Government is helping our industries to build their capabilities to meet our "30 by 30" goal. And Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in his earlier remarks, recapped a list of recommendations and proposals, including those to encourage households to reduce their carbon footprint. Allow me to share with both Members that MSE will provide an update at next month's Committee of Supply debate.

I believe Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about the introduction of the new section 3A of the Bill that allows the Minister for Trade and Industry to assign to public bodies various functions and powers of the administration of tax incentives under the Act. I want to assure Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and every Member in this House that when we talk about the public bodies, as far as this Bill is concerned, it refers to Government agencies, such as EDB and ESG. These two are the economic agencies within the entire family charged with the mandate to incur key investment promotions in Singapore and to support SMEs' development. So, these bodies refer to both EDB and ESG which administer economic expansion-related tax incentives.

I want to assure Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that MTI also shares his wish to make sure that we remain pro-business when administering the tax incentive and that is really why we are introducing this amendment which would then provide EDB and ESG with more autonomy and agility to anchor key business investments and projects expediently. This is also in line with the existing practice where public bodies administer tax incentives via delegation made under the Interpretation Act.

I want to thank Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for their questions and also support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to fostering a business-friendly environment in Singapore. We will continue to review and sharpen our tools to help our businesses move towards a low-carbon future and we look forward to the continued support of this House in that endeavour.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Low Yen Ling]. (proc text)]

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

Minister for Transport.

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

The threat of terrorism to Singapore remains high. According to MHA, global terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda, remain resilient and adaptable, despite losing key leaders and strongholds in recent years. The complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 may also facilitate the resurgence of Al-Qaeda and ISIS-Khorasan using it as a safe haven.

Terrorists continue to pose a real threat to civil aviation. In December 2020, a Kenyan member of Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda's East African affiliate, was charged in the US for plotting to conduct a 9/11-style attack in an unnamed US city. More recently, the Islamic State in Khorasan Province, an entity affiliated with Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da'esh) claimed responsibility for the attacks near the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul on 27 August 2021, which resulted in the death and injuries of dozens of civilians, including children. Just less than a month ago, on 17 January 2022, terrorist attacks left three dead and others injured near Abu Dhabi International Airport. On 1 February 2022, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization deplored the targeting of civil aviation infrastructure, in flagrant violation of international law and the ongoing threat to international peace and security caused by these terrorist acts.

In our ongoing efforts to further strengthen our defence against such terrorist attacks, especially against civil aviation corporations, we intend to accede to two international aviation security treaties: the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation, also known as the Beijing Convention 2010, and the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, also known as the Beijing Protocol 2010.

The reasons are as follows: one, the threat of terrorism to Singapore remains high. Due to the cross-border nature of the threat, international cooperation is necessary to combat such threats; two, the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 will strengthen Singapore's ability to deal with terrorism-related threats to the safety and security of civil aviation; three, the two Beijing treaties will enable us to better protect Singaporeans, by providing a clear basis for us to exercise our criminal jurisdiction as provided for under the two treaties; and four, the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 will also facilitate the extradition of offenders and provision of mutual legal assistance. This would enhance Singapore's capabilities to carry out enforcement actions against offenders who have committed acts that threaten Singapore and Singaporeans locally and abroad.

The two Beijing treaties modernise the legal framework for aviation security, targeting unlawful seizure of aircraft and unlawful interference against civil aviation. They require state parties to criminalise a number of acts which have emerged as threats to the safety and security of civil aviation, including those manifested in the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 when civil aircraft were used as weapons of mass destruction.

The Beijing Convention modernises and consolidates two earlier aviation security treaties, namely, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, also known as the Montreal Convention 1971, and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, also known as the Montreal Protocol 1988.

The Montreal Convention 1971 criminalises certain acts of violence against aircraft, including persons therein, or air navigation facilities, while the Montreal Protocol 1988 supplemented the Montreal Convention 1971 to criminalise certain acts of violence against an international airport, including persons therein.

In addition to those already criminalised under the two Montreal treaties, the Beijing Convention criminalises the following acts: one, using an aircraft for the purpose of causing death, serious bodily injury or serious damage; two, releasing or discharging from an aircraft, or using on board or against aircraft any biological, chemical or nuclear (BCN) weapons or explosive, radioactive or similar substances; three, transporting, causing to be transported, or facilitating the transport of BCN weapons or explosive, radioactive or similar substances, and so on, on board an aircraft; and four, cyber attacks on air navigation facilities.

The Beijing Protocol 2010 supplements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, also known as the Hague Convention 1970. The Hague Convention 1970 criminalises acts relating to unlawful seizure of aircraft, while the Beijing Protocol 2010 expands the scope of the offences in that Convention to cover additional forms of unlawful seizure of aircraft, including through modern technological means.

Both the Beijing treaties make it an offence to make a threat or unlawfully cause someone to receive a threat to commit offences under circumstances which indicate that the threat is credible. Both treaties also provide for the criminal liability of other persons, such as accomplices, the directors and organisers of an offence, persons who knowingly assist an offender to evade investigation, prosecution or punishment, and persons who contribute or agree to contribute to an offence. Both treaties further provide the option for Contracting States to provide under their domestic laws for the liability of legal entities where a person responsible for its management or control commits a relevant offence.

Similar to its predecessor instruments, the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 facilitate the extradition of offenders and provision of mutual legal assistance. For example, the treaties provide that state parties shall, subject to the laws of the requested state, afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences under the treaties. The Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 additionally provide that a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance based on an offence under the treaties may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence, or an offence connected with a political offence, or an offence inspired by political motives.

By expanding the scope of offences and grounds of jurisdiction and removing a ground for refusal for extradition and mutual legal assistance, the Beijing treaties strengthen state parties' capacity to deter these offences under civil aviation, and to prosecute and punish those who commit them.

Singapore is a party to and has ratified the earlier treaties, namely, the Montreal Convention 1971 on 12 April 1978, the Montreal Protocol 1988 on 22 December 1996 and the Hague Convention 1970 on 12 April 1978. The Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 entered into force on 1 July 2018 and 1 January 2018 respectively, for those states that are party to it. Singapore intends to accede to the Beijing treaties, for the reasons I have explained earlier.

The Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the Beijing treaties and facilitate Singapore's implementation of the obligations under these treaties when we accede to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now highlight the key provisions of the Bill.

Clause 4 amends section 3(1) which relates to the offence of hijacking. Before the amendment, the offence of hijacking can only be committed in relation to an aircraft in flight. With the amendment, the offence of hijacking can also be committed in relation to an aircraft in service. This will include the duration of the pre-flight preparation of the aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing, in addition to the period when the aircraft is in flight. The amendment further expands the scope of the offence of hijacking to include the unlawful seizure of an aircraft using any technological means.

Clauses 6, 8(d) and 9 also amend the Act such that certain provisions of the Act do not apply to any act committed in relation to an aircraft used in military, customs or Police service unless: one, the act is committed in or over Singapore; two, where the act is committed outside Singapore, but the person committing the act is a citizen of Singapore; or three, the aircraft is used in the military, customs or Police service of the Republic of Singapore.

Clause 7 inserts new offences sections 5A to 5D. These provisions address new categories of acts that have emerged over the past two decades as potential threats to the safe operation of, or the safety of persons in an aircraft, an aerodrome or an aerodrome facility. These include the events of 9/11, where aircraft were hijacked and used as weapons for terrorist attacks, and as mentioned earlier, just last month on 17 January where there was an attack near the Abu Dhabi International Airport.

The new section 5A criminalises the use of an aircraft in service for the purpose of causing death, serious bodily injury, or serious damage to property or the environment.

The new section 5B criminalises the release or discharge from an aircraft in service any BCN weapon, or any explosive, radioactive or similar substances, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death, serious bodily injury or serious damage to property or the environment.

The new section 5C criminalises the use against or on board any aircraft in service any BCN weapon, or any explosive, radioactive or similar substances, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death, serious bodily injury or serious damage to property or the environment.

The new section 5D criminalises the transport of, causing to be transported, or facilitating the transport of, certain proscribed items on board an aircraft. Examples of these proscribed items include any explosive or radioactive material, any BCN weapon and any source material or special fissionable material.

The new sections 5A to 5D apply regardless of whether any act constituting the offence under any of those sections is committed in Singapore or elsewhere, whatever the nationality or citizenship of the person committing the act or whatever the state in which the aircraft is registered.

Similar to the new sections 5A to 5D, clause 8 amends section 6 on "Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft". The amended section will apply regardless of whether any act constituting the offence is committed in Singapore or elsewhere, whatever the nationality or citizenship of the persons committing the act or whatever the state in which the aircraft is registered.

Clause 10 repeals section 8 and substitutes a new section 8.

The new section 8(1) makes it an offence for any person who makes a threat to commit certain offences, or unlawfully and intentionally causes any person to receive such a threat, under circumstances which indicate the threat to be credible. The new section 8(2) makes it an offence for a person A to unlawfully and intentionally assist any other person B to evade investigation, prosecution or punishment, when A knows that B has committed certain acts, or is wanted for any criminal prosecution, or is sentenced for certain offences.

Clause 11 repeals and re-enacts section 9 and inserts new section 9A and 9B.

The new section 9 stipulates the penalties for the various offences under the Act.

The new sections 9A and 9B deal with offences committed by corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships and also attribute criminal liability to certain officers of such corporations, unincorporated associations or partnerships.

Clause 12 repeals and re-enacts section 11 and inserts a new section 12. The new section 11 to extend the provisions relating to extradition under the Act and the Extradition Act to the new offences inserted by the Bill, and provides that the Beijing treaties and their predecessor treaties may be used as the legal basis for extradition in the absence of an extradition treaty.

The new section 12 provides that in the provision of mutual legal assistance to any state which is a party to the Convention for a criminal matter involving an offence in that state corresponding to a relevant offence, that offence in the state will be deemed not to be an offence of a political character. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, this Bill gives effects to Singapore's obligations under the Beijing Convention.

The Bill proposes to criminalise certain dangerous actions relating to aviation, including the use of aircraft as a weapon. Even in this time of reduced air travel, it is a necessary update to our law and helps enhance aviation safety. With the passage of this Bill, Singapore is once again standing with the international community and showing its commitment to the international rule of law.

I have just two short clarifications on how we can help the airline industry comply with the requirements under this Bill.

My first point has to do with the technical guidance to assist compliance by the airline industry. The Bill introduces offences relating to the transport of certain dangerous materials and BCN weapons.

Airlines routinely transport dangerous goods. This is why the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has in place Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. When drafting the Beijing Convention, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) had proposed to deem an airline carrier as compliant with the Beijing Convention as long as they can show compliance with the Technical Instructions. This was not accepted by the delegates at the Beijing Diplomatic Conference where the Beijing Convention was drafted.

Nevertheless, to provide guidance to airlines in navigating the implementation of this Bill, can the Minister share if and how the ICAO's Technical Instructions should be considered by the Courts in Singapore in the interpretation of this Bill?

My second point is on support extended to the airlines to ensure compliance with the provisions in this Bill. This Bill tackles serious crimes and exposes airlines to significant criminal liability. Can Minister share if the Government has worked with the airline industry to ensure proper review of their cargo processes so that airlines do not inadvertently expose themselves to criminal liability under the Bill?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as an executive staff with the Changi Airport Group.

Please allow me to recount a chilling event that could have gone horribly wrong during the early days of Changi Airport. On 26 March 1991, Singapore Airlines Flight 117 was hijacked. There were 114 passengers and 11 crew on board. The plane was hijacked mid-air while enroute from Subang, Malaysia, to Singapore Changi Airport, by four Pakistani terrorists who were armed with explosives and knives.

Eight and a half gruelling hours after the hijacked plane landed at Changi Airport, the hijackers gave a last five-minute deadline for their demands. They issued a threat to kill one passenger every 10 minutes if their demands were not met. With three minutes to go, the SAF Commandos stormed the plane and within just 30 seconds, killed all four hijackers, with no injuries to hostages. The commandos not only secured the plane, rescued all 125 people on board but also safeguarded the future of our Changi airhub.

It has been 31 years since that first and only hijacking of a Singapore aircraft. The rescue operation was testament to our capabilities to keep Changi Airport safe and secure. As a global aviation hub, a core fundamental for success is the ability to maintain the highest level of security at all times, so as to deter potential perpetrators and facilitate the smooth and secure running of daily operations. To do so, we not only need stringent aviation security processes, valiant and capable security forces but also effective international aviation law and cooperation with other countries.

Ten years after SQ 117, in 2001, the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States happened. The terrorists had used the aircraft itself as weapon of mass destruction. It was the single and most destructive event that had changed the nature and future of air travel permanently.

Indeed, over the years, the tools deployed by terrorists and hijackers have become even more destructive, sophisticated and harder to detect. Our security forces will have to stay abreast of the latest developments happening on the dark side, gather intelligence on a global network and ensure that security measures are updated and tightly-enforced. We will also need to work with other nations due to the cross-border nature of such threats. This is why it is so important for us to support this Bill.

The Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports Amendment Bill will pave the way for Singapore's accession to the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010. In summary, the Convention criminalises the use of civil aircraft as a weapon and the illegal transport or discharge of dangerous materials, including explosive, radioactive, biological, chemical or nuclear (BCN) weapons to attack aircraft or other targets.

In addition, provisions for extradition among Convention and Protocol partners will be useful in the event of the absence of extradition treaties between affected countries for the listed offences. Take for example, the terrorist attack on Korean Airlines Flight 858 in 1987. The perpetrator, Kim Hyon Hui, a North Korean spy, was caught and extradited from Bahrain to Seoul for trial, for planting the bomb which killed 115 people on that flight. Such cases can potentially involve multiple jurisdictions.

Hence, as a leading international air hub, Singapore will need to ensure that in the worst-case scenario of a terrorist attack, we have done all we can to be able to extradite perpetrators from most parts of the world, so that they can be tried for their crimes and to be meted punishments, and the criminal trial and punishment may also provide a form of closure for the families of the victims.

Mr Speaker, Sir, given the importance of this Bill, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister for Transport.

Firstly, why has it taken Singapore more than a decade to accede to this treaty? From the perspective of our aviation security operations, the stated activities and listed items are already forbidden. We already have in place measures to protect the cockpit and prevent unlawful interference of an aircraft, and security screening to detect and remove prohibited items which may be used as weapons to threaten flight crews. Biological, chemical or nuclear items are already included in the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) technical specifications of Dangerous Goods. Hence, accession to the treaty will not have an onerous impact on our existing ground processes.

Second, I would like to ask how many other countries are signatories to the Convention and Protocol. Also, how do these numbers compare to the other three international agreements relevant to aircraft hijacking, namely, the Tokyo Convention, the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention? What are the main reasons for the differences in response and support from the international community?

Finally, in the context of rescue operations of hijacked aircraft, such as in the case of SQ 117, what is the legal liability for unintended injuries or deaths inflicted on innocent hostages by our security forces? Will the security forces be subjected to legal actions too? I hope that the security forces would be accorded immunity because they are risking their own lives while neutralising terrorists, in order to save innocent passengers and crew.

Mr Speaker, Sir, terrorist threats are evolving and Singapore remains a target. Securing our civil aviation system is not just the job of the security agencies. Everyone has a part to play. We must all remain vigilant and continually strengthen our defences against threats that may undermine the safety and security of our civil aviation system.

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to this Bill are introduced to give effect to the 2010 aviation treaty signed in Beijing. With the demand for air travel set to pick up over the next few years, this Bill is imperative. I have several queries on it.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Bill cover all forms of technology, especially those recently developed and enhanced technology, which could be used for purposes of warfare and terrorism?

For instance, there has been reports about the suspected use of electronic warfare and methodologies. These include microwave frequencies or directed, pulsed radio frequency energy from portable microwave weapons, to disrupt neurological function, also known as the Havana Syndrome.

With experts on the subject matter suggesting the possible development of non-kinetic tools and other forms of electromagnetic pulse weapons, should we not be concerned that terrorists may discharge such components from planes? They could also use them to turn planes into weapons of destruction. Some of these technologies may not cause death or serious injury upon application. However, they could impair the judgement of pilots and aircrew or incapacitate them to the point where they are unable to maintain controlled flight. The sensitivity of electronic interference to aircraft navigation systems has been recently brought to light due to the introduction of 5G near some US airports.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Bill consider that hackers could control an aircraft by hacking an aircraft's systems? In 2016, the US Department of Homeland Security conducted a hacking exercise. They were able to penetrate the system of a passenger plane without insider help or being on board. Today, many aspects of aviation are digitalised, from the sale of air tickets, to inflight systems, to the management of jet fuel and air traffic control. The importance of software in civil aviation is paramount. For example, seemingly minor software issues eventually led to Boeing's 737 Max crisis. The expanded cyber footprint exposes aircraft and airports to the possibility of more cyberattacks. As such, the failure to adequately address such issues may have dire consequences.

According to Eurocontrol, at least 1,260 cybersecurity breaches against airlines and other aviation bodies were reported in 2020. Last year, Singapore Airlines also suffered from a data breach. While experts believe the potential for hackers to gain control of a plane through such cybersecurity breaches is low, we should not discount any weak links. All it takes is one successful attempt to endanger an entire aircraft.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Bill cover all forms of aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles and drones and such development in unmanned technology? In recent years, drones have become increasingly sophisticated. Its application has become more widespread through Government, commercial and personal use. A quick Internet search reveals that poorly secured drones can be easily hacked by the layman. Drones are already in use by terror outfits for the delivery of arms, explosives and targeted attacks. They do not have to be complex or carry explosives in order to terrorise or kill. The simple act of spraying water over a group of people or nose-diving into a crowd is enough to cause fear and a potentially fatal stampede. More needs to be done in the form of stricter penalties and regulations in drone use and security measures to prevent the abuse of drones for terror-related activities.

Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Bill also apply to the unlikely scenario that a military, customs or Police service plane is used in the commission of an offence against civil aircraft and aerodromes? I note that clause 9 amends section 7(4) by providing that subsection (2)(a)(ii) does not apply to any act committed in relation to an aircraft used in military, customs or police service, unless the aircraft is used in the military, customs or Police service of the Republic of Singapore. What is the reason for the distinction, if any? To be comprehensive, would these types of aircraft be covered in other legislation, and what would these be?

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, how can we ensure that cross-border collaboration with other countries and collaboration between involved Ministries to enforce this Bill will be well-integrated and seamless?

Domestically, a number of Ministries and agencies would be involved.

MOT, MHA and the Cyber Security Agency deal with domestic terror issues relating to aviation, complicated by cybersecurity. MINDEF oversees our national defence and security, while MFA engages with international organisations. I am simplifying this network of relationships for the purposes of this speech. But, in reality, this cross-Ministry collaboration would be much more complex and possibly involve a greater number of agencies.

Last month, Singapore and Indonesia signed a set of agreements on a number of critical bilateral issues, including the realignment of the boundary between the Jakarta Flight Information Region, or FIR, and the Singapore FIR. The agreement has been described to meet the civil aviation needs of both countries. It will ensure that our Changi Airport is able to operate efficiently and safely and uphold the safety and efficiency of the air traffic control in the region. International and regional cooperation is always essential to protect the safety of international air spaces and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the team for securing the new agreement. I would like to clarify whether the realigned FIR is covered under the Bill.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister clarify what are the penalties for the newly-added offences 5A to 5D, which would see offenders using aircrafts to cause death and destruction or abetting the act of it? Section 9 of the Act lists the penalties for offences under the Act, namely, life imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1 million. Do these penalties apply if the offender was successful in their attempt and caused death and destruction? Would capital punishment be more appropriate to match the severity of the crime?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the September 11 attacks were the first time we saw an aircraft turned into a weapon of mass destruction by terrorists. More than 3,000 people were killed. It sparked a war on terror, which is still ongoing. Closer to home, as what Member Poh Li San has shared, many would remember the hijacking of SQ Flight 117. The reason why I am speaking on this Bill is because, with COVID-19 turning endemic, our aviation sector will pick up again. Our neighbours in Asia are building and expanding their airports, which could pose as a serious competition to our aviation industry. Aviation is thus important to Singapore. I would further argue that our status as an aviation hub is not only essential, but existential for our survival as a country. We must ensure that our aircraft, airports and airspaces are safe, if we are to continue to be a global aviation hub.

Since 9/11, the nature of terrorism has evolved rapidly. Newer aviation technologies, some which are accessible to the layman, are being deployed. Warfare is moving from the conventional to the unconventional, to non-state adversaries. The lines are being blurred. Today, domestic terrorism is well on the way to become a much bigger threat than before, as widening disparities and misinformation threaten the unity of a nation. This Bill is thus important to ensure that our laws are relevant, comprehensive and in time for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding all these queries, I support the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their comments and support for this Bill. Let me address the points raised.

The amended section 3(1) provides that "a person who unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by the use of force or by threats of any kind, or by any technological means, commits the offence of hijacking, whatever his nationality or citizenship, whatever the state in which the aircraft is registered and whether the aircraft is in Singapore or elsewhere."

Depending on the facts and circumstances, this provision could potentially cover acts by malicious hackers to take control of an aircraft by hacking into the aircraft systems.

The broad wording of this provision also helps to ensure that the Act continues to remain relevant and keeps pace with modern technological developments, including the use of new technological means, to endanger the safety and security of aviation.

I would like to provide some clarifications on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for Singapore to exercise criminal jurisdiction on broad grounds and allows Singapore to prosecute offenders for various offences regardless of where the offence was committed, in line with international law. The realignment of the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundaries relates to aviation safety and efficiency of air traffic and not sovereignty. It does not affect the provisions of this Bill and, in general, is not relevant to criminal prosecution matters.

Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a pertinent point that the prevalence of drones and unmanned technology certainly brings about aviation safety and security concerns. The Act can apply to certain types of unlawful and intentional acts involving unmanned aerial vehicles, such as drones. For example, depending on the circumstances, the flying of a drone to intentionally collide with a landing aircraft may potentially fall under the scope of section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which covers acts, regardless of the means used, which damage an aircraft so as to render it incapable of flight or as to be likely to endanger its safety in flight.

MOT had consulted other agencies on the penalties mentioned in the new section 9. In relation to the penalties for the offences under new sections 5A to 5D, MOT is of the view that by benchmarking the penalties against the existing penalties in section 9 of the Act, it is commensurate with the severity of the newly introduced offences. Singapore stands ready against current and future safety and security threats to Singapore's civil aviation system. Should there be a need for a stronger deterrent effect in future, we can introduce new or amend existing legislation.

I would now turn to the query regarding the applicability of the Bill to military, customs or Police aircraft. The offence creating provisions in the Bill apply to aircraft used in military, customs or Police service in certain circumstances. For example, under the amended section 3, the offence of hijacking can be applied to such aircraft if (a) the person seizing or exercising control of the aircraft is a citizen of Singapore; (b) his act is committed in or over Singapore; or (c) the aircraft is used in Singapore's military, customs or Police service. This approach balances the immunity enjoyed by the state aircraft of other countries under international law, with the need to protect Singapore and Singaporeans in certain situations. Nonetheless, the Government stands ready to detect, handle and neutralise any safety and security threats to our civil aviation system, including in relation to any aircraft used in military, customs or Police services, in accordance with domestic and international law.

I would like to share with Ms Poh Li San that, as of today, 42 countries have agreed to each of these treaties. However, it will be difficult to benchmark the response of the international community towards the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 against the earlier treaties as those had been concluded and came into force much earlier.

I believe other States are also seriously considering the provisions of these treaties, just as we did, and, in due course, we should see more countries becoming party to both treaties.

Ms Poh Li San has also noted that Singapore has robust existing security measures and procedures for transporting dangerous goods in place to ensure the safe and orderly operation of Singapore's aviation industry. However, these are separate matters and we have been working to ensure that we are ready to accede, including ensuring that under our domestic laws, Singapore can implement what is required when the Beijing Convention 2010 and Beijing Protocol 2010 come into force for Singapore after accession.

The civil aviation industry plays a significant role in the global economy. Therefore, aviation safety and security continue to be the highest priorities for states and the global aviation community to ensure the undisrupted and reliable operations of the aviation industry. States that have ratified or acceded to the two treaties have already indicated their commitment to collaborate with like-minded states, as provided for in the treaties.

Mr Yip Hon Weng has queried how collaboration between the involved Ministries to enforce this Bill will be well-integrated and seamless. Indeed, working across multiple agencies, administrative boundaries and organisation priorities are challenges that public officers face daily. This is one of the key reasons why the Singapore Public Service adopted the whole-of-Government (WOG) approach to improve collaboration among officers when working on cross-agency projects. I would like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng and the House that our public officers will work together closely with the WOG mindset to achieve the collaboration necessary to enforce this Bill.

Mr Louis Ng had earlier queried how the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions should be considered by the Courts in Singapore in the interpretation of this Bill and was concerned that airlines might inadvertently expose themselves to criminal liability under this Bill. Similarly, Ms Poh Li San also expressed concern that our security forces may be subject to legal actions should there be unintended injuries or deaths to innocent parties during their operations. Let me address both concerns.

The Technical Instructions are published by ICAO to ensure that dangerous materials are subjected to the necessary acceptance, packaging, documentation and loading processes for safe transport by air. We have to keep in mind that the Act, as amended by the Bill, is intended to address the separate matter of unlawful acts which intentionally endanger aviation safety. Therefore, the Technical Instructions are not, in themselves, relevant for the purposes of assessing such criminal liability.

Singapore also implements a rigorous cargo screening regime that is compliant with international standards. Our public agencies work closely with the industry stakeholders to ensure that the required safety and security standards are met.

If the industry partner was found to be non-compliant with the relevant standards during the course of the investigation, they can be taken to task based on appropriate legislation, but not the provisions of the Act as amended by the Bill.

Similarly, for our security forces executing high-risk rescue operations, with the intention to neutralise the threats posed by the perpetrators, the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Bill, are not relevant for assessing liabilities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's security agencies have, over time, worked on the implementation of security measures to both detect and deter terror-minded individuals. With the provisions of this Bill, the effectiveness of these measures would be enhanced further through international cooperation, including allowing Singapore to prosecute such individuals once they are apprehended.

To safeguard our reputation as a safe and secure air hub, Singapore has to continue its role as an active and responsible global citizen through our participation in the international aviation safety and security initiatives. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Baey Yam Keng]. (proc text)]

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

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.18 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

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

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

This Bill proposes amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

Before we go into the specific amendments of this Bill, I would like to first share with Members the context for AMLA and how it supports our Muslim community. The Administration of Muslim Law Act was put in place during the founding years of our nation so that Muslims could continue to have matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and their estates governed by Muslim law. This began during the British Administration. Even as the British brought English law to Singapore, the British Administration also allowed room for the indigenous inhabitants, the Malay/Muslims, to continue having their personal matters governed by their customs and beliefs, and AMLA continues this practice.

In the founding years of our nation, Mr Ahmad Ibrahim, the first Attorney-General of Singapore, and leaders from the Muslim Advisory Board, the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society, the Mohammadiah Movement and the Singapore Religious Teachers' Association, also known as PERGAS, led the effort in establishing a central and uniting voice to represent Muslims in religious affairs. Thus, AMLA established the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, also known as MUIS, to be the central administrative body for the Muslim community and designated the Mufti as the highest religious authority for Islam in Singapore.

Among the community, there was a strong interest in strengthening the institution of marriage and to nurture stronger families. So, AMLA also strengthened the Syariah Court (SYC) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM).

The Government continues to maintain this legislative arrangement, which recognises the history and heritage of Malay/Muslims in Singapore.

When the Bill to pass this Act was first introduced in this Parliament in August 1966, then Minister for Social Affairs, Mr Othman Wok, emphasised that the Bill did not seek to deal with substantive Muslim law itself, but its administration. Let me emphasise this again. The Bill did not seek to deal with substantive Muslim law itself, but its administration.

Muslim law derives from Muslim religious sources and the Act does not alter this. Religious guidance and opinion come from the consensus of the asatizah community, led by MUIS, and officially issued by the Fatwa Committee. This has been so and will always be so. Where AMLA pronounces on religious matters, it serves only to codify the guidance of the ulama.

Religious guidance is reviewed regularly and evolves to address the contemporary challenges that Muslims face.

Similarly, the AMLA is reviewed regularly. This is to ensure that our laws reflect the prevailing and unique norms of our Singaporean Muslim community, the contemporary expression of our community's faith and address current socio-religious needs.

For example, in 2008, this House amended AMLA to raise the minimum age of marriage under AMLA to 18 years of age to match the Women's Charter. At that time, the Government observed that minor marriages were 2.5 times more likely to end in divorce, and consensus was growing that those under the age of 21 were, generally, less prepared for marriage. Then Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, consulted with the community leaders and the community agreed it was important to signal that minor marriages were discouraged. Many other Muslim communities today still allow minor marriages. But we were prepared to look at the evidence, consider contemporary circumstances and adopt norms that made sense for us so that we can stay true to our values of upholding the family.

MCCY has been working closely with MUIS, SYC, ROMM and other key Muslim stakeholders to review the AMLA. For this round of reviews, we seek to update the provisions governing the processes and operations of our statutory Muslim institutions, namely MUIS, SYC and ROMM.

Broadly, the amendments seek to enable these institutions to adopt new administrative processes, including digital ones, for greater efficiency and productivity, and keep pace with broader developments in family law, which Minister of State Sun Xueling spoke about on my behalf on 12 January when MSF moved the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. About half of the amendments seek to improve service delivery of SYC and ROMM and provide greater support to Muslim couples and families. Some amendments allow the SYC and ROMM to adopt digital processes so that they can better serve the community. We have been testing out some of these processes as measures to comply with the safe distancing requirements during the pandemic and we have found that they worked well. There are also other amendments that streamline the administration of Muslim marriages and divorces.

The Bill also contains amendments to enable MUIS to better administer its functions and duties to support the Muslim community. These include amendments to update provisions that are no longer relevant and amendments to enable MUIS' exercise of powers to collect fees for services rendered pursuant to its statutory functions.

Finally, the Bill also seeks to extend to Muslim families support that is on par with what is provided to non-Muslim families under the recently amended Women's Charter, in line with the Islamic principles that undergird Muslim families.

A draft of this Bill was published for public consultation from 13 August to 10 September 2021. We appreciated the broad support from the community for this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, digitalisation is necessary if our institutions are to provide relevant and effective support to the community. This became all the more salient with COVID-19.

When the pandemic hit and safe distancing became imperative, the Office of the Mufti issued a religious opinion that the use of live video-link technology to facilitate marriage solemnisations was compatible with Muslim religious law and, thus, to keep everyone safe, ROMM adopted the video-link technology to allow marriage solemnisations to continue.

Similarly, the SYC adapted its Court processes to allow litigants and witnesses to give evidence through approved channels of live video or live telecommunication links, to minimise disruption to divorce proceedings.

The pandemic necessitated new norms and habits we did not consider prior to 2020. We have learnt the importance of leveraging technology for contingencies so that we can minimise disruptions to service delivery. Thus, this Bill contains amendments that will give SYC, an Appeal Board and ROMM permanent powers to conduct proceedings via remote communication technology in appropriate situations. The amendments do not replace the traditional mode of physical proceedings but enable SYC, an Appeal Board and ROMM to adopt digital alternative modes of conducting proceedings, if the situation calls for it. This is covered by clauses 3, 6, 14, 15, 22 and 23.

The Bill also seeks to improve the service experience of Court users. It will provide the legal framework to empower SYC to adopt new IT systems and digital processes, which will improve case management and communication with litigants and their lawyers.