Hansard, Monday, 3 February 2020

1 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Health in view of the escalating Wuhan pneumonia situation in the China (a) how susceptible is Singapore; (b) whether there are suspected cases in Singapore; and (c) what are the measures put in place or are being considered in the event the situation worsens.

2 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Wuhan virus (a) what is the condition of the suspected patients in Singapore so far; (b) whether the Ministry will be issuing an advisory on travel restrictions for Singaporeans travelling to affected cities; and (c) whether a multi-agency taskforce will be formed to look into the containment and management of the virus spread in Singapore.

3 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is Singapore’s response to the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak; and (b) what actions are taken to contain the spread to, and among, Singaporeans.

4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health how prepared are the authorities to deal with the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan and what can citizens do to help support the Ministry’s efforts.

5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the measures in place to prevent the entry and spread of the Wuhan virus in Singapore, aside from the temperature screening at the airport; and (b) whether there is an emergency response plan to handle the possible emergence of a Wuhan virus outbreak in Singapore.

6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide the latest update on the Wuhan virus situation; (b) what are the stepped-up precautionary measures taken; and (c) how are our contingency preparations and readiness for the possible scenarios ahead.

I understand Question Nos 1 to 6 will be answered via the Ministerial Statement?

Mr Speaker, yes, Question Nos 1 to 6 will be answered in the Ministerial Statement.

All right. Let us proceed to Question No 7.

7 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all private and public hospitals to be equipped and manned to handle severe and multiple trauma cases in their accident and emergency departments as part of our nation’s emergency preparedness plan; and (b) whether we have sufficient emergency specialists and how many more will be trained in the next five years.

8 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health in light of the Lucky Plaza accident, whether private hospitals’ emergency departments should be upgraded for a tiered national accident and emergency system involving both public and private hospitals to make better use of medical resources.

Sir, with your leave, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Please do.

Mr Speaker, all public hospital Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments are equipped and capable of providing resuscitation, stabilisation and initial treatment for all life threatening emergencies, including trauma cases, for both adults and children. Public hospitals must also fulfill MOH's standards of trauma care. Overall, the eight public hospital A&E departments, spread out across Singapore, provide adequate coverage to cater to emergency services in Singapore.

MOH has had on-going discussions with private hospitals about their capabilities in handling emergency care. Currently, private hospitals are not configured to provide the full range of emergency and trauma services required to manage all life-threatening emergencies or situations, involving patients with multiple or serious injuries. Over the last four years, MOH has been collaborating with Raffles Hospital for the management of non-life threatening and urgent SCDF ambulance cases.

MOH carefully manages the training pipelines for emergency medicine and surgical specialists to ensure that there are sufficient capabilities to meet national needs. Currently, there are about 180 Emergency Medicine specialists and 240 general surgeons in Singapore.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have one supplementary question. My concern, really, is whether all our urban areas and housing estates in Singapore will be able to have swift access to emergency services based on the existing locations of emergency departments across Singapore.

As I had mentioned earlier, the public hospitals which are capable of handling all forms of emergencies and life-threatening services to both adults and children are spread out geographically across the island. There will be sufficiently swift access to these services should the need arise. In addition, the number of specialists who are in the pipeline and whom we are training currently, will increase by about 43% over the next five years. These specialists will add to the availability of services and will also add to the pool of emergency specialists who will be able to deal with such situations.

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

9 To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is an upward trend of drug syndicates exploiting minors in the drug trade and how can our enforcement actions and statutory framework deter the syndicates from doing so.

10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Ministry’s position on the research paper entitled “Costs of Drug Crime: Literature Review and Methodology” which calculated the detriment drugs cause to Singapore society; (b) whether the findings provide further impetus for Singapore to advance its war on drugs; and (c) what will be done to ensure that a tough and deterrent stance is taken against drug traffickers who push drugs into and within Singapore.

Can someone ask the Question on his behalf?

Question No 9.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 9 and 10 together?

Yes, please.

Drugs destroy lives and impose immense costs on individuals and society. Besides tangible costs such as physical injuries, lost productivity and cost of incarceration, there are also very significant intangible costs, in terms of lost lives, pain and suffering, and untold misery to families.

The research paper attempted to quantify the costs to Singapore of drug crime, both tangible and intangible costs. The researchers estimated costs of S$1.23 billion in 2015. This is almost certainly an underestimation, as there are other costs which were not included in the study, such as the number of workdays lost for victims of drug crimes. The report did not include this data because it has not been quantified.

The high costs drugs impose on society is one reason why we must maintain our firm stance against drugs. We have put in place tough laws, and maintain intensive enforcement. In 2019, the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), together with other Home Team agencies, conducted close to 1,500 drug operations across Singapore. The estimated market value of the drugs seized was about S$6.3 million.

The CNB has not yet detected any trend of drug syndicates deliberately targeting young persons, be it selling drugs to children and young persons, or recruiting them into the trade.

Nevertheless, we take this risk very seriously. We have strengthened our legislative framework and enhanced our enforcement powers to better protect young persons from being exploited and becoming victims of drugs.

In 2012, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was amended to provide for an offence for any adult who causes or procures any young person to traffic or import drugs. The minimum punishment for such an offender is 10 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane. In addition, adult traffickers who are found to be trafficking to young persons would face tougher penalties. If the trafficker was found to be trafficking a Class A controlled drug to a young person, the minimum punishment would be 10 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes, double the normal rates.

In 2019, the MDA was further amended to provide more protection to children below 16 years of age and young persons from the harms of drugs. It is now an offence for an adult who possesses illicit drugs, knowing that a child is likely to be present in a place, to knowingly or recklessly leave the drugs or drug utensils within easy access of the child. It is also now an offence for an adult to permit or not take reasonable steps to prevent a young person from consuming illicit drugs in the adult’s possession. We will continue to tighten our legislation as needed.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. The question is, in light of the statistic that the highest number of new drug abusers are below 35 and in light of the growing calls, at least around the world – not in Singapore but around the world – to legalise recreational drug use, and in addition to that, this cost of drug crime study, how can we use these statistics and facts to bolster our position against drug trafficking into Singapore? And in addition to that, to assist drug consumers to rehabilitate and not be recalcitrant? So, deterring both the supply and the demand, in light of these facts and statistics.

I thank the Member for his questions. Indeed, the push for drug legalisation around the world is a cause for concern. As he may already know, in October 2018, Canada became the second country in the world, after Uruguay, to legalise the use of cannabis for recreational purposes. In January 2019, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence also made six recommendations on the international scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances.

We have now undertaken this study. We hope to add to the literature so that more are aware about what are the drug-involved crimes as well as drug-attributable crimes, and what the cost to society are. In time, the researchers are preparing for this paper for publication in international journals.

At the same time, we are also stepping up our education outreach. We understand that preventive drug education is definitely the first line of defence when it comes to drug control. The Member had mentioned some trends whereby young people are increasingly prone towards certain messages they may receive over social media about drugs. So, social media is a key platform for us to reach out to youths. The CNB has been developing content messages of strong deterrence, as well as evidence-based narratives on Singapore's drug policies through its social media accounts.

At the end of the day, what we are going to do is going to be guided by research. At the same time, we are also pushing out our education outreach efforts to make sure that for high-risk youths and persons of certain segments, we reach out to them actively with the anti-drug message.

11 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Prime Minister when individuals publicise complaints or petitions to Government agencies which may contain inaccuracies (a) what are the considerations behind whether Government agencies may publicly disclose identifying information and personal details of these individuals; (b) what safeguards exist to ensure that only the minimum personal information is disclosed to establish the facts of the case; and (c) what can be done to ensure that individuals with genuine grievances or unmet needs are not deterred from seeking help publicly

Mr Speaker, Government agencies sometimes need to disclose personal data in the public interest, to counter inaccuracies about the Government’s processes or policies contained in publicised complaints or petitions, in particular, where it is the complainant who has called public attention to the case. Government agencies have to do so to correct inaccuracies and provide an accurate picture of what occurred so as to maintain public trust and to serve all citizens effectively. Otherwise, if citizens are misled about the Government’s processes or policies, they may become unnecessarily anxious or may make decisions that are detrimental to themselves based on the incorrect information, for example deciding not to seek medical treatment.

Such disclosure of personal data by Government agencies is limited in scope. First, personal data is disclosed only if the agency's clarifications would be disputable or insufficiently clear, without the disclosure of such personal data. Secondly, the personal data to be disclosed is specific enough to provide a full picture of the issue, to enable the relevant individual to challenge the Government’s account of the case, based on the facts provided, if need be. Third, care is taken not to disclose personal data that is irrelevant to the case. These considerations serve to safeguard personal data from unnecessary public disclosure.

However, on occasion it will be necessary to disclose the identity of the person involved in the case, even when the publicised complaint itself has been anonymised. This is to remove any ambiguity in the Government’s statement of the facts and settle any doubts over the matter conclusively in the minds of the public.

The Government is committed to putting citizens at the heart of all we do. Citizens have many channels to request for help from the Government and to give feedback. These include physical touchpoints such as service centres, and online channels such as the OneService app and emails of Quality Service Managers. The Government treats all feedback seriously, whether that feedback is conveyed publicly or via one of these channels. We will take the necessary action to address the issue and close the loop with the member of the public.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Just one supplementary question. I am quite concerned we will discourage persons who are trying to get help because these cases can be publicised for reasons beyond the complainant's control. Someone may put up a private Facebook post and finds that it gets shared, and they do not know why it got shared. Will the Government consider a protocol where agencies first try to get the person concerned to agree to a statement put out by the agency that clarifies matters? And only if that does not happen, then as a last resort, the agency could clarify matters without that person's consent.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The issue at hand is, of course, that these types of public declarations, whether anonymised or not, are going to be unusual in nature. There is something about the case or the complainant or the interaction, which does not quite fall into Standard Operating Procedure, nor lend itself to a protocol; otherwise, we would not be in this situation.

The second thing is that, as a result of this, it would be inappropriate for us to constrain the agencies' response to an inaccurate or outright false public statement. Thirdly, in a way, which as the Member had pointed out, may open itself to manipulation and further downstream ambiguity, disinformation, whether inadvertently or deliberately.

So, I think I have articulated in my answer the principles under which public sector agencies are expected to operate; the principles which citizens can expect of Government in dealing with this matter. The bottom line is that should a complaint of this nature occur in public, associated with disinformation and which impacts the way in which Government processes Government policies that serve citizens are being misrepresented, we should expect agencies to reply in public and disclose information so that we can set the record straight; and make sure that Singapore and Singaporeans are well informed.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if the Government has channels and measures for citizens who want to seek redress against Government for what they deem as unfair public disclosure since the Government is not bound by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

Certainly, there are many numbers of channels and feedback routes, which I have described in my previous answer. Citizens can approach their Member of Parliament, they can approach anybody and they can use any of these means, including a public discourse, should they wish to pursue the matter. PDPA notwithstanding and my answer notwithstanding, none of this prevents or is meant to discourage a citizen from seeking redress from a complaint. It is merely that, should a complaint occur in the public space and as a result of that complaint, the public has been misinformed, inaccuracies have been stated, then those inaccuracies need to be stated in the public in a way that is unambiguous and the facts robustly explained to everybody.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) by what date will the Ministry collect carbon tax payments for 2019 emissions; (b) by what date does the Ministry plan to publish the total amount of carbon tax payments collected for 2019 emissions; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider releasing a breakdown of revenue collected from each taxable facility when the data is available.

The Carbon Pricing Act (CPA) came into force on 1 January 2019. The CPA gives effect to the carbon tax of $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent (tCO2e), to be paid using carbon credits purchased from the National Environment Agency (NEA). The carbon tax applies to facilities in the manufacturing, power generation, waste and water management sectors which emit 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or more annually. These companies have been monitoring their emissions for the year 2019 and must submit verified emissions reports to NEA by 30 June 2020. Companies must pay their 2019 carbon tax liability by 30 September 2020.

The carbon tax revenues will be published annually in the Government's Budget Book, which is released in the first quarter of each year. The Government is unable to disclose company- or facility-specific data due to data confidentiality requirements as provided for in the CPA.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am just hoping we can publish that data of what each company is paying. I think the public scrutiny on that, if you compare year by year, then I think the company's policy with regards on climate change will move much faster, if there is public scrutiny on that this.

The intention behind the carbon tax is to provide an economy-wide price signal. It is not meant to put scrutiny on facilities or companies. Therefore, what we do, by publishing the data on an economy-wide basis, I think would be more useful for the Government and the public to know which sectors we should be concentrating on and how we are going to move from there. So, we do not find it productive or correct to actually put any company under scrutiny because they pay their carbon tax or because they are compelled by the Act to do so.

I thank Minister for the reply but maybe as a step back, could we at least publish data based on facility type and size then, without naming the company. So, we know at least which industry is contributing more to carbon emissions in Singapore.

The number of companies that are affected by this Act is very small, around 40. But, they account for about 80% of the carbon emissions in our economy. So, even if you publish by facilities, you can actually do your Maths and make inferences on who is doing what; and I do not think that is what we want to get to.

13 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, what have been the take-up rates of adult vaccinations recommended by the Ministry; and (b) how is the Ministry helping to raise awareness of adult vaccination, especially for those in the high-risk groups, such as the elderly and those with medical conditions.

MOH established the National Adult Immunisation Schedule (NAIS) in November 2017 to provide guidance on important vaccinations for adults. These vaccinations include catch-up vaccinations and vaccinations that high-risk adults should receive. MediSave may be used to pay for NAIS vaccinations.

To encourage take-up, some public healthcare institutions held vaccination awareness campaigns and conducted road shows and talks during the annual World Immunisation Week. Information on the NAIS is available on the Health Promotion Board's (HPB) HealthHub Portal.

The NAIS also serves as a guide for doctors on the vaccinations they should recommend their patients. MOH periodically reminds doctors to do so.

We have been observing a steady increase in the take-up of NAIS vaccinations since its introduction, with more using MediSave to pay for them. Around 24% of adults between 65 and 79 take up the vaccination according to the National Health population survey 2019. In 2017, 39,000 adults use MediSave for flu vaccination. The number increased to 74,000 in 2018.

In July 2019, the HealthySG Taskforce recommended that to further boost adult vaccination rates, subsidies should be provided to help Singaporeans pay for NAIS recommended vaccinations. The subsidies are targeted to be rolled out before the end of 2020 and details will be announced at a later date. MOH is also planning a series of population-level vaccination awareness campaigns to increase the public's awareness on the importance of vaccination.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I am very glad that the Ministry is doing all it can to encourage the take-up rate for vaccinations. But, may I know if the vaccination rates are lower, among our lower income group?

Vaccination uptake is influenced by a number of factors. It includes awareness, importance of vaccinations, accessibility and affordability. MOH does not track data on vaccination rates across the different income groups, but we recognise that cost may pose a difficulty for those in a lower income groups. And hence, we hope to reduce the barriers for vaccinations and increase its uptake by extending subsidies for NAIS vaccinations.

14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the latest findings in the Ministry’s study on creating guidelines to help doctors determine the disability duration for specific injuries when issuing medical leave and light duties to injured workers; and (b) by what date does the Ministry expect to publish the results of this study.

The Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) requires the doctor to place the patient's welfare above all. Regarding medical leave, the doctor has to ensure that the duration and type of leave granted is based on medical grounds arrived at through proper clinical assessment by doctors.

The duration of medical leave is determined by a variety of factors including the type and severity of the injury, the period required for the treatment, rehabilitation and recovery, and the specific work requirements and workplace conditions.

Recent changes in the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) to require employers to report any instance of employees on medical leave or light duties due to a work injury, when effected, should reduce the risk of inadequate medical leave.

Therefore, for now, we do not think that guidelines for medical leave on work-related injuries are necessary. My Ministry will continue to monitor the situation.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think last year, MOH said that it would consult stakeholders on whether these guidelines were needed. Could I ask Senior Minister of State, which stakeholders were consulted and what their views are?

Second, I think that, while WICA amendments will close some of these loopholes, I think we can further strengthen it. So, I understand that under the MOM Return to Work Coordination Programme, all the public hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists are required to complete and obtain certification before they are qualified to facilitate a worker's return to work. But this is not for the private hospital. So, can I ask whether MOH will work with MOM to ensure that this is made compulsory also for private hospitals' Work Rehabilitation Therapists.

First, I would like to say that we are as concerned as the Member for the welfare of the workers. Indeed, we have done some preliminary consultations as well as done a survey of the landscape of such issues in various countries, like New Zealand, Australia, UK. As I have noted earlier, I think the general view is that, because the duration and the type of medical leave or even light injury duties that are to be given, really varies widely depending on different persons, the different circumstances, whether it is the type and severity of the injury, the type of treatment required, rehabilitation, even the comorbidity and the fitness of the worker as well as the work requirements and work conditions. All these vary very greatly and it is actually difficult to have a set of prescriptive guidelines for prescribing medical leave and even light duties.

So, that is the reason why the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), in 2017, did issue some general guidelines on what doctors should take into account, as I have enumerated earlier, as well as the fact that they should not take into account extraneous factors like who is going to benefit, who is going to pay, impact on insurance claims and so on, as well as to consult their peers where they may not be sure.

We think that with the new WICA coming into effect from September of this year, where even light duties given – even if it is one day – will have to be reported, that will actually minimise this issue of under prescribing medical leave or light duties. And in fact, one of the benefits of WICA is to enhance protection for the employees. We will continue to consult with various relevant stakeholders as well as to monitor the situation.

With regard to the second question about the therapists, I think this is not quite related to the issue of issuance of medical leave or light duties by the doctors, but nonetheless, we will check and we will work with MOM where if it is needed, to work out the procedures and the process for this.

15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what rehabilitation measures are young sex offenders subject to in their time in prison or probation to prevent recidivism; (b) whether studies are being done on the mindset of local sex offenders, be they for crimes with or without physical contact with victims, to improve the necessary corrective actions; and (c) whether there are plans to work with universities and schools to conduct outreach and introduce relevant material into the curriculum.

Regardless of age, sex offenders in prison or on probation will be assessed on their criminogenic risks and needs and undergo suitable programmes to reduce their risk of re-offending.

The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) runs a psychology-based programme to help sex offenders better manage their interpersonal relationships and emotions, and address their negative sexual attitudes. At the end of the programme, offenders are guided to develop individualised relapse prevention plans. Sex offenders in prison also attend other programmes, such as those to build better relations with their families, which will help their overall rehabilitation and reintegration.

Where the Courts have ordered probation, MSF will work with probationers and their families to develop intervention plans, including treatment programmes. The family and community play a key role in providing support for and monitoring the progress of the probationer. Examples of interventions include the Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment Programme and the Positive Psychotherapy Group. They equip the probationers with skills to improve their relationships, emotional coping and sexual regulation. MSF's research has found that for youths, who are at a developmental phase of sensation-seeking and impulsivity, their likelihood of re-offending is low when they receive appropriate treatment.

SPS and MSF will continue to strengthen their programmes based on research and evidence. For example, SPS has applied findings from a needs analysis of local sex offenders to enhance psychological interventions for them.

There are also on-going efforts by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to engage schools and Universities to prevent sexual offences. SPF conducts crime prevention talks on sexual offences in schools and advises Universities on security measures and conducts joint patrols with campus security. SPF will continue to work with schools and universities to raise awareness of sexual crimes.

Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. There is public perception that University students tend to get away with their crime easily. For example, a 31-year-old man caught taking an upskirt video of a woman at Woodlands Checkpoint, was jailed four weeks in December 2019, whereas a 25-year-old NUS student was suspended for photographing two female students in the shower – no jail term.

Why is there such a discrepancy? Are we sending the wrong signal? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain?

The position is very clear. Regardless of income levels or backgrounds, we take every crime seriously. The differences in sentencing could be a result of individual cases and there may be specific circumstances in a case that merit a different punishment or treatment. So, I think it is not wise to draw conclusions based on one or two cases. It is important that we send a very strong message that the rich do not get away easily or lightly for any type of crimes, including sexual offences.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Sir. The perception is not just the rich who get away. It is, if you are in a University, you got bright future, we do not want ruin your future, so you get away easily. That is the public perception. So, how do we deal with this?

I understand. I think as a society, we need to look at this issue frankly, but my answer still stands. We should not draw certain conclusions based on one or two cases. But it is an important issue that we need to address together – whether you are rich or you are educated, you do not get away easily. The law applies regardless of our background or income levels. And it is important that we continue to dispel such misperceptions. And if there are specific instances or cases that the Member would like answers, perhaps the Member could file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) and we could give it the proper treatment.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to go back to the part about rehabilitation. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that during the probation, we do get the family involved in the rehabilitation process. But what about those who are incarcerated? Do we get the family involved in the rehabilitation process while they are in prison, as well? I think that is the important part. So, the question is, whether we have family functional therapy for inmates currently incarcerated for sex offences.

The intervention programmes are based on research. And in certain cases, it involves families but in most, it involves the offender having to address his or her own criminogenic needs or risks. I think the short answer to the Member's question is yes, there are family programmes, but not all interventions would involve the family. There are different modules and different individuals require different types of treatment.

16 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last five years, how many retired Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs) applied for renewal of re-entry permits; (b) what proportion of these had their applications rejected; (c) how does this proportion compare with that of the previous five years; and (d) what are the considerations in deciding whether to approve such an application.

A re-entry permit (REP) may be renewed if the Permanent Resident or PR meets the prevailing criteria for renewal, including whether he or she is gainfully employed and still contributing to Singapore, and has his or her family roots here. For PRs who have retired, we will generally renew their REPs, in recognition of their past contributions to Singapore.

In the last five years, approximately 52,400 retired Singapore PRs applied to renew their REPs. Only about 2% were rejected, largely because they were absent from Singapore for a prolonged period and furthermore had no family roots here. This rejection rate is similar to that from 2010 to 2014.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarifying question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I thank her for the answer. Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether retired REP applicants need to show that they can support themselves financially? I am asking because based on ICA's list of documents for REP application, current employment and income is needed for those who obtain their PR originally for work-related reasons, and some retired PRs may find themselves in a difficult position financially as retirees. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged, they have been here for many years and have contributed to Singapore.

We generally renew REPs if they are able to show family roots in Singapore. That is a very important criteria. The second is that they have not been away from Singapore for prolonged periods of time. So, like the Member had mentioned, if they are retired PRs, I would understand that they are not able to do a declaration of employment because they are already retired. But if they are able to meet the criteria that I just mentioned – that they have family roots or they have not been away for prolonged periods – then, they are very likely to have their REPs renewed.

17 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the frequency of SCDF audits on the functionality of fire hose points in condominiums; and (b) in respect of inspection and testing conducted by a third party for the condominium, what liabilities do the condominium’s MCST and managing agent bear should the points be found non-functional during emergencies.

Under the Fire Safety Act, the MCST is responsible for ensuring that all fire safety measures in a condominium, including fire hose reels, are functional. For condominiums with higher fire safety risks, such as those with a habitable height of more than 24 metres and require certain fire protection systems, their MCSTs are required to appoint professional engineers to conduct an audit of the fire safety measures as part of the annual renewal of the building’s Fire Certificate. In addition, SCDF also carries out inspections in response to feedback they receive.

If any fire safety measure is found to be non-functional, the MCST is responsible. Simply hiring a third party to inspect the fire safety measures does not absolve the MCST from liabilities.

Mr Speaker, I have a follow-up question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The issue is that MCST are basically made up of volunteers who live within the condominium or estate. They are not professionals by any nature to be able to have a sense whether what has been checked or what was outsourced as an audit review being accurate. Therein lies the challenge. If there is anything that might have gone wrong, and it was certified and they managed to get their annual certificate renewed, there will be a possibility that the fire hoses are not performing when there is an emergency.

As I had mentioned, the MSCTs are responsible for the management of the common areas and the maintenance of the fire safety measures in the condominiums. If the MCSTs are found to not have done what they should have done, the SCDF may issue a fire hazard abatement notice. Most people, when they get this notice, will rectify the fire hazard. In the event that they are not rectified in accordance with the notice, then the SCDF may make out an offence and issue a notice of composition to the MCST. The SCDF checks and gives them a fire hazard abatement notice, so that they are able to rectify the situation.

18 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law what is the rationale for the new pre-court action protocol for business-to-business debt claims and whether the Government has consulted businesses prior to introducing the new court protocol.

Speaker, the new Pre-Court Action Protocol for Business-to-Business Debt Claims is an initiative by the State Courts. It was implemented in August 2019 by an amendment to the State Courts Practice Directions. These Practice Directions (PDs) are issued by the Court to regulate its practice and procedure, and are updated from time to time. The new Protocol applies to all business-to-business debt claims that are commenced in the State Courts from 1 October 2019 onwards.

The new Protocol seeks to encourage businesses to resolve their debt claims early, before the commencement of proceedings. The State Courts see about 1,000 business-to-business debt claims each year. Approximately 75% of those claims, however, are eventually withdrawn, discontinued or have judgments entered in default. Based on the State Courts' experience, this is because such claims are frequently brought even though the debt is not disputed. Rather, the claims may be brought because there is poor documentation, wrong calculation of interest, or the debtor was simply seeking a breakdown of the debt or a repayment plan. As a result, costs incurred for the legal proceedings are very often disproportionate to the claimed sums and Court resources are also being utilised.

The new Protocol was therefore introduced with the objectives of:

helping parties to identify the quantum of the claim, including interest, the relevant documents which may support the substantiation of the claim, and identifying the issues in dispute;

encouraging early communications between parties, active exploration of Alternative Dispute Resolution options, and the upfront exchange of documents and information; and

where legal proceedings cannot be avoided, the new Protocol will facilitate the drafting of proper pleadings and ensure that documentation is in order, as well as help to narrow the issues in dispute. This will focus the parties and also reduce the length of court proceedings.

Under the new Protocol, a Letter of Claim is sent prior to commencing legal proceedings. The Letter must contain details of the claim such as the amount of debt and applicable interest, as well as the underlying agreement giving rise to the claim. The debtor is then required to send a Response to the Letter of Claim within 28 days, or such shorter timeframe as may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of each case.

The Court has the discretion to impose cost sanctions on a party who does not comply with the new Protocol – whether the creditor or debtor – if the defaulting party is unable to show good reasons for the non-compliance.

The new Protocol does not bar any creditor from bringing legal proceedings on an outstanding debt claim at any point in time.

The State Courts hold regular engagements with Law Society and the members of the Bar on a variety of civil matters, including proposed changes to civil procedure. The State Courts previously discussed the new Protocol with the Law Society’s Civil Practice Committee, whose members represent both creditors and debtors – the business-to-business aspect to which the Protocol applies. Since implementation, the State Courts further engaged the Law Society earlier this year on 14 January 2020 and solicited their written feedback on the Protocol as well. The Law Society provided its feedback in writing to the State Courts on 28 January 2020. The State Courts will be studying this feedback with a view to fine-tuning the Protocol, as may be appropriate.

Mr Lim.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, if I may declare my interest as a practising lawyer on this matter. Sir, I want to say that I support the efforts of the Court to encourage parties to try to resolve disputes amicably before litigating the dispute. I am sure the Senior Minister of State is fully aware that most lawyers already issue demand letters with at least seven days' notice. In this case, the Protocol specifies a notice period of 28 days. May I ask the Senior Minister of State, how does the Court balance the interest of the creditors who themselves may be liquidity-strapped because they would need to give the debtors 28 days' notice? And how does the Court then balance the fact that some debtors do drag their feet and refuse to pay until they are sued in Court? So, how does the Court then consider the interest of creditors who are in that situation?

Mr Speaker, the 28 days in the Protocol is not immutable. There are a variety of factors which come into play when the Court assess ultimately whether there should be cost sanctions against one or the other party, should there be non-compliance with the Protocol. So, if the creditor forms the assessment that this debtor has been dragging his feet, or is facing a series of claims which might cause the debtor to go into bankruptcy, thereby, triggering a series of other consequences, then, on those cases, the creditor may proceed, even without 28 days' notice.

The only question is, at the time of reckoning, which I think Mr Lim would be aware, is actually on different from the position today. Even as we assess the conduct of parties, it is to asses whether or not the action has been reasonable or otherwise. And in doing so, the Court will consider a series of circumstances, including those that I have outlined. That is how the Courts will then strike a balance between ensuring that the creditor has sufficient time to make known the nature of the claim, make known the details to support the claim so that the debtor can decide if he wants to enter into ADR, for instance, or maybe he decides to then seek upfront, the repayment plan from the creditor.

In most cases, as Mr Lim would be aware, 28 days would probably be far shorter than if the matter had to be engaged in Court altogether. And bearing in mind that 75% of the thousand cases end up in some form or another resolved without having gone to Court, the State Court's Protocol seeks to try to address the vast majority of these cases with upfront information, with details to facilitate as far as possible the parties' resolution by themselves. But as I had mentioned and I would like to go back to it, the 28 days is not written in stone. And if the party is able to justify a departure from it, the Court will consider that and not impose sanctions.

19 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower to what extent do persons who are employed and become new citizens in each year affect the determination of the citizen unemployment rate.

Mr Speaker, the citizen unemployment rate is based on the Labour Force Survey, which asks for the citizenship of the respondent at the point of the survey, but does not require the respondent to indicate when he or she obtained citizenship. In any case, the addition of new citizens in Singapore does not change the citizen unemployment rate in any significant way. Let me illustrate.

Suppose the citizen unemployment rate is 3%. This means, if there were only 100 citizens in the labour force, three of them are unemployed. Suppose an employed person becomes a citizen, this translates to a 1% growth in the citizen labour force. There are now 101 citizens in the labour force, but still only three who are unemployed. As a result, the citizen unemployment rate falls by 0.03 percentage points to 2.97%. Compared to 3%, the effect is mathematically very small.

In fact, out of 3.5 million Singapore citizens, significantly less than 1% received their citizenship within the past year. Some are working adults, while others have yet to join the labour force or have retired. This means that the impact to the citizen labour force and unemployment rate is essentially negligible.

20 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can review the policy concerning medical certificates issued by Ministry-approved TCM physicians and mandate its acceptance for medical leave claims across the board.

Mr Speaker, under the Employment Act, all employers are required to grant paid outpatient sick leave to employees with medical certificates (MCs) issued by any medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act (MRA). TCM practitioners can also be registered, if they fulfil the requirements of the MRA.

This is already a wider recognition of MCs. Before April 2019, employers were only required to recognise MCs if they were issued by a Government or company-appointed medical practitioner.

I should add that employers are free to go beyond the minimum provisions in the Employment Act and recognised TCM practitioners' MCs for the purposes of granting paid sick leave.

Sir, I have one supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister how many TCM practitioners are registered with MRA? I have residents who told me that they go to TCM for treatment, but then because the MC is not recognised, so at the end, they just paid some money and got an MC from a clinic. They feel that they have to spend extra money and waste of time and waste of resources. So, I would like to ask how many of these TCM practitioners are registered with MRA, because Minister mentioned the MCs of only those registered with MRA are recognised.

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From what she has asked, I gather her concern is really with regard to individuals, who are seeking to get the medical certificates because they feel unwell to work.

We have to take it in a broader context. There are more than 4,000 medical practitioners that are registered under the MRA. There should not be a concern that the individuals have no access to doctors who can issue valid MCs. People may consult TCM practitioners for any number of reasons, but the fact that the Employment Act requires MCs to be issued by an MRA-registered practitioner in order to be valid, has been known for quite a long time.

Employers are certainly free to do more than what the Employment Act requires, to recognise other medical certificates. But the practice adopted within the Employment Act is consistent with the Medical Registration Act. If I may quote to the Member, section 15 of the MRA states that "no medical certificate or other document required by any written law to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner shall be valid unless signed by a person who is registered under the Act and has a valid practising certificate".

But like I said, if employers would like to recognise TCM medical certificates, they are certainly free to do so.

The following question stood in the name of Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong –

21 To ask the Minister for Manpower whether there has been a spike in workplace fatalities and injuries in the past year and whether the Total Workplace Safety and Health approach is failing.

Question No 21, please, Sir.

Mr Speaker, contrary to the Member’s concern, the workplace fatal injury rate was maintained at the historic low level achieved in 2018. However, preliminary data shows that the non-fatal major injury rate crept up slightly in 2019 when compared to 2018. More details will be released in the 2019 National WSH Statistics Report by end February 2020.

But, Mr Speaker, if you would allow me, for perspective, it is also useful to note the steady improvements in the workplace fatal injury rate in the last two decades. Sir, if you look at the Workplace Fatal Injury rate per 100,000 employees, we were at 4.9 in 2004, then down to 2.2 in 2010, and then 1.8 in 2014. And 2018, we had all time low off; 1.2, if you bring it down by 75%.

And likewise, the major injury rate has also improved over last the five years at 20.0 in 2014 to 17.4 in 2018. So, we are seeing that overall, Singapore's workplace safety compares favourably with many developed countries. And our workplace fatality rate is the lowest in Asia, and is comparable to countries like Denmark and Finland. Improvements have also taken place against the backdrop of heavy reliance on foreign workers in sectors most prone to workplace fatalities such as the construction, marine and process industries. Much attention is put on helping newly arrived foreign workers to practise good Workplace, Safety and Health (WSH) habits.

As outlined in our WSH 2028 roadmap, Singapore aims to achieve and sustain a workplace fatal injury rate of less than 1.0 per 100,000 workers by 2028. This is an ambitious goal reflecting our commitment to workers' safety. Amongst OECD member countries, only four have achieved this level of performance on a sustained basis.

One key challenge in realising this aspiration is the risk of increasing ill-health among the workforce, including chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. If these are not well-managed, these conditions can contribute to work accidents. To reduce accidents in a sustainable manner, we will need more attention on supporting health, not just improving safety.

Total WSH is part of our comprehensive approach to prevent and reduce accidents over longer term. Prevention of workplace injuries goes hand in hand with efforts to promote workforce health. This is so that fewer workers suffer from ill-health and even those with chronic diseases can continue to work safely and productively as long as they want.

22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether a Government survey including employee respondents has been conducted on perceptions of discriminatory hiring and other HR practices, as a follow-up to past surveys focusing on employer respondents; and (b) if so, when will the findings be made public.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by saying this: the Government does not tolerate any form of workplace discrimination. In a 2018 survey commissioned by MOM, over 80% of job seekers did not feel that their gender, marital status, number of children, race, religion or nationality was an impediment in finding work. The majority of employees also felt that they were fairly treated in their organisation, in terms of their employment terms and benefits, training, career development and performance evaluation.

MOM and the Tripartite Alliance on Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) follow up on feedback and complaints about workplace discrimination. This is complemented by TAFEP's efforts to promote and advise employers on fair employment practices.

Rather than depend on perception surveys alone, MOM relies on other indicators too, for evidence of workplace discrimination. A good indicator is the number of complaints, which decreased from about 580 in 2015 to about 200 in 2018 and constitutes less than 1% of all complaints received. Discriminatory job advertisements have become rare and employment outcomes of groups such as women and older workers have also improved in the past decade. The employment rate of older residents aged 55 to 64 increased from 57% in 2009 to 68% in 2019, and that of female residents aged 25 to 64 increased from 64% to 73% over the same period. We have also seen that the adjusted gender pay gap has also narrowed over time, down from 8.8% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2018.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. I believe the Minister of State mentioned that 80% of job seekers do not perceive any kind of discrimination. Just to clarify, was this a survey of both job seekers and those already in jobs? Did the survey cover both job seekers and those who are already in jobs about the perception of discriminatory HR practices? Or was it only job seekers? And if it covered both, was there any difference in the findings between those who are job seekers and those who are already in jobs about their perception of HR practices in their company?

Secondly, of the 20% who did perceive some form of discriminatory practice, can the Minister of State share what was the breakdown by the type of discrimination perceived – be it by gender or nationality or other type for that 20%? Thirdly, what was the sample size of this survey and fourthly has it already been made public or and if not, will it also be published in full?

I thank the Member for his questions. MOM's survey or Fair Employment Practices are nationally representative and because they provide credible gauge of ground sentiment. So, we do this regularly, just to get ground-sensing. And the 2018 survey cover approximately 3,100 individuals and 3,400 establishments. As our surveys have shown, the majority of employers adopt Fair Employment Practices, but nonetheless, we recognise too that there will be minority of employers who deliberately circumvent employment principles and requirements.

For actual details, the Member may want to file a separate Parliamentary Question because this was really just about whether we have a survey or not. But just to answer the Member's question on whether this will be made public, we will publish an occasional paper on fair employment in the later part of this year, so do stay tuned.

23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development for areas within public housing estates or town centres where carparks are exclusively or predominantly in the form of multi-storey carparks (MSCPs), whether HDB can conduct a review to assess the adequacy of parking lots for delivery trucks which cannot access MSCPs due to height limitations, with the view to increasing the number of parking lots for such trucks so that their drivers can park their trucks legally while doing their deliveries.

Mr Speaker, HDB provides all blocks served by multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) with loading and unloading bays. To facilitate loading and unloading activities, the bays are located near HDB blocks and do not have height limits. Delivery drivers can make use of these bays for loading and unloading activities. The number of loading and unloading bays may be adjusted at the local level based on feedback from commercial tenants and users of these bays.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have one supplementary question. Could the Ministry consider addressing the needs of those drivers – the delivery trucks where there is only one driver or that they may have two staff but they cannot afford anyone staying behind in the vehicle while making the delivery to the nearby shops?

Sir, I thank the Member for his concern. HDB exercises flexibility allowing delivery drivers whether they are alone or even with some accompanying colleagues, time to do their deliveries. That is why they have bays. Understandably, deliveries will take some time.

24 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the measures taken to make it safer for HDB residents to dry their laundry in view of our ageing population and strong winds and to protect passers-by from falling laundry poles; and (b) whether there are progressive changes to the design of these laundry pole holders to make them safer.

Mr Speaker, HDB has made improvements to the clothes drying systems in flats over the years. Since 2002, new flats have been fitted with an external three-bar clothes drying rack parallel to the kitchen wall. This eliminates the need for laundry poles to be extended from the window. In addition, new flats are also provided with an internal ceiling mounted clothes drying rack that is sheltered from the rain.

Through the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), HDB has been progressively replacing these pipe sockets that you find in older flats with T-shaped clothes drying racks. These T-shaped racks are designed to support both ends of the laundry poles, so that this reduces the effort required to place the laundry poles onto the racks and minimises the risk of the poles falling even under strong wind conditions.

HDB will continue to review the design of clothes drying racks to make them safer and easier for residents to use.

25 Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked the Minister for National Development whether there are measures to ensure that foreign registered cars pay their outstanding HDB and URA parking fines before entry into, or exit out of, Singapore.

Sir, when foreign-registered vehicles with outstanding fines are spotted at HDB and URA car parks, HDB and URA will clamp or tow away these vehicles so that their owners will step forward to settle the outstanding fines.

With effect from 1 April 2019, foreign-registered vehicles with a number of outstanding fines for traffic, parking or vehicular emissions offences may be denied entry into Singapore. As of 26 January 2020, 535 foreign-registered vehicles had been turned away at our checkpoints for failing to settle their outstanding fines before entering Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for reply because when we follow some of the Facebook groups, they always put screenshots of foreign vehicles with outstanding traffic and parking fines, both URA and HDB. So, I think it gives a wrong impression that the Malaysian vehicles, they do not have to pay their fine and there is no enforcement. So, I really hope for stricter enforcement to deter these vehicles from flagrantly not paying the fines.

Sir, if HDB or URA identify these vehicles in the carparks, as I have said, they will clamp or tow them away, so that the owners have to step forward and settle these outstanding fines. And now with this rule where they can be prevented from entering Singapore, I think they will take it very seriously indeed.

26 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the Ministry ensure that ageing private estates and commercial buildings are properly maintained as to their structure, fire safety, electricity and water supplies, refuse disposal and pest control, for the well-being of occupants and visitors; (b) what are the measures to deal with recalcitrant owners or managing agents; and (c) whether the Ministry will implement a rating framework for private estates similar to that for Town Councils to ensure that the quality of private estate management matches that of public estates.

Mr Speaker, building owners have a duty to ensure that their buildings are well maintained. There are legislative or regulatory requirements currently in place. For example, BCA requires building owners to appoint a professional engineer to inspect the building on a regular basis, and to rectify any structural defects that are found. SCDF requires owners of buildings with higher safety risks, such as publicly accessible buildings with higher occupancy, to appoint a professional engineer to audit a building’s fire safety measures annually. EMA requires building owners to appoint a licensed electrical worker to conduct regular inspections to ensure that electrical installations are fit for operation.

PUB requires building owners to engage a licensed plumber to inspect their potable water tanks annually to ensure that the water is fit and safe for use. NEA requires building owners to dispose of their refuse properly, such as by maintaining refuse chutes and also to prohibit any person from creating conditions favourable to the propagation of vectors.

I know the Member is concerned about building maintenance but if buildings are not properly maintained, the respective agencies can direct building owners or management corporations (MCs) to make rectifications where necessary. For example, BCA can issue a Notice to Maintain to building owners or MCs to compel them to repair defects.

Failure to comply with regulatory requirements or directions is an offence under the respective Acts and Regulations, and the relevant public agencies can take enforcement actions against the building owners, MCs, or building occupants accordingly. Penalties for non-compliance include fines or imprisonment or both.

Public agencies maintain the infrastructure on public land under their respective purviews across Singapore, including public infrastructure within private residential estates. Members of the public can provide feedback on maintenance issues directly to the agencies or via the Municipal Services Office, using the OneService app.

Sir, I have one question for the Minister of State. There are quite a number of condominium in my constituency. The frequent feedback that I got from the Managing Council is that they are all laymen, not familiar, so they appoint the managing agent. So, they are asking whether will MND rank the managing agents because many of them also run into problems with their managing agents. Will MND rank the managing agents, that means categorise them?

Currently, a Management Corporation or MC can appoint an MA for up to a term of three years. So, the MAs' performance can be reviewed by the residents themselves and they can change the MA if they do not perform. So, technically, the measures are there. If the MAs are not performing, the residents can certainly take action. Because, ultimately, as the Member knows as well, you can rank an MA by company, but it is still down to the persons that they appoint, the persons that they hire to run every condo. You can rank an agency but it really depends on the team that they put in place. To ensure quality, we have got an Accredited Managing Agent scheme (AMA), which is administered by both the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV), and the Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM). So, the accreditation scheme exists, it is just that the details are important, that we pick the right managing agent and appoint them. For many MAs, you also have termination clauses if they are not performing too.

So, it is not fair or feasible to rank every MA out there because by firm, some may qualify. But again, it is down to the person that they appoint in the condo. So, it is down to the MCs or managing councils to decide.

Yes, Sir. Three years is a long time if your MA is not performing and then the MC will have to fight with the MA almost every other day. So, what MC is asking if MND can come up with certain qualifications, so that they can rank the MA accordingly, then at least it is a table of approved or accredited MAs for them to choose. The feedback is that a lot of the MCs told me that they are very disappointed with a lot of the MAs in the market. It is just, if I may put it in their language, in Hokkien "tan jiak, tan jiak", but then who suffer? Residents suffer, MC suffer.

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier, we have the AMA scheme which accredits MAs. Do refer to the scheme and maybe the MCs can work closer with the organisations – SISV as well as APFM who manage the scheme – to see how we can improve the accreditation scheme. But to get into ranking, the tricky part is, as I said, that it depends on the performance of the MA on the ground and, ultimately, it is down to procurement.

In terms of procurement, you have the option of terminating if they do not meet certain KPIs. It is important to set the expectations upfront before you procure the services, and set what are the requirements, what are the specifications, that the MAs need to fulfil. The challenge is, again, ranking may work at firm level but it does not necessarily work on the ground. That is always a challenge but, really, if the condos would like to have some sense of which ones are accredited, perhaps if the AMA scheme is not well-known, then we can certainly work to keep condos more aware of what are the accredited MAs out there.

27 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for the past five years, what is the amount of grant and subsidies given to PAP Community Foundation for the set-up and operation of its childcare centres and kindergartens.

Mr Speaker, the Government is committed to enhancing access to affordable and quality pre-schools. To achieve this, the Government funds operators through the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator schemes and runs MOE Kindergartens. There are currently five Anchor Operators, including PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkletots pre-school.

Government grants are provided to Anchor Operators in return for them adhering to fee caps for the pre-school places they provide, plus significant demands on efforts to improve quality and invest in teacher development. In addition, Anchor Operators offer Chinese, Malay and Tamil language instruction, and support enrolment of children from low-income families.

The amount of Government grants provided to each Anchor Operator generally depends on the number of places and types of services provided by the Operator. As the size of Anchor Operators varies substantially, it is more meaningful to look at the amount of grants provided to each Singapore Citizen (SC) child enrolled in each Anchor Operator.

From 2014 to 2018, the average amount of grants provided for each SC child enrolled in PCF Sparkletots translated to about $3,500 per year. For comparison, the corresponding average figure across all Anchor Operators during the same period was about $4,300.

Mr Png.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Does the Ministry have the actual amount that was given to PAP Community Foundation kindergarten? The subsidy that was given to them for the last five years, as listed in the question?

My second question is what is the Government's view on allowing these state-subsidised facility to be used for political activities like Meet-the-People sessions (MPS) and all that?

Sir, as I mentioned in my answer earlier, the grant amount per enrolled Singapore Citizen child, where I think that it is more meaningful, as the amount of Government grants provided to each AOP, as I said, generally depends on the number of places and types of services provided by the operator. As the Member can see, the size of AOPs as well as the size of centres vary substantially. If the Member is aware and he goes on the ground, he would understand what I am trying to say, whereby behind the scenes. there are many differences. So, it is more meaningful for us to look at what I have shared earlier.

For his second question, Sir, I think a lot have been discussed in this House on the question that he has asked, so I would like to urge him to refer to those answers.

28 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the reasons for the discoloured tap water in the Basic Military Training Camp (BMTC) on Pulau Tekong on 20 November 2019; and (b) what measures are being taken to reduce the risk of such incidents in future.

PUB was alerted to discoloured tap water at some parts of the Basic Military Training Centre, or BMTC, at Pulau Tekong at 7.30 am on 20 November 2019. PUB officers were activated immediately to investigate the cause of the incident and deployed water wagons to provide temporary water supply to the servicemen on Pulau Tekong.

PUB also worked with BMTC to flush the water supply network on Pulau Tekong and carried out water sampling tests in the network to ensure that the water is safe for consumption and within the drinking water quality standards under the Environmental Public Health Regulations 2019 and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines. The water supply was fully restored at 9.30 pm on 21 November 2019.

Naturally occurring minerals in the water will settle and accumulate in the water supply network over time. PUB investigated and found that these minerals in the pipes serving BMTC were churned up, thus affecting the appearance of the water. The tap water turned clear after flushing of the water supply network.

As a preventive measure, PUB is working with BMTC to carry out cleaning of the water mains in Pulau Tekong during the first half of 2020, when there is a break in BMTC's training schedule.

Mr Perera.

Thank you, Sir. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Just to confirm, on an on-going basis, going forward, does the Government ensure that the potability or drinkability of the water supply in Tekong is same and equal to the standard on the main land? Is testing regularly done to ensure that?

Yes, we do. In fact, all drinking water is tested whether they are on – Tekong or the main land – to ensure that they are potable and up to the WHO standards and the regulations that I have mentioned just now.

29 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources how have the recent fires in Australia affected Singapore’s environment and food security.

Mr Speaker, Singapore’s air quality was not affected by the recent fires in Australia as winds over Singapore were not blown from the Australian region. From November 2019 to January 2020, when the fires took place, air quality in Singapore was mostly in the "Good" and "Moderate" range. This level of air quality is comparable to the same period in previous years.

Similarly, Singapore’s food security has not been affected by the fires in Australia. Australia is an important source of commonly consumed food items for Singapore, such as meat, milk and sugar. While many parts of Australia experienced the fires, our food supply from Australia remained steady between November 2019 and January 2020.

Nevertheless, we are mindful that disruptions in food imports, including those linked to the climate, remain a possibility. Hence, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been working with food importers to diversify sources across different countries and to adopt plans to mitigate against supply disruptions. Apart from this, we are encouraging Singapore companies to build food production linkages with other countries under our "Grow Overseas" strategy. We are also intensifying efforts to boost domestic food production under our "30 by 30" vision, to locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.

Mr Seah.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Just two short supplementary questions. First, we hope that it does not happen in Australia, the bushfires, but if it continues to occur in future, is it conceivable that this could come to Singapore – meaning that the winds change direction – and is it conceivable for fires in Australia to reach Singapore, and in such an instance, what preparations do we need to make?

My second supplementary question concerns food security. Again, I hear our vision of "30 by 30". My question is: given what is happening around the world, how are we on track to achieve it, and is there a need for this "30 by 30" vision to be, in fact, accelerated?

We have never had a situation where the fires in Australia would actually affect Singapore. We know where the fires, when they burn, affect us almost annually. So, thankfully, I do not think we have to worry yet unless something in the weather patterns change or the intensity of the fire goes beyond this year and last year.

On food security: indeed, this is going to be one of the main topics of our Ministry's Committee of Supply (COS). To get Singaporeans to understand that beyond diversifying our food supplies, we really have to be serious about looking at growing the food ourselves. Because when we have a situation 20, 30, 40 years down the line, when everywhere in the world, food growing will be a challenge, we probably have to be prepared to know how to grow food now, to grow in ways that we do not normally or conventionally do. Because in Singapore, we are very constrained by water, by land, even by energy. So, these are the constraints that Singapore has to overcome but I am very confident that with technology and perseverance, we will get to the target of "30 by 30" that we set ourselves to achieve.

30 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the past three years, what has been the number of recorded offences for (i) smoking in the common corridors and void decks of HDB flats and (ii) high-rise littering from HDB flats related to cigarette butts and cigarette ash respectively.

Over the past three years, the National Environment Agency (NEA) issued more than 11,000 tickets for smoking along common corridors and void decks of HDB estates. This makes up about 15% of the total number of tickets issued for smoking in prohibited places during that period. I urge smokers to be mindful of the health of others and not light up in smoking-prohibited places. Families and friends, and even members of the public, can help remind smokers to reinforce the right social norms.

Over the same period, NEA took more than 2,200 enforcement actions against high-rise littering from HDB flats involving cigarette litter. This makes up about 76% of the total enforcement actions taken for high-rise littering during that period. High-rise littering is an anti-social act which affects safety as well as environmental hygiene. I urge everyone to play his or her part to keep our common spaces clean and ensure that Singapore remains a clean, green and sustainable home for all of us.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her replies. I just have two short supplementary questions. The first is regarding enforcement of smoking in common corridors and also in stairwells. I note the efforts of the NEA, but I still receive a lot of feedback from residents about recalcitrant smoking in stairwells and common corridors, which is probably a bit difficult to enforce, particularly at odd hours of the day or even at night. I was wondering whether there were any efforts to improve enforcement in these areas, perhaps use cameras that are already in some of the corridors put in by the Singapore Police Force.

The second supplementary question, I know is a common question. We still have much feedback about second-hand smoke coming from the smokers' own residences. And I know that the Senior Minister of State has replied on this but I was wondering if there was any update on any measures that we can take to mitigate this problem as well.

I am pleased to say that for the first question, at least I have an update. As the Member knows, we cannot constantly monitor all the 32,000-odd smoking-prohibited places or respond immediately to every feedback, especially given the fleeting nature of the act. So, to reinforce the no-smoking regulations, NEA has started deploying thermal cameras in public residential areas, particularly the common corridors, the lift lobbies, the stairwells, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues. This is to enhance surveillance to curb unlawful smoking. The cameras are able to capture images of the smoking infringement as well as the date and time, and this allows NEA to follow up with investigations.

Let me share that so far, more than 20 offenders have been caught through these thermal cameras and have been issued with composition fines.

As regard the second question, I am afraid I do not have any updates on this. But let me say that smoking is already prohibited in many, many places. I said 32,000-odd places, and actually, there are very few areas where our smokers can smoke now. And we are mindful about enacting laws that are too intrusive. And, in fact, while as many have given us feedback – why do you not enact laws to prohibit smoking within their own homes, there are also many who tell us that they do not believe that the Government should intrude into one's private space.

So, we continue to encourage our smokers to be civic-minded and in the spirit of building a socially gracious and civic-minded society, I think we should all try to resolve this amicably, as far as possible.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the thermal cameras. How many are there and is there any in Nee Soon South?

In fact, I have just given feedback to NEA over the last few weeks. It looks like smoking in staircase is very, very common, and I received a lot of complaints. Lately, there is this resident who keeps saying that the smoke goes into her flat and she has young children. So, I have been talking to NEA, in fact, just last week. What is the solution? Are we going to have a national campaign about smoking at the staircase affecting the health of residents?

Now I hear about these thermal cameras. How many do we have? Are there any installed in Nee Soon South?

Well, first, I would highly recommend that the Member start this social, civic-mindedness and gracious campaign among the residents, as far as smoking in residential homes are concerned. With regard to thermal cameras, we outsource it to a third party to provide this service. So, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues in common corridors, lift lobbies and stairwells, we can look into the feasibility of providing such thermal cameras. I have no idea whether Nee Soon has any of these.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 31, 33-34, 36-38, 40-44 and 47-58 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 32, 35, 39, 45-46 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 Feb 2020.]

Ministerial Statement. Minister for Health.

Mr Speaker and Members, many Members of this House and our fellow Singaporeans are concerned about the 2019 novel coronavirus. This virus has affected not only China but many countries worldwide and cases are still growing daily with no signs of abating yet.

The Singapore Government has set up a Multi-Ministry Taskforce to coordinate the whole-of-Government efforts to combat this outbreak even before the first confirmed imported case occurred here. On 30 January, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, raising the global alert levels.

We have therefore put in place pre-emptive measures to protect the public health. Some other countries have also done so. It is heartening to know that China is doing all they can to contain the spread of the virus, and we have witnessed their decisive actions to put in place strong measures such as travel restrictions for their own residents, cancellation of outbound tour groups, and bringing back residents from overseas. We wish China well in their efforts to combat this virus and we have every confidence that China and other countries, including us here in Singapore, will work together and complement each other to win this battle internationally.

It is not just a problem for China but for the world. We have to work together and collaborate with each other. For this reason, Singapore will be putting together an assistance package to help the communities in China severely affected by the novel coronavirus. More details about the package will be provided later.

I can understand why Singaporeans are concerned as there are many unknowns about the virus: how it will develop and how long this will last. Beyond health, businesses would also have concerns as many have been affected by our prevention and containment measures.

Let me take this opportunity to provide some background on the virus, give an update on the current situation and touch on the healthcare-related measures that we have put in place. Minister Wong, my co-chair of the Taskforce, will provide more details on the efforts of the various Government agencies and how we are working together with all the stakeholders.

As the situation unfolds, we will share as much information as possible and as soon as possible. While we cannot be complacent, I am confident we will overcome this challenge as we have in the past if we work together. We have been preparing for this, we are anticipating scenarios ahead, taking decisive actions as the situation evolves and we will do our best to keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe.

First, let me start with an update. The situation in China and globally is still developing rapidly even as we speak and we still have very limited knowledge of the virus as scientists all over the world are racing against time to understand this virus better.

The virus was first detected in Wuhan in December 2019, although it may well have existed earlier while remaining undetected. On 31 December, the WHO was first informed of a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown cause detected in Wuhan. Soon after, on 2 January, MOH alerted our medical professionals and effected temperature screening for all flights arriving from Wuhan at our airport.

The infection continued to spread in China. By 22 January 2020, over 500 confirmed cases were reported in China with a death toll of 17, when we decided to set up the Multi-Ministry Taskforce. We anticipated that we would need a whole-of-Government effort to respond swiftly to this threat when it arrives in Singapore. We had to take precautions and coordinate plans across Government agencies to fight this.

In fact, the following day, after we had set up the Taskforce, we saw the first local imported case. Wuhan and additional cities in Hubei were then locked down by the Chinese government. By this time, we had already issued travel advisories for Wuhan, and extended our temperature screening at the airport to all incoming flights from China.

The infection continued to spread at a rapid pace, reaching several foreign countries and all provinces of China by 29 January 2020. The latest WHO report showed that there were more than 14,000 reported cases in China and 304 deaths. Twenty-three countries have also reported a total of 146 confirmed cases and one death. The number is changing every day.

Locally, we have 18 confirmed cases. Forty-three recently admitted suspect cases are pending test results while 240 suspect cases were tested and cleared. All of the confirmed cases are being treated in isolation rooms. Overall, the conditions of most of our confirmed cases are improving.

To date, there is no evidence of local community transmission. However, we should not be complacent and we must be prepared for this scenario.

Let me now share about what we know about this novel coronavirus. This virus comes from the family of coronavirus, which includes other viruses such as MERS and SARS, as well as the milder variants causing the common cold. The medical consensus at this moment is that the novel coronavirus is more transmissible, but appears less deadly than SARS.

Available evidence suggests that the rate of human-to-human transmission of this virus appears to be higher than that of SARS. For now, the evidence also suggests that transmission is mostly via droplets. What this means is that the virus is carried within droplets emitted from an infected person over a short distance, such as when the person coughs or sneezes. If these droplets come into contact with the eyes, nose or mouth of an individual, directly or indirectly through hands that have come into contact with these droplets, the individual may become infected.

To clarify, there is no evidence currently to suggest that the virus is airborne. There are other viruses, such as chickenpox, which can easily be transported via air currents and do not require droplets to contact the eyes, nose or mouth. The novel coronavirus is not in this category of viruses.

The novel coronavirus could also transmit through surface contact. Let me explain. When a person sneezes or coughs, the droplets fall onto the surfaces of tables and chairs, for example, and the virus may remain alive for up to a few days. When someone else touches the surfaces of these tables and chairs, the virus can be transferred to his hand and if he then rubs his eyes or nose without washing his hands, he may become infected. So, we should wash our hands. This is also why we only quarantine the close contacts of confirmed cases. For more transient contacts, such as individuals that the confirmed cases may have walked past in malls or hotels, the risk of transmission is low.

For coronaviruses generally, the person is most infectious when he is displaying symptoms or what you call symptomatic, and this is likely to be the case for the novel coronavirus as well. There is evidence of limited spread from a person without symptoms during the incubation period. However, this form of transmission may be uncommon and has so far involved isolated cases only. At this point, the evidence still points towards higher transmissibility when the person is displaying symptoms.

As such, medical professionals both overseas and in Singapore have advised that the most effective way that we can protect ourselves is to practise good personal hygiene. We should regularly wash our hands with soap and water, and avoid touching our face with our hands.

These may sound simple, but are actually very difficult to do because all of us touch our face all the time. Even in a meeting that we had with the Multi-Ministry Taskforce while I was speaking I was touching my face until Minister Lawrence Wong nudged me with his elbow and said, "Stop touching your face". So, it is simple but effective in preventing all kinds of infection. Potential infection from asymptomatic persons in fact is less likely to be from coughing or sneezing directly because they do not have symptoms such as sneezing or coughing, but more likely by touching contaminated surfaces, for which masks offer no protection. Wearing a mask when we are well often give us a false sense of security instead and we are more likely to touch our faces when we constantly adjust our masks, which is one way the disease spreads.

At the same time, we need to protect others – our loved ones, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans that we come into contact with. If we are sick, we should rest and recover at home as far as possible. If we do need to go out to see a doctor, for example, we should wear a surgical mask to protect others. So, this is when a mask is needed – when we are unwell and have to go out.

Persons exposed to the virus may be well for a few days before developing symptoms such as fever or cough. Some may develop pneumonia eventually. There is currently no known curative treatment for the novel coronavirus. Development of a successful cure may take time, maybe months or years. The current approach is to provide good supportive care for the patients to reduce complications and to allow time for the patient to recover.

The current case fatality rate stands at about 2% to 3%. Majority of the deaths are among those with underlying medical conditions. The fatality rate seems lower than SARS, which was around 10%. But we are still at the initial stages of the outbreak and the actual severity can only be assessed properly in time to come.

Regardless, the Government’s response has been, and will continue to be swift and decisive, to contain the spread of the virus here. Let me elaborate on the preparation we have made and measures that we have taken.

We have been preparing for the possibility of an infectious disease outbreak like this one, since SARS. We have been building capacity and capability in addressing infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, H1N1, and more recently Zika and Monkey Pox.

We had strengthened our epidemiological surveillance and containment capabilities and our agencies hold regular emergency preparedness exercises to keep themselves operationally ready. In addition, we have set up the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), a purpose-built facility to strengthen our ability to manage the outbreak of infectious diseases. It is benchmarked to international standards and best practices for treatment and safety. In April 2018, a Joint External Evaluation by the WHO experts stated that Singapore had demonstrated strong leadership and high capacity to detect and respond to potential public health emergencies.

We had followed the situation in Wuhan closely since December 2019 and we had responded rapidly, putting in place a series of measures to reduce the risk of import and spread of the virus since early January 2020. These include the implementation of temperature screening at the airport and we also alerted all our medical practitioners to be vigilant.

Once we saw a significant increase in confirmed cases in Wuhan, I decided that it was necessary to set up a Multi-Ministry Taskforce. I asked Minister Lawrence Wong to co-chair this, and invited the Deputy Prime Minister as our advisor. The Taskforce is to plan and coordinate whole-of-Government efforts so that we can mount a national response quickly and effectively. Representatives from Ministries of Home Affairs, Social and Family, Transport, Education, Manpower, Trade and Industry, Communications and Information, the Environment and Water Resources and the Labour Movement are all involved. The list is very long, but it is a reflection of the multi-agency coordination that is required.

As the global and local situation evolves, the Taskforce has stepped up our measures accordingly, taking into careful consideration relevant factors, including the impact on our society.

We had set up multiple lines of defence to reduce the risk of imported cases and local community transmission. We have been stepping up our posture and efforts at each line of defence.

First, we have measures that serve to prevent further importation of the virus into our shores. These include temperature and health screening at all checkpoints, land, sea and air, as well as international travel controls. Second, we have measures that help us to detect and contain the virus and prevent it from spreading further. We have good surveillance systems to identify cases. Our healthcare providers, especially our polyclinics and general practitioners are right at the front line. They are on heightened alert and stand ready to deal with cases as they emerge. Third, and perhaps most importantly, all of us must play our part and exercise social responsibility, to prevent or stem any possible spread of the coronavirus in the community. We should also be considerate for others around us and lend a hand as a community to support each other and stay united.

None of these measures on their own are fool-proof. But when taken together, they will improve our resilience and ability to respond to this disease.

Let me elaborate on the key role that the healthcare system plays in the defence of this novel coronavirus. Minister Wong will touch on the other measures.

Our healthcare providers play a key role in the detection and isolation of suspected and confirmed cases. Our frontline doctors, polyclinics, GPs and Emergency Department doctors are on high alert for persons with travel history and respiratory symptoms such as fever and cough. Such persons will be assessed, isolated and tested for the novel coronavirus. We will also test samples from our influenza surveillance systems and hospitalised pneumonia cases for novel coronavirus to pick up unlinked cases, if any.

Let me take the opportunity to provide an update on the confirmed and suspected cases.

All of our confirmed cases are Wuhan residents or persons who had recently travelled to Wuhan. There is no evidence of community spread in Singapore. Many of them stayed mostly at their hotels or with their family in their family's homes, and did not move around extensively. However, some of them did visit our tourism sites, such as Gardens by the Bay and Orchard Road, where any interactions would have been transient. The confirmed cases are being treated at various hospitals and their conditions are stable and most of them are improving.

With each confirmed case, we will conduct contact tracing. We will check on the health of these contacts and if they are unwell with fever, cough or other respiratory symptoms, they will be classified as suspected cases. We will arrange for them to go to hospitals via a dedicated ambulance for isolation and testing. For contacts that are well, we adopt a risk-based approach. For close contacts, they will be put under quarantine for 14 days since their last contact with the confirmed case. For other contacts, they will be put on active surveillance with daily health checks by MOH, as the risk of infection is lower for them.

The detection and management of suspect cases and proper care and isolation of these confirmed cases would not have been possible without our healthcare providers and professionals. They are our key partners in this war against the novel coronavirus.

Our polyclinics and GP partners play an important role in identifying and notifying MOH of any cases that meet the case definition so that they can be followed up. Dr Lam Pin Min and I recently met a group of GPs, including representatives from the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) and the College of Family Physicians Singapore (CFPS), to hear their feedback and see how we can support them.

Our hospitals will similarly isolate any individuals that present themselves at the emergency department who meet the case definition and test them to determine whether they are infected with the novel coronavirus.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all our healthcare workers and their families. They have worked tirelessly over the last few weeks, missing their holidays or reunion dinners. They work very hard to keep Singaporeans and Singapore safe. Their families may also need to take over care-giving duties at home or make alternative arrangements as these healthcare workers work overtime to manage the cases.

Let me give you an example. Dr Margaret Soon, the Director of Nursing at NCID. She is an exemplary leader. She was a veteran from SARS, and an Infection Control Nurse. Dr Soon immediately rose to the occasion when we activated NCID. She led her team to prepare the isolation rooms, held townhalls to update the NCID nurses and ensured that her nurses had adequate essential supplies, such as protective gowns and masks. Throughout this period, she was out of the house before sunrise and mostly back only after her family had gone to asleep. She had to cancel a family trip during the Chinese New Year period, but her family understood and was supportive. This included her daughter, whom she was pregnant with during SARS. Stories of such dedication like Dr Soon's abound in our healthcare community.

I would also like to emphasise that there is no need to avoid our healthcare workers during this time. We have instituted strict safety policies and procedures in our hospitals and other healthcare providers. For example, healthcare workers managing cases are required to don personal protective equipment and this ensures that they are protected from the virus.

Instead, let us stand together, stand behind them and support them in this period. They may be our friends and family, or even strangers that we meet on the streets or public transport. A smile, a kind word or an encouraging message goes a long way to helping them keep their spirits up and know that we are behind them.

I am also very encouraged by our various community-led efforts. For example, Akram Hanif and his youth volunteers have been engaging a group of about 45 young adolescents and youths at Marsiling CC to instill in them good values and character. Akram had organised the kids to draw a banner to thank our frontline medical staff from Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) and encourage them to press on.

There could be a long road ahead. SARS took about eight months from the first detected case in November 2002 till the WHO declared the SARS outbreak contained in July 2003. We are not sure how long this virus will turn out. Therefore, we must stand ready to respond to new developments as the situation evolves.

There remain risks ahead and we are preparing for the various contingencies. Let me share some of these scenarios.

First, there could be community spread in more Chinese cities beyond Wuhan or in other countries. We may need to roll out additional measures to prevent the importation and to contain the virus. The decision to do so would again not be an easy one. We have to do what is necessary to protect the health and safety of our people and those who travel to Singapore.

Secondly, there could be community spread locally. Despite our best efforts, this is a possibility that we must be ready for. The key to managing this is quick detection and limiting further spread, which calls on social responsibility from all of us. If the infected Singaporean wears a mask to protect others, and promptly sees a doctor and gets triaged for testing, the risk of further spread can be greatly reduced. Even if there is spread, quick action will help to limit its extent. Once tested positive, the Government will contact trace quickly, helping to reduce further spread to their close contacts. If the community spread becomes very extensive, we will need to consider measures to reduce human-to-human interactions, such as cancelling mass gatherings, suspending schools, paring down non-essential care services and introducing further infection control and monitoring measures, to slow the spread.

Third, the virus could mutate to become more infectious and spread widely, resulting in a pandemic. This is the known unknowns. And we have to assess what best to do, depending on how the virus mutates. It may also become less infectious on the other hand and less severe, but it is a scenario that we worry about when it comes.

On the healthcare front, we are stepping up preparations for these potential scenarios. For example, we have increased our capacity of isolation beds by around 100 in the past two weeks. We have also been increasing our testing capacity, to enable us to more quickly confirm suspect cases.

Overall, we must stay calm, but cautious. Our early intervention efforts have helped to contain the spread so far, but while we hope for the best, we must plan for the worst.

Let me conclude by once again appealing to Singaporeans to work together with us in this fight. I am very heartened by the many examples of volunteers stepping forward to support our efforts. Indeed, this effort requires a whole-of-Singapore response.

I have elaborated on the public health measures that we have put in place. Minister Wong will elaborate on the other measures. We seek Singaporeans' understanding and cooperation.

I would also like to acknowledge once again our healthcare workers on the frontlines and commend them for their bravery and selflessness. Let us stand together and show our support for them.

We understand that Singaporeans may feel anxious, given the many unknowns about the novel coronavirus. Here, I want to reiterate the Government's firm commitment that we will spare no efforts in protecting our people. We will act swiftly and share information on the novel coronavirus openly and as soon as possible.

We have overcome several challenges as a nation in the past – SARS, H1N1 and Zika. In the face of this novel coronavirus, we have built up our defences, our capabilities, and we are stronger and more prepared. While we cannot be complacent, we must remain calm and confident. This is a fight that calls on every individual to do our part. We are confident that we can manage and overcome this challenge as a nation and emerge stronger together. [Applause.]

The Minister for National Development will be making a related Ministerial Statement. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on both Statements after this Statement. Minister Wong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health has spoken about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus situation and explained how we have prepared for this since SARS, as well as the public health measures that we have taken so far. I will now elaborate on the other aspects of the work of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce.

The Taskforce was formed just about two weeks ago, and we have been meeting almost daily since then to deal with a very fast moving and constantly changing situation. The novel coronavirus is a new virus, and medical experts everywhere are rushing to understand more about how it spreads, how severe it is and how it can be treated.

So, we constantly update our risk assessments based on the latest information and expert advice. We also look ahead to anticipate as best as we can how the situation will evolve and prepare for the possibility that things can worsen. That is why over the past week alone, we have had to adjust and update our measures several times. We owe it to every Singaporean to do our very best to protect all of us from the virus. So, in all that we do, the overall health and well-being of Singaporeans has been and will be our top priority.

As Minister Gan highlighted earlier, the measures we put in place are part of a broader system with multiple lines of defence. Our first line of defence against an infectious disease that occurs outside of Singapore is to put in place controls at the border to limit the spread of the virus and the number of imported cases here.

Infectious diseases do not respect borders. The world is more connected than before, with more people flying around and travelling than ever. And we have to be extra vigilant on this front because Singapore is an international travel hub, with more than 68 million people using our airport last year. So, a virus that comes through our airport will not only impact Singapore, but it can also easily spread through us to other countries in the region. That is why we have to be extra vigilant.

To protect against such an infectious disease outbreak when it happens outside of Singapore, we have a series of drawer plans and measures at the border. They range from the screening of in-bound travellers, to placing high-risk travellers into quarantine, as well as restricting travel for those who have recently been at high risk countries. And then, depending on the nature of the outbreak, we will assess the risks and put in place the appropriate measures.

This is the approach the Taskforce has taken in dealing with this virus. We first implemented temperature screening at Changi Airport for flights from Wuhan. And then, we expanded the screening to all flights from China, and also to our land and sea checkpoints. As an additional precaution, and because not all who are infected will show symptoms, we deployed healthcare teams at the aerobridge for all incoming flights from China to identify and pull aside passengers who look unwell.

At the same time, it helped that China had moved swiftly to impose restrictions on its own outbound travellers. It cancelled outbound tour groups. All of these measures helped to reduce the flow of people from China to Singapore. Typically, there will be about 14,000 PRC travellers flying in from China to Singapore every day. After the Chinese imposed outbound restrictions on 23 January, this number came down sharply by more than 80%, just through the Chinese measures alone.

Despite these measures, we recognised that there was still a flow of travellers coming in from China on a regular basis. We monitored this flow carefully and considered what additional actions were needed based on the evidence and risks. Early last week, when we saw the sharply accelerating trend of infection among the population of Chinese nationals from Hubei province, we knew we had to move. And that is why on 28 January, we decided to disallow all new visitors with recent travel history in Hubei.

But shortly after that, the situation changed again. While the majority of confirmed cases in China were still linked to Hubei province, it was evident that the virus had spread to every region of mainland China and there was a high risk of widespread community transmission in other parts of China. And so, on 31 January, last Friday, we decided to take the additional precaution of disallowing all new visitors with recent travel history in the rest of mainland China.

As part of these travel restrictions, ICA is no longer issuing new visas to those with PRC passports and suspending all such visas. That is because the vast majority of such travellers coming in for short visits would have been in China recently. But if there are PRC passport holders who have not been in China in the past 14 days, then ICA will be prepared to issue them a short-term visitor pass or to extend their short-term pass.

And that is why I had emphasised earlier that the travel restrictions are not tied to nationality, but are meant to restrict all travellers with recent travel history in China. This is necessary to reduce the flow of people coming from the source of the virus outbreak and to limit the number of imported cases coming into Singapore. That is our first line of defence at the border.

Beyond border controls, our second line of defence is to identify and isolate the people with the virus, as well as all of the close contacts of the infected persons. We have a well-established contact tracing procedure, which we put in place during SARS, and have continued to fine-tune through emergency exercises and through experiences dealing with previous outbreaks like MERS and H1N1.

As of 8.00 am today, we have 18 confirmed cases of the virus, all with recent travel history in Hubei, as Minister Gan mentioned earlier. Sixteen are PRC nationals, mostly here on short-term passes and the other two are Singaporeans, who were among the 92 who came back recently from Wuhan after the city was locked down. Beyond the confirmed cases, we have tested a broader group of 240 suspect cases, all of whom are negative; and then there are another 43 suspect cases, for which test results are pending.

All of the outstanding suspect cases have been isolated. The close contacts of the confirmed cases are also now on quarantine. In addition, we have been contacting the recent travellers from Hubei who are presently in Singapore and putting those of higher risk on quarantine.

As of last night, there are 524 persons under quarantine. Two hundred and twenty-two are in Government Quarantine Facilities (GQF), and 302 are serving quarantine at home. Persons under Quarantine are required to stay in their designated location at all times during the quarantine period. They cannot physically interact with others living in the same premise.

For each case, we will assess whether to quarantine the person at the GQF or to do so at the person’s home. In cases where the home is found to be suitable by MOH, then home quarantine would apply and we would use video calls, phone calls and regular spot checks to ensure that they remain in their assigned quarantined location. These are protocols that we have all worked out through SARs and fine-tuned over the years, as I mentioned. Persons who do not have a suitable residence for quarantine would then be housed in GQF and there are severe penalties for non-compliance of the Quarantine Order, including fines or jail.

Besides quarantine for close contacts and high-risk groups, we have also taken precautionary measures for recent travellers from other parts of mainland China, outside of Hubei, as I mentioned just now. Our assessment is that they are of lower risk compared to those who were recently in Hubei. So, for all such returning residents and long-term pass holders, we ask them to take a 14-day Leave of Absence (LOA) from the date of their return. This is one way to reduce their exposure when they are back and thus reduce the risk of community spread in Singapore.

Those on LOA are expected to remain in their residence as much as possible, minimise visitors and maintain a record of persons they come into close contact with. They also need to minimise time spent in public places and contact with others, monitor their health and temperature daily, and avoid crowded places or social gatherings. We have put out guidelines on what an LOA means just to ensure that anyone who is on LOA knows what they are expected to do. They may resume normal duties or activities only after they have served their LOA, if they remain well.

We have put in place measures like the Quarantine Orders and LOA to protect Singaporeans from the spread of the virus. Singaporeans must also do their part to cooperate. Some residents, upon learning that there is a person under home quarantine or LOA in the same apartment block, have asked that this person be moved elsewhere. We have also heard feedback of landlords stigmatising tenants based on their nationality, or worse, evicting PRC tenants who are taking their LOA.

I can appreciate that Singaporeans are very concerned about the well-being of themselves and their family members. But if landlords start turning tenants away, then our overall containment efforts will be much harder and we end up in endangering ourselves and others. The outcome would be completely counter-productive. So, we should not condone such irresponsible actions that will end up putting Singapore and Singaporeans at greater risk.

In such difficult times, we should not let our fears overwhelm us and cause us to overreact. Instead let us support each other and look out for one another, so that we can all get through this together.

This brings me to the third line of defence on community and individual responsibility.

The Government will do everything we can in this fight against the virus. Many of our officials are going beyond their usual duties to focus on this challenge. They include our healthcare and medical personnel at the frontline; ICA officers manning the checkpoints; Police and SCDF officers and auxiliary police screening incoming travellers and safeguarding persons under quarantine as well as the CAAS and MPA officers at airport and cruise terminals; and many, many more. The whole-of-Government officials are going all out to tackle this.

But all that is not enough. We need every Singaporean to play their part – to take all necessary precautions and to exercise individual and collective responsibility. For example, employers can help by ensuring their employees who have just returned from China stay at home under LOA. If anyone in the office is sick, employers should immediately ask them to see a doctor and stay at home to recover.

We also have a responsibility, in this time of heightened alert, not to spread unverified information or false news which can cause needless panic and fear. Unfortunately, in recent times, there have been various online posts and articles containing various falsehoods, for example, that we have run out of masks, that someone in Singapore has died from the virus, that Woodlands MRT station was shut for disinfection. These are all false – fake news – and fortunately, we now have POFMA to deal with these fake news. The Government has used POFMA to correct them and clarify the facts swiftly and we will continue to do so to avoid unnecessary panic and anxiety.

Even as we address false information, we have stepped up our efforts to provide everyone with timely and accurate information. We try to reach all segments of society through various platforms including broadcast media, display panels in HDB estates, Government websites and social media. We have been using Gov.sg WhatsApp to provide timely updates to Singaporeans in all our official languages. To-date, more than 300,000 have signed up for the service and I encourage anyone who has done so to subscribe and to get the latest verified information and advisories.

As the situation continues to evolve, we ask Singaporeans to continue turning to official or credible sources for accurate and up-to-date information. We ask Singaporeans to be discerning and share only verified information. Together, we can help prevent misinformation and falsehoods from sowing fear and causing panic in our society.

At the individual level, it is also essential that all of us continue to uphold good personal hygiene, as emphasised by Minister Gan just now. Wash our hands regularly with soap, do not touch our face with our hands; cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze. If you have flu-like symptoms, avoid public places and wear a mask on your way to the clinic, so that you do not risk infecting others. We have said these repeatedly but I think we should all continue to emphasise these points to get the message across.

This now brings me to the topic of masks – face masks. To prepare for any emergency, stockpiles of essential items are critical. Over the years, and learning from the experience of SARS and other crises, we have built up a stockpile of surgical and N95 masks.

But no stockpile is sufficient if we do not use the supplies judiciously. In the nine days leading up to end of 29 January, the Government released more than five million masks from our stockpile to the retailers. All were snapped up in a matter of hours. But still there were people who were not able to get access to a mask.

At the same time, with the virus spreading to countries all over the world, there is now a global scramble for masks. Producers around the world are struggling to keep pace with the demand. And some places like Taiwan have even banned the export of masks. We have existing contracts from various producers to replenish our stockpile. But in light of the current situation, we have to seriously consider the risks of our supply lines being disrupted.

Because of the rapid consumption rate that we had seen earlier and the potential threat to our supply lines, we decided to change the method of distribution of masks from our national stockpile. And that is why firstly, we slowed the supply of masks to retailers and prioritised the masks for essential services, namely our frontline healthcare workers. Secondly, for the general public, we decided to release masks directly from the stockpile to households, so that every family will have access to a mask should someone in the family fall sick and need to use one to see a doctor.

The nationwide distribution of masks was a major exercise in its own right. We mobilised the SAF and People's Association for this task and they all did a sterling job. Within a very short turnaround time, the SAF had completed the packing of over five million masks and delivered them to our collection points. Our PA staff and grassroots organisations then took over to set up collection centres at CCs and RC centres, and to man the collection counters. Even GovTech chipped in and came up with a "maskgowhere" website, where you can just key in your postal code to get information on where and when to collect the masks. The collection of masks started on 1 of February, on Saturday, and to-date more than 200,000 packs, or 15% of the total, have been collected. I would like to record my thanks to the SAF, to the People's Association and all who have been involved in the smooth and speedy execution of this on-going exercise.

Let me reiterate once again that there are sufficient supplies of masks in Singapore, as long as they are used responsibly. So let us all do our part to ensure the sustainability of our mask stockpile, so that our frontline healthcare workers will have the necessary supplies to carry out their work.

It has been slightly over a month since the virus outbreak in China and businesses are already feeling the impact – businesses here in Singapore. Depending on how the situation evolves, the impact to the economy can further broaden and intensify. The Government will therefore extend support and help for our companies and workers.

We already provide a quarantine allowance to Singapore-based businesses to cover their employees who are quarantined, and to self-employed Singaporeans and PRs who are in quarantine. MOM and NTUC will also work closely with employers to support any affected workers and to protect their livelihoods. In addition, MSF is working with the community and grassroots organisations to reach out to Singaporeans and PRs under quarantine. We will provide ComCare financial assistance and social support to those in need to tide through this difficult period.

Finally, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng said on Saturday, the Government will provide targeted support to the sectors that have been more directly impacted – including tourism and transport, and related industries and firms. In fact, the Singapore Tourism Board has already announced the first set of measures for this sector, including the waiver of licensed fees for hotels, travel agents and tour guides. Besides these specific sectors, we recognise that there will be knock-on impacts on related industries in the event of a broad-based slowdown. So, we are working out a package of measures to help viable companies stay afloat and to help workers stay in their jobs. This package of measures will be announced during the Budget.

As I have said at the start, we need all Singaporeans to stand united in this fight against the coronavirus. In a situation like this, fear is sometimes as great a threat to us as the disease itself. We must not allow such fears to paralyse our society. We must never allow our prejudices and fears to pull apart our society or foster greater division and suspicions. As we did in SARS and other previous challenges over the years, let us find strength and confidence in one another – the strength to carry on with our lives and to support each other and defeat this virus together.

I cited some examples of irresponsible behaviours earlier by landlords chasing out tenants on LOAs. Unfortunately, there are other examples, too – people hoarding and profiteering from the sale of masks; people spreading falsehoods online. Recently, a WhatsApp message has been going around with a list of places to avoid, completely ignoring the fact that any place exposed to a confirmed case will be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected, under supervision by NEA. But, still, a list of places to avoid is spread and that creates fear and a perception that people should avoid these places. Anti-PRC sentiment has also emerged amongst some groups. Online, you can see posts directed against PRC nationals. On the ground, you hear reports of discrimination against PRC nationals, whether it is landlords denying them their tenancy or service providers denying them service. Such actions are not helpful and they have no place in our society. We are bigger than this in Singapore and I hope all of us here in this House, regardless of political party, and every Singaporean will stand together and we will all do our part to confront and condemn such prejudice and discrimination wherever they exist.

But I am glad that these behaviours are still in the minority. They are not representative of the vast majority of Singaporeans. There are many more out there who have been showing us the best of Singapore at work. They are quietly helping their fellow citizens in their own ways. For example, at a recent house visit, I met a resident and asked if he had collected his masks and he replied that he did not need them and asked for his package of masks to be given to others who are in greater need of them. I am sure many Members here would have encountered similar residents giving such feedback. Over the weekend, too, we have seen residents who have spontaneously stepped forward, volunteering either by themselves or even with their children alongside them, to man the mask collection points as well as to distribute the masks to the homes of their more vulnerable neighbours, especially those with mobility issues.

Many Singaporeans are also doing their part through many selfless acts to support those who are affected. In NUS and NTU, the students are helping their friends on leave of absence by delivering food three times a day to them. On top of the food, they are helping to pack and deliver welfare packs, including items like snacks and hot drinks. At NUS, I understand that students are even organising a 24-hour e-gaming tournament to keep the students on LOA occupied.

We see shining examples of selfless acts by Singaporeans in the Scoot pilots and crew of TR121 who volunteered to fly the 92 Singaporeans from Wuhan despite the risks to themselves. Two MFA officials volunteered for this assignment despite the risks and are being quarantined when they came back. Most of all, we see Singaporeans from all walks of life carrying on with their lives with courage and calmness. In every sector, our friends from the media are busy covering the news. I am seeing them almost every day these days and you see them busy on the ground, correspondents still in China covering the news, providing us with with up-to-date information so that we are familiar with the facts and the latest developments. Our frontline workers, those in our healthcare institutions, our healthcare workers, workers at our checkpoints and our airports, our transport workers, all carrying on with their lives quietly, doing whatever they can to fight this virus. So, I want to thank everyone for showing that Singaporeans can rise to this occasion and overcoming this challenging situation together.

This is the Singapore Spirit which will enable us to prevail against the virus. At this point, no one can tell for sure how the situation will develop or how long this will last. But I am confident that we will succeed in this fight, if we stand united as an effective Government, a cohesive people and a resolute nation.

Mr Speaker, we can and will overcome this challenge together.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the two Ministers for their very comprehensive updates. I have two supplementary questions.

First, could the Task Force update us on how many Singaporeans remain in China? And if there are any confirmed cases of Singaporeans remaining in China but outside of Hubei who may have contracted novel coronavirus, are there any plans for further evacuations from China?

My second question relates to the state of the economy. While Mr Lawrence Wong has indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister will announce a slew of measures in the Budget Statement, however, can the Government provide an update at the moment of the scale of the impact on our economy so far and also the possible total impact for the coming financial year? And if the situation worsens, what can SMEs do, especially businesses which are affected at the moment by supply from China as well as their workers still being in China? What can they do in the short term?

Mr Speaker, we have been in touch with the Chinese authorities and also with all the Singaporeans who are in Wuhan. Our Beijing Mission is in touch with them. So, in the last exercise, there were about 90-plus Singaporeans and four of them were unable to come back because they had already shown symptoms: one was hospitalised and three of them had shown symptoms and they were deemed not fit to fly. So, 92 came back. That was in the last exercise. The vast majority of this group had come back.

We believe that there are still about 140 Singaporeans in Wuhan now. Most of them have spouses who may not be Singaporeans. So, they have either chosen to remain in China for the time being or they would like to come back but we have to work out arrangements because it is not so straightforward, being married to non-Singaporeans. So, we are still in touch with the Chinese authorities to see what else can be done for the group of people who wish to come back and we are also in touch with the Singaporeans directly.

On whether there are any Singaporeans outside of Hubei who have been infected with the virus, we do not know of anyone at this point in time.

On the scale of the impact on the economy, we are monitoring this very carefully. I think we are only seeing the initial brunt of it now because, with the viral situation continuing to grow, with the travel restrictions and the situation continuing to escalate, I am sure the impact will not only be for the sectors that are directly impacted, like trade, transport and tourism, but there will be knock-on impacts. China's own economy will slow down and the global economy will slow down. So, there will be an overall impact on the economy. That is why I said we are studying this very carefully to develop a series of measures and a strong package in the Budget to help companies and workers. In the interim, wherever we can, we will develop and quickly roll out initiatives to help firms without having to wait for the Budget. STB has already put up one set of initiatives and we are in the midst of studying if more can be done.

Mr Speaker, I would like to pose two questions to the Minister for Health. First: what would his comments be for those employees who seek certification on being free from the novel coronavirus in order to go back to work? Second: is there a shortage of ambulance services right now because, lately, GPs have had to wait many hours for such services for emergency and novel corona suspected cases?

I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her two very useful questions. I can expect her to raise very important questions like these.

First, on the certificate for coronavirus-free individuals. Actually, there is no such thing as a coronavirus-free certification. The reason is because we test the patient based on his viral load and there is an incubation period during which the patient may have very low or zero viral load. But at the same time, because it is the incubation period, the virus may emerge later on. Therefore, at any point in time, when we test a person, when it is negative, it does not mean that he is virus-free. He may be virus-free at that moment, but he may already have been infected but is within the incubation period. So, it is not possible for our hospital or for any screening centre to give a certificate that this person is virus-free. We can only say that, for this moment in time, the test shows no virus detectable in his bloodstream. But the virus can emerge the following hour or the following day. Therefore, it is not possible to give a free-from-disease certificate, as what Dr Lily Neo was alluding to.

I would also like to take this opportunity to urge employers not to send their workers to our hospitals for testing in order to certify their workers as virus-free. As I have explained, first, it is not possible for such certification to be issued; second, you are simply loading our hospitals unnecessarily. So, the best way to do it is to monitor yourself if you have been exposed to contacts, or, if you have come back from China, monitor your own health for 14 days. This is the incubation period. If there are any symptoms, wear a mask as you go to see a doctor and tell the doctor your travel history, that you have been to Wuhan or you have been to China, so that all these factors can be taken into account when we assess the patient. But please do not go to the hospital to ask for blood tests in order to get a certificate that you are free from coronavirus. It is just not possible for such certificates to be issued and you will just load the hospital unnecessarily.

Secondly, Dr Neo asked about ambulance services. We have ramped up our ambulance services in order to respond to this outbreak situation. And these ambulances are used to convey those who are suspected cases because we want to make sure that they are protected and isolated while we are transporting them to hospital for testing. In the initial first few days, there were some organisational difficulties among the service operators. We have sat down and discussed with them and the logistics are managed better now. Sometimes, when there is a peak, it may take a while, few minutes, an hour, but we try to respond as soon as possible. We have also set up a hotline for the doctors to call. This is operated by our College of Family Physicians that we help to answer queries, whether it is ambulance or any other thing. So, we do recognise that, in the initial days, we do have some logistics difficulties in organising our ambulance responses. And every time we change our case definition, it is also quite natural that it will suddenly have a larger number of suspected cases because, when you change the definition, the definition will include a bigger catchment and, therefore, we will need to adjust our logistics support accordingly.

Dr Intan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first question I have is for Minister for Health. Do we have enough healthcare workers and professionals to help manage patient cases in NCID and the hospitals in this period of heightened healthcare alert seeing to the increased demand and work stresses on them?

And for our own healthcare workers and professionals, do they have sufficient rest and enough social and emotional support for their own well-being? The third question is are we able to activate volunteer healthcare workers to pitch in if and when the need arises.

Mr Speaker, I have another two questions meant for Minister for Education but I am not sure whether it should be addressed to Minister Lawrence Wong.

If it is related to the topic, please feel free to surface.

It is related to schools. Are there any specific or additional measures in schools, particularly for pre-schoolers and Primary school children who may not always be aware or practise proper personal hygiene as we try to educate Singaporeans in this? And will there be a postponement or review of overseas school tours or trips seeing that there are other similar virus outbreaks beyond the 2019 novel coronavirus, for example, the avian flu or H5N1 virus outbreak in Hunan, China as well as in Chhattisgarh, India?

Let me address the first question and maybe Minister Ong, with the permission of the Mr Speaker, can address the second question. On the manpower requirements, yes, in fact there is a heightened need for manpower because of the intensity that we are going through – testing of the cases, quarantining them and managing them; and the management is quite intensive as you can imagine. We also need to look after the suspect cases to detect signs of infection when they occur. We require a lot of manpower and the rest of healthcare needs need to continue to be met.

Therefore, we have been working with our clusters to ensure that there is sufficient manpower and to make sure that their schedules are also properly looked at. I reminded the group CEOs just recently that we need to plan for the long term. It is not dash to the end point because we need to be prepared that this may take months. Therefore, whatever duty schedules, rosters and so on have to be planned on a sustainable basis to ensure there is sufficient turnaround and sufficient rest given to our doctors, healthcare workers so that they are able to sustain in the long term. So, these are part of our plans. We do have contingency plans in place to ensure that we have sufficient manpower to cater to situations like these.

In terms of volunteer manpower, yes, this is also part of the plan for our clusters, our hospitals to call back some of the volunteers. Some of those who are on leave also volunteered to come back and have said, "Why not I come back and help to supplement the manpower". So, I think, all these are in place and as we go along we will continue to augment our manpower resources.

But at the same time, part of the plan is to see how we can re-organise ourselves into an emergency crisis mode, an outbreak mode, so that we can operate differently. Some of the medical care that is non-urgent, some of the elective procedures, for example, may need to be postponed. We may manage them in a different way so as to lighten the load on our core medical manpower.

All this is part and parcel of our contingency plans. We have the plans in place.

Minister Ong.

Mr Speaker, may I answer Dr Intan's question, please.

Yes, please.

On pre-schools and schools, over the weekend, educators have worked really hard. They have developed a package, a syllabus, to teach students about what the viruses are, how they are transmitted and what we can do about it to prevent transmission. The lessons covered are what both Minister Gan and Minister Wong have described just now, on how it transmits. Therefore, two things you need to do, which is that you need to wash your hands with soap and not touch your face. You just touch your face, Dr Intan. [Laughter.]

When you think about it, it becomes very hard to do. When you do not think about it, I think it is easier. Stop thinking about "I should not touch my face" or you will keep touching it.

We want to tell students that in this fight with the nCoV virus, we are going to fight it with our hands – by washing them regularly and keeping them away from our face. The intention is also to give the students some homework to bring home and tell their parents. Likewise, we want to do it in pre-schools as well.

As for overseas trips, all overseas trips to China have now been postponed, from Primary schools to all the way to tertiary. Yes, there are cases sprouting out in other parts of the world. We will monitor them. So far the cases are not many. But we will watch the situation carefully.

Last week alone, we made three major decisions because the Taskforce met every day to monitor the situation. Every day is different. We have to look at the facts and make the decisions decisively. So, likewise these are things that we will continue to monitor.

Ms Denise Phua.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Ministers and the Taskforce for their comprehensive responses. Indeed, fear is a greater threat to us in such a time as this. There are residents currently living near the Government quarantine facilities. And they have expressed concerns about being near the folks who are asked to stay in these centres. If things should get worse, there could be more quarantine facilities. Can I seek Minister's views and assurance that the residents need not be fearful of any spread from these centres, even as we all believe that we are all in this together? That is my first question.

My second question is this: for Minister for Education, we know the mask is not effective for everything and hygiene is most effective. Currently, most of the masks found in the marketplace and distributed are adult sized. There are parents and staff in schools who are concerned that should there be a need, is there a supply of masks of smaller sizes. Because some of the masks are so big, they cover the whole face of the children. I would like to seek Minister's views on that.

I will ask Minister Lawrence Wong to answer the question on the quarantine facilities. On the masks, it is a more general question for children's masks. As we mentioned or explained multiple times, the mask is to protect the person not wearing the mask. So, the mask is prevent the cough and sneezes from the person who is sick. So, for that purpose, for younger children the mask can be used because it is just preventing them from spitting out their sputums or their sneezes, to prevent the droplets from going out. With some adjustments, the masks can be used for younger children. And if they really cannot be used, then what you should do is to use a handkerchief or whatever to cover the mouth to prevent it from spitting out and to observe hygiene: if you do that, please wash your hands.

If you have to go to the hospital or clinic to see a doctor, you can use a mask. If the child is sick and if there is no need to go out, please do not take him out. Keep him at home so that he can rest and recover as soon as possible.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan asked me to read this. He said while I was giving my speech, he had observed out 13 out of 41 Members of Parliament sitting opposite us, touching your faces within the 25 minutes. Therefore, touching face is not easy to avoid, but please wash your hands. So, it was not just Dr Intan, I just wanted to clarify. Between then and now, another 13 would have done it. So, please just observe personal hygiene, wash your hands regularly. That will protect yourself and protect many people.

I will only take Questions from those who do not touch their face. Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mr Speaker, I can confirm to Ms Denise Phua's question that there is no need to fear having a Government quarantine facility nearby or even having somebody within the same apartment block subject to home quarantine. Firstly, we have to be mindful that anyone who is in quarantine is not an infected person. They are not. They have been exposed so they are of some risk. Yes, they have been subject to some exposure perhaps through close contacts, perhaps they have been back home from China recently, particularly in Hubei, so we want them to be quarantined just to be safe. But we should not assume automatically that anyone in quarantine is infected. They are not.

Number two, when they are in quarantine, there are strict protocols and procedures to ensure that they stick and they remain within the place of quarantine. I mentioned a few things that we do – phone calls, video calls, spot checks, a whole range of things for home quarantine. In the quarantine facilities, there are also strict parameters. These people will be within the location where they are quarantined. They will not be able to wonder about so easily.

Thirdly, there are also some fear that let us say there is a person nearby under quarantine, yes, quarantine is safe, but if there is some chance that this person later on is found to be infected then he may have moved around; then this is fear somehow that I mentioned on WhatsApp avoid coming to this place. I do not know if I have touched objects or places around me or contaminated, and if I touch them I might get sick. So, thirdly, whenever there is a confirmed case, there is a thorough cleaning and disinfection process to make sure the place is entirely cleaned and disinfected; and NEA supervises that.

With all these measures in place, we should continue to assure Singaporeans there is no need to be fearful or to overreact due to fear or panic. In fact, this is critical because if the situation were to escalate, as Minister Gan said, we have to be prepared for things to get worse. We have to be prepared for more cases in Singapore even for community spread. If that to happen, we do need quarantine facilities and Singaporeans all have to cooperate and we seek their understanding that this is an essential part of ensuring that we can get through situation together.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My clarification is for Minister Lawrence Wong, on whether he can elaborate on what Singaporeans who are returning from China through Changi Airport can expect. The reason I am asking this is I have a resident who came back from Wuhan but through another airport and he is currently under home quarantine with his family. He told me that it was a very stressful experience for him and his family at the airport because he and his family with young children were basically kept in a locked room for about four hours waiting for vehicles to arrive to bring them back and so on. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate about what Singaporeans coming back through the airport, through the Chinese routes can expect, whether the processing time of four hours for example is normal or has it been more streamlined? And whether passengers coming from Hubei and other airports are treated differently?

Mr Speaker, anyone coming back from Hubei, Wuhan, basically Hubei province would be deemed to be of higher risk. And therefore anyone coming back, we would want them to be isolated and quarantined. There are these processes in place. Can we improve them, can we make the waiting time shorter? I am sure the agencies are going all out to see how it can be streamlined and improved, but we hope Singaporeans and travellers in this category would understand. First of all, for new arrivals we have already stopped the flow. But Singaporeans, PRs and long-term pass holders can still come back. And if you are coming back from Hubei, you are of a higher risk and we will want you to be isolated and quarantined. There will be some inconvenience but please bear with us while we work through the process and see if these processes can be continued to be improved.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Speaker, on the quarantine allowance, over the week, we have spoken to some taxi drivers and private hire drivers, they are very assured that if anyone of them is quarantined there is a $100 daily allowance given by the Government. For employees who have Leave of Absence in which employers pay for them when they are on leave but for the self-employed there is this element whereby if I am at home for 14 days I do not have the income. That may be some concern to the self-employed. So, perhaps we can consider some calibrated support for this group of self-employed individuals who may be on leave of absence. They will self-quarantine themselves at home but let us see how we can help them tide through this period.

Mr Speaker, we are aware of this feedback from the groups that under Leave of Absence because they are doing this on advisory with their employers, or if they are self-employed, then they are doing it themselves. There is quarantine allowance and they are seeking some help. So, we are mindful of the feedback. We are studying if there are some immediate measures that can be put in place to support and help them.

Mr Mohamed Irshad.

Thank you, Speaker. The first death outside of China was reported in Philippines. I just want to ask for an update from the Minister on the 18 patients who are currently under observation, what is their health situation? Have they improved? What is happening to them?

And in Thailand, the doctors have apparently come up with a cure, an antidote for the virus. Can this news be verified? What hopes can we have on such a cure being found? Some are saying that there are no cure virus and so on. So, perhaps the Minister can share on that.

And the next supplementary question, xenophobic tendency and sentiments have surfaced around the world. In Singapore's context, we are a small country, how can we safeguard ourselves from having such tendency in the public?

I will deal with the first two questions and I will leave it to Minister Lawrence Wong to deal with the last question.

First, on the status of the 18 confirmed cases, I gave an update in my speech earlier. All of them are isolated and being supported in our hospitals. Most of them are improving and we hope to be able to see a discharge soon. But that is something that we are working towards. We will continue to provide them with support.

Currently, there is no known curative treatment. That means, we are not able to definitively cure a person. There will be news of possible discoveries because scientists are working overtime to make sure to put in efforts to discover ways to contain the virus and treat the virus and also to prevent the virus through vaccines. So, I think vaccines and curative treatment are being looked into. But I think it will take time to develop the method and to also test the treatment to make sure that they are effective and safe for patients. So, I think it is not going to happen overnight. It may take quite a while before we see a curative treatment being determined. During this period, I think it is better for us to focus on how we can manage, contain the spread and put in the necessary measures to protect our population.

Mr Lawrence Wong.

The Member said anti-PRC sentiments are showing up everywhere in the world, arising from this virus outbreak. And as I mentioned in my speech just now, we see this in Singapore too. How can we deal with this? As I mentioned just now, all of us should take a united stand to condemn such prejudices or discriminatory behaviours or actions whenever we see them.

For specific cases, let us say it is a landlord that is taking a very irresponsible action to evict a tenant without any basis, then we will see if some actions can be taken against the landlord because again, doing something like this, is not just an individual action. It can have repercussions on our whole containment efforts and can be ultimately harmful to all of us. So, for specific actions, we will look at them and we will engage the landlord and we will see if tougher action needs to be taken. But for the overall tone of society, I think we need everyone to speak up, to voice up and we need every Singaporean to do their part to condemn such behaviour.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

I thank the Minister. I just have one question. I would like to ask how are the countries including China responding to the ban on all travellers with recent travel history to China.

Mr Speaker, given the way the virus is spreading and the way the situation is unravelling, I think I believe China understands why some of these restrictions are needed. China itself has restricted its own people from travelling outside of China precisely because they do not want to spread this virus to other countries. So, they too, see the need and recognise the need for travel restrictions on its own people and to contain the virus in China. So, what we and many other countries that have put in place similar restrictions are doing, are really complementary to China's own actions. It is in all of our interest, be it China, Singapore or any other country. It is in our collective interest to tackle this situation together as a global community in order to limit the spread of the virus and contain it as much as possible.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Sir, in addition to the needed domestic effort to minimise the risks of community spread, how is the Government working with our Singapore health force to find solutions to the global emergency, in terms of vaccines and the collation of medical discoveries and best practices to contain the virus? Such solutions aid Singaporeans, the region and the wider community of nations.

Secondly, while we are putting in measures to minimise the risks of a community spread of the Wuhan coronavirus, what are the protocols in place should the situation translate into serious community spread?

I could not quite get the first question. Could the Member repeat that?

Essentially, how is Singapore also being part of the solution to find solutions to the global emergency in terms of vaccines, medical discoveries and best practices to contain the virus so that Singaporeans benefit; the region and the wider global community of nations, benefit.

Thank you. There are collaborative efforts between our research institutions to look for a solution both in terms of treatment as well as vaccines. The first step is to better understand the virus and how it evolves and how it behaves so that we can then develop appropriate vaccines.

There is already on-going collaboration and we continue to explore opportunities. These collaborations are between our research institutions as well as companies who are involved in some of these development of vaccines. There are on-going platforms for this collaboration.

WHO and the various international organisations also provide platforms for sharing of knowledge and information. China, for example, has, very early on, already sequenced the virus and it was posted on the WHO website so that all the research institutions globally can have access to the sequencing, so that they are able to carry out their own research and enhance the knowledge and understanding of the virus.

This area is quite vibrant and we have quite a few entities that are involved. Some of them, of course, involves commercial undertaking and therefore, there will be some commercial sensitivity as well. There are avenues for this to continue and we want to also encourage more collaboration globally.

The second question is: what are the protocols involved in a community spread. It depends on the different types of community spread. The first possibility is a very limited community spread, meaning it could spread from person A to person B, and then person B passes it on to person C. So, person C has no direct relationship to person A. And therefore, it is a secondary transmission. It is also a form of community transmission but this transmission is likely to then be quite limited to one or two generations. If we are able to react quickly, able to contain patient C and patient B, then we will be able to contain the spread. For example, if patient C is a contact of patient B, and we are able to trace patient C once we identified patient B, even it has been transmitted to patient C, then we are still able to say that patient C is probably contained. And therefore, the likelihood of a wide spread community transmission is less likely.

But there is a also a scenario which I mentioned in my speech, where there is widespread community transmission, meaning there will be multiple clusters of infection where there is no clear links to any source of infection. And therefore, you would then assess that it may be transmitting from one person to another quite directly and there is no way for us to have contact tracing for them because they have many, many contacts.

In such a situation, you may then need to assess what is the landscape at that time, what are the risks that are involved. As I mentioned in my speech, we may have to begin to look at how we can reduce or restrict human-to-human interaction. One example is to cancel or terminate all the major gatherings where you have thousands and thousands of people, as well as to minimise the risks of transmission. There is also the possibility that we may suspend some schools or all schools, depending on the situation so as to minimise the interaction of children at schools as well as the parent interaction. These are all possibilities. But exactly which steps we are going to introduce will depend on the exact nature of the community spread.

We have a framework of various options that are available and each of them will be deployed depending on the situation prevailing at that point in time. One of the roles or duties of the Taskforce is to make an assessment as the situation evolves and decide what are the appropriate measures to introduce when the time comes.

Mr Leon Perera.

I would like to thank the two Ministers for their Statements. Just two supplementary questions, I believe, for Minister Wong.

The first one is, there is, of course, a Price Control Act (PCA) and there were reports of traders of masks who were profiteering, charging very high prices. I understand that the Price Controller has written to some of them. And, of course, as economists all know, using price controls has its downside and its risks. You can create "black markets" and so on. But for exceptional and crisis situations like this, is deploying the PCA to actually put price controls in place, using this legislation, something that the Government will consider, in future, just for limited periods of time?

My second supplementary question is with regard to the method of distribution of masks, I would like to ask the Government to share its considerations behind why the masks were not mailed out rather than collection being made at different collection points. There has been some discussion around around this. There could be some advantages to mailing out masks in terms of not encouraging people to cluster together and so on. I believe that there was an exercise in 2014 when some organisations mailed out N95 masks during the haze period. So, there is a precedent there. I just wanted to understand the thinking a bit more and whether mailing out of masks is something that might be done in future, if such cases arise.

Mr Speaker, as the Member would have read from the media reports, the Price Controller has indeed already a letter of demand (LOD) to one platform provider requesting for more information in order to assess the need for further action under the Price Control Act. Letters of demand (LODs) have also been sent to other e-commerce platforms like Lazada and Carousell to request information on any potential profiteers on their platform. So, we will not rule out any option at this stage.

The Price Controller is pursuing, investigating, getting more information and, if need be, more actions can be taken.

But, as of now, I would say, looking at the prices, some of these platform providers have cooperated. I heard recently that some of them have even removed some of these listings with very exorbitant prices. So, anyway, the Price Controller is on top of this. It is following up on the matter and it will consider actions that need to be taken against profiteering.

On the second supplementary question, we had deliberated over this and we felt that if you were to distribute masks via post, there may well be wastage because some households will not need the masks. Like I have mentioned earlier, even in the collection exercise, when we go around and residents come to us, they say, "Actually, please, I do not need the masks. I am not going to collect it. You save it, either for your stockplile or you give it to someone else." So, in that sense, a collection exercise would be a more prudent way of distributing masks.

And to address the concern of people gathering together, we had decentralised the distribution points to void decks, RC centres. It is proceeding in a very orderly fashion. If you go to any of these collection centres now, there are no queues. There are designated times to pick up the masks so there is no large crowds at all in any of them. People are just picking up as and when they are free during the designated times. So, based on the exercise that we have done so far, I would say this distribution method is more effective.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, my question is for Minister Gan Kim Yong. He mentioned that if there is widespread community spread, we may have to close the schools and I suppose even the pre-schools. But there are actually families where both parents are working and it is very difficult for them to take time-off to look after the kids and we do not know how long this will last. So, when we announce any school closure, will we also announce what are the alternatives that will be available to these parents?

I think Minister Gan is doing the right thing to paint future scenarios that are possible that we should be prepared for, so it is not as if we are going to do it straightaway, but I think it is something we have to consider, to prepare plans taking into account the considerations that Mr Yee Chia Hsing has mentioned.

Bear in mind that when SARS was at its height, we did suspend schools for a couple of weeks. If it comes to that, if we have do it, we have to do it. But I think we have to look at the data, look at the evidence, look at the situation and take into account all considerations before making any decisions.

Mr Speaker, maybe I can just supplement what Minister Ong just said. I think the question from Mr Yee highlights an important point, that for every measure that we contemplate about introducing, there will always be an impact on the society. And therefore, we have to evaluate and assess every measure very carefully, taking into account the impact on society, as I have mentioned in my speech. None of the decisions or measures are easy. We are always weighing the pros and cons, and eventually, we have to decide what makes sense for us.

So, I would assure Mr Yee that when we make a decision, whether it is school suspension or any other decision, we will always take into account the impact on individuals, on the society, on different groups of people. We want to make sure that for those who are affected, we do our best to help them address their concerns and their problems.

Ms Irene Quay.

I thank the Ministers. My question is: in the event if we need to step up to using N95 masks because there is wide community spread or for future viral outbreaks, how do you ensure that the public are fitted with the right model of N95 masks? Because what is being done in the healthcare institutions is we actually go for mask fitting test to ensure that there is optimal protection, because different models fit different face shapes and the public may not be aware of this.

I thank the Member. I think it is an important question. Maybe I should explain that in the event of widespread community transmission, wearing N95 masks is probably not the solution. N95 masks are generally used by the healthcare professionals. We have used it for the haze. In fact, we have kept telling people that you do not need the mask for the haze. Anyway, people still wear them for the haze. Therefore, as Ms Irene Quay has mentioned, if you do not fit it properly, the mask really does not protect you. In fact, we are most likely going to introduce social distancing, as I mentioned, manage the crowd gathering, minimising human-to-human interaction, rather than to introduce the N95 mask for general use.

If need be, we will carry out the necessary education, to reach out to Singaporeans to explain to them how to protect themselves. I think to teach each of them how to wear the N95 mask to be as effective as in the healthcare environment is going to be quite difficult and you may end up giving them a false sense of security. And as a result, you may end up with more infections, which is counter-productive. I would say that the N95 mask is not going to be the main focus for outbreak control, if there is extensive community transmission.

Mr Melvin Yong.

I have a question for Minister Gan. I read with concern the reports of infection of healthcare workers in China today. During SARS, we too had doctors and nurses working with infected patients, getting infected themselves. So, I think in today's context, can the Minister share: what measures are taken today to better protect our healthcare workers, especially those in the frontline taking care of the patients who are infected?

Healthcare workers are one of our most important resources in a disease outbreak like this, and they are right at the frontline, they are facing the disease and the patients every day, every hour, and therefore we need to make sure that they have adequate protection.

Despite the best protection, in some cases, healthcare workers are infected. In cases like in China, for example, and very often, this happens at the initial stage of the outbreak because healthcare workers are unfamiliar with the virus, they may not understand that it is infectious or it is as infectious as we are seeing, so therefore the precautions may not be adequate. As time progresses, when we get to know the virus better, I think the protection measures will be enhanced.

For us in Singapore, we have stepped up our protective measures and I think, particularly because we have gone through the experience of SARS and several other disease outbreaks. These are very painful lessons in our memory, and therefore our healthcare institutions have exercised extra caution when they deal with these infected patients.

In our National Centre for Infectious Diseases, for example, there are well-established protocols, including monitoring of how you put on your Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or how you take it off. There is also a second person monitoring how you do it to make sure that you follow every step carefully. Once you miss a step and are exposed, you will have to be quarantined to make sure that you are not infected.

Our healthcare workers and our healthcare institutions are very mindful of the risks that are involved. Our frontline workers, those who are in the Emergency Department, our General Practitioners (GPs), they are also very alert to the potential risks. As soon as patients arrive at their clinic, they will be triaged. If they have potential risk of contamination, they will put them aside, give them a mask to wear so that they do not contaminate others.

These are the practices that have been put in place, but whatever precautionary measures we have put in place, we must be very mindful and be very cautious. If we are careless, none of these measures will help us. Therefore, we constantly remind our healthcare workers to remember to be cautious, to protect themselves, and, at the same time, protect the patients.

Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was involved in managing patients during SARS. Seventeen years later, I am still involved in managing patients at the frontline with this coronavirus outbreak. I have to say that we have been working with MOH over the years and I would like to applaud MOH on its communications, coordination and also performance now, 17 years down the line. I have to say that we are performing at top-notch. So, thank you to all the MOH staff and also all the people who are working long hours behind the scenes.

One of the things that has been very, very useful for us is the MOH surveillance hotline, which operates 24 hours. I am able to call them 24 hours, anytime, to check on locations as well as quarantine orders and any other information. I hope that MOH can continue with this as long as we need it, even beyond that. That is the first point.

The second point is essentially about publicity and also perhaps education for people who are coming forward. We have got employers who are saying that these two air-con repairmen have gone to the room where there was a suspected case. They are asymptomatic but the employers have asked them to come to the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital to be assessed. Of course, we will assess and send them away to the GPs because we do not want to overload the hospital.

Perhaps we can do more education for people like these. We understand the concerns and the worry that the public may have and people who may have been so called spin-offs or been associated in some indirect way with people who may have been suspected of having the infection. But perhaps more publicity and education, and perhaps working with the media as well, will help.

I thank the Member. In fact, the Minister for Communications and Information is part of the task force. One of his main jobs is to look at public education, to share with Singaporeans more information and timely information so that they are better prepared. Things like fake news or wrong information ought to be clarified so that they know exactly what to do, rather than to be misled.

As I have mentioned earlier on, there is actually no way to certify a person fit for work and free of the virus. It has to go through incubation period to make sure that he does not have symptoms, then he can go back to work. So, if you are in doubt, you have been exposed, the best is to exercise precaution, exercise self-discipline, be socially responsible and make sure you wash your hands very regularly. That is the best way to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Whenever in doubt, whenever there is a suspected case or a confirmed case, we will advise the premises on how to clean it. Especially for the confirmed case, NEA officers will be on the ground to provide supervision and they will also have nominated contractors that are trained to follow a certain protocol to clean and disinfect the premises to prevent further spread of the disease.

Practices are in place, protocols are in place, but you are right that we need to educate the general public so that they understand that these places are rendered safe and secure, and there is no need to stay away from these places. You can see the list getting longer and longer, because we do expect to see suspected cases emerging from time to time, going forward. Even though we have travel controls, we will continue to see suspected cases. For each suspected case, we will need to ensure that our medical staff wear all the protective gear, because they are by nature suspected cases. Many of the suspected cases turn out to be negative and therefore if you see some of our healthcare colleagues donning PPE at your shopping centre and so on, do not assume that this is going to be a confirmed case, because it may just be precautions that they have taken to inspect and pick up the suspected cases. Eventually, it may turn out to be a negative case.

The best is to exercise self-discipline, be socially responsible, make sure that you observe basic hygiene practices. I think that is the best way to protect yourself.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions, more perhaps related to MOM and MSF. The first one is: what are we doing to encourage employers to be generous with respect to paid medical leave, paid family leave for workers who are sick, who may need to self-isolate, who may need to take care of a close family member who is sick? I am asking this because I will stand corrected but I am not sure right now that paid leave is actually mandated for self-isolation. I know it is for quarantine cases. We would not want employers to ask employees to take their own annual leave or no pay leave in such cases. That would be counter-productive.

The second question is: Mr Ang has already spoken about the financial constraints faced by self-employed persons who have to go on Leave of Absence, but I think the problem goes beyond that. Because even when self-employed persons have to go see the doctor or just take a day off work because they are not feeling well, they do not earn any income. I think this is another area where we can look into providing wage support, maybe medical cost support, because again, we do not want to be counter-productive here. We do not want people to have to choose between taking care of their health and earning a livelihood. That is an important area to look into.

Mr Speaker, the treatment for persons who are on Leave of Absence is quite clear. We have sent out an advisory to employers that because this Leave of Absence is a requirement, they will have to find ways of supporting it. Whether the person who is on Leave of Absence is provided with additional leave or that duration of Leave of Absence is treated as paid vacation leave or sick leave, there are certain suggestions on how the employers may treat it.

I think the Member's question also extends to persons who are not required to be on leave of absence, but either as their own unilateral sense that they should stay away, because they are not feeling well, or they have to look after someone who is on Leave of Absence. In those instances, I think we have to allow the employer to exercise some flexibility. If it is a situation where the employer has come into agreement with this individual, well and good. I think the employers know what to do. But there is really no requirement for a person to stay away from work if they themselves are not being asked to fulfill a Leave of Absence requirement. It is only something that they are doing on top of, so I just wanted to be clear on that.

The Member has also asked the question about self-employed persons. We are very mindful of how they could be impacted and as Minister Lawrence Wong has said earlier, we are looking at ways in which we can be helpful.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

Thank you, I just want to echo and express my thanks to Minister Gan for his statement of thanks and support for healthcare workers. Two short but slightly technical questions, I apologise. The first, Minister touched about it earlier. I think many Singaporeans are looking forward to the day when the first of the novel coronavirus patients are discharged from hospital. Could I just ask what are the criteria for discharge? Because there does not seem to be an international consensus on it, as far as I know.

The second was concerning transmissibility. One of the key hallmarks of the SARS virus was that there existed these subset of patients known as "super spreaders". So, if you look at this novel coronavirus, the ratio of transmission as we reported, about 2.2, which is, on the average, one will pass to about 2.2 persons. SARS was much lower, but then there are these "super spreaders" which caused a havoc in our healthcare sector. I was just wondering whether there is any information coming up from anywhere whether there exists such "super spreaders".

I thank Dr Chia for the questions. Dr Chia knows I am not a doctor, so I can only do what I can as a Minister for Health.

First, the way I understand from my professional colleagues, that for patients, they will do two tests and both tests have to show negative, and they are usually one day apart to make sure that they are free of virus before they are considered for discharge.

But on top of that, at the end, doctors usually will make an assessment at the end of the day despite all the tests that we do, to assess and be confident that the person is well, does not look sick, does not have symptoms and generally are quite well, and maybe he will keep him for a while longer to make sure that there is no further deterioration before his discharge. Generally, our doctors are very careful. We can leave it in their hands to make a professional judgement when is the appropriate time to discharge patient.

And, Ministers, I must assure you, do not interfere in their discharge proceedings because it is purely professional judgement.

The second question on "super spreader". Dr Chia is right that we are all looking out for the risk of a "super spreader" emerging. This is where one particular patient may infect tens or hundreds of patients that come into contact with him and so on. These are potential multipliers that will cause a major outbreak in the premises, in the locality. We are all looking out for such an incidence. So far we have not received any report of such an incidence. It may happen but it is not yet being detected. But we are all looking out for them. Sometimes, the "super spreaders", the patient themselves may be quite well. And therefore he is able to go around many places and spread a lot of potential contamination in the environment. Therefore, it is something that we are looking out for.

Dr Chia is right that this would be a problem if this occurs in Singapore, in China or anywhere else, so it is something that we will continue to monitor.

Thank you, Sir, I have three supplementary questions.

First, the news on 30,000 work pass holders returning to Singapore has caused some anxiety to our residents because as the main bulk of this 30,000 work pass holders are living in our HDB flats. So, I would like to ask the Minister is there any way to monitor, to ensure that they comply to the 14 days of LOA strictly?

The second question is, for those who are returning and due to whatever reason they have no place to go back to, is there any help that is given or will be given to them? Just give an example. I receive one email from my resident. She is due to return on Wednesday but her husband does not want her to return to their home because the employer of the husband has imposed this rule that if any of your family member comes back from China, you have to stay at home as well. That is the reason, the husband does not want the wife. So, she is asking for help.

The third question, will we impose or is there any plan to impose travel restrictions for those who come from Hong Kong? Because Hong Kong is very near China and there is some concern among residents as well.

Mr Speaker, maybe the last question first. The travel restrictions that we have put in place apply to Mainland China. Hong Kong has fewer confirmed cases than Singapore. Maybe people might want to apply travel restrictions on Singapore then. I think our approach is to be looking at evidence, at the source of where the virus is, how widely it is spreading and which are the at-risk sources. Yes, I think we will not rule out more actions on travel restrictions, as we have said, but it has to be based not just on geographical proximity or distance but based on evidence on the nature of the virus, how widely it is spreading, at the risk. And if there are risks posed to Singapore and Singaporeans, we will not rule out other measures on travel restrictions.

On the 30,000 work permit holders, I should clarify they are still in China now, they have not come back. Not all of them live in our housing estates. So, we are doing a tabulation, working directly with the employers to identify who they are, which sectors, where are their places of residence today. That exercise is underway now, so that we can be ready when these workers return, be ready to engage the employers, to be ready to engage the landlords; if some of them are living in dorms, be ready to ensure that our dorms are properly fitted out to have these workers living in more isolated areas without interaction and contamination with their fellow workers. That is the work that is happening, already been happening and we are continuing with this process.

The question is what happens if employers need help because they say they are impacted by their workers who are coming back and unable to work, what happens if family members need help because somebody is in LOA within their home and then they too are impacted. I think these are all questions that we are anticipating. It is all part of the package of measures we are looking at to help companies, employers and households as well. So, we will, as I said earlier, put in place a series of measures to help those who are impacted and we will take all this into consideration in our package.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with Minister Wong that fear inflicts more damage sometimes than the virus itself. F-E-A-R is also false evidence appearing real so I am going to ask Minister Gan if I can go straight to the source of fear, which is the fear of death. Could he explain to us how death occurs from this virus? Because there is this panic and hysteria that the moment we "kena", we are just going to drop dead. So, it would be really useful if we can explain how death occurs from one who actually gets infected. What I understand is that most of the death cases right now from China have occurred in people who are elderly and who are at risk. It would be really helpful for us to know how the virus impacts us physically and that could lead to death.

The second question I have is looking at the Fear Factor that impacts the economy and employment. There have been a lot of companies that are cancelling commercial activities and projects and events. Let me declare my interest, I am a founder of Hush which is a social enterprise, the Hush TeaBar, and even for us as a social enterprise, next three months, all the projects are cancelled and we are not the only one. I am wondering if the Government or MTI perhaps think that there may be merit to issue clear guidelines to companies in terms of cancellation or postponement of commercial activities and business events, because there is definitely a knock-on effect to SMEs and social enterprises.

And also, now that I know from Minister Gan that the virus is not airborne, I really would encourage all of us to take three deep breaths every time, every day, as we calm our minds and heart.

I am not a doctor. So, it is very difficult for me to describe the process of death in medical terms, but I would try to explain how it causes death. Basically, when the virus attacks your body, your body will try to mount a response, a defence. And very often, you find that when your body is unable to respond adequately to eliminate the virus, your body will go into a shock, your organs go into overdrive and, therefore, you may begin to see organ failures and eventually, death will occur as a result. Therefore, because of this, chances are, if you already have underlying medical conditions, your body is already weak, your defences are weak and your organs may already be impaired, therefore, the risk of death is higher.

It is important for us to ensure that we continue to stay healthy. At the same time, what the hospitals will do is to provide supportive care to ensure that you have time for your body to recover, for your body to be able to fight the virus on its own until we are able to develop a definitive curative treatment. I think that is how the process will happen.

The Member is right, generally, coronavirus affect patients who have underlying conditions more, and, generally, the older people tend to have more underlying conditions and, therefore, they tend to affect the older people more. But there are also exceptions and even in this novel coronavirus situation, we see that there were some in the 30s and 40s, they are also infected, and some may not have underlying conditions.

At the end, it is also an issue of statistics. When you have large enough number of people who died, at the end of the day, there will be some who are not so typical, who not necessarily have conditions, but they have more severe reactions for a variety of reasons. So, it varies but, generally, coronavirus affects people with underlying conditions mainly because your organs tend to fail progressively as the disease progresses.

The second question is on the impact on our economy and can we provide clear guidelines on major events.

Clear guidelines for events today?

Yes, cancellations of events are rampant right now; and these are even business and commercial activities.

Mr Speaker, I think we have already put out the advisories based on today's situation, based on where we are today where there is no community outbreak within Singapore, community transmission. Events can continue but organisers take extra precautions. So, there is no need for cancellations; continue with the events. But if it is a large scale event, then you might want to take precautions like having having temperature screenings, which I think many event organisers are doing, and then putting out advisories to remind the participants that if they are sick, do not show up. If they have been to China recently, then make sure that they stay at home. Those sorts of precautions are useful and we continue to remind companies and event organisations of these precautions.

Mr Speaker, my question is for Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that, "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?

Sir, I mentioned in my speech that the fatality rates of SARS is about 10% and the fatality rate of this novel coronavirus is about 2% to 3% today. So, numerically, statistically, it is less fatal than SARS. But as I have said, it is still at the early stage of the development of the disease, the numbers will change over time.

In fact, as more and more milder cases are detected, the denominator may tend to go up and, therefore, the number may come down. At the same time, those who are confirmed cases today and, progressively, they may die because of the progression of the disease. So, therefore, both number will change over time. But as of today, based on our statistics, it appears to be less fatal, because fatality rate for SARS was 10% whereas the coronavirus is 2% to 3%.

Last question. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our hearts and our prayers go to those Singaporeans who are still in Wuhan. When we heard that the 92 Singaporeans are brought back to Singapore, we were very happy to hear that. But also sad to hear that the four of them who had symptoms could not be brought back.

I was just wondering what kind of medical help would they receive in Wuhan, if we leave them there. The plane capacity is big enough. Could we have brought the four of them back as well, in the first place, to receive treatment over here, even if there are symptoms, if their symptoms are not that severe? That is my first question.

The second part is that it is in times like that, we see the best of humans and we see the worst of humans. In the last two days when we go around doing the mask distribution, we see a lot of encouraging signs. We see volunteers coming down to help at the mask distribution point. We see residents coming down to give drinks, give food to the volunteers. I have a lot of new volunteers suddenly joining in, to say that they want to do their part. I also have an ex-grassroots leader whose both legs were amputated – as a result he cannot serve as a grassroots leader anymore – because of diabetes. He came in a wheelchair and he said that, "I can't walk but I can man the counter; can you let me man the mask distribution point?"

I would say that this is an opportunity, really for all Singaporeans to come together to rally. We also want to bring all our Singaporeans abroad now, who are now in Wuhan, Hubei, if they can come back, please bring them back. I hope that the Government and MFA would work harder now to see how we can bring them back.

Mr Speaker, with your permission.

Please proceed.

First of all, let me say that China has been very responsible and very responsive, and is taking all necessary measures to look after our Singaporeans who are still there. I have spoken personally to the Chinese Foreign Minister and I can assure you, based on our conversation.

My next point is, I want to make an appeal to all Singaporeans who are in China to e-register with MFA. This enables us to stay in close touch with them to monitor their condition, to give them appropriate advice, recommendations and, obviously, if there is a possibility or a need, to mount further operations, this ability to communicate quickly and effectively is absolutely necessary.

The third point I want to make is, with respect to the Member's specific query about whether those with fever should have been on-board the aircraft. I think, first of all, if you look – the Member is a doctor – and we all know from a medical point of view, in the context of an epidemic and, particularly, when you are dealing with a global or a potentially global epidemic, it is most unwise to put people on commercial aircraft when they are potentially actively shedding virus. So, there was good medical rationale and that is why the Chinese authorities make, in my opinion, the right decision that these persons should not fly. If they did, it would have been contravening not only their own regulations but also WHO recommendations. So, we understand that.

I was monitoring the operation and I knew exactly how many were caught in that situation, quite apart from the others who could not evacuate for family reasons because at that point in time, the decision was that their own citizens were locked down and Singaporeans, PRs and others were considered local citizens. So, there are other considerations. But, specifically, now for the remaining Singaporeans because we will remain in touch with them, we will do our best to ensure that they have all the necessary treatment in Wuhan or in other places in China.

If additional support is needed, obviously, we will look at that. And that also brings to mind what Minister Gan said just now that this problem is not just a Chinese problem, it is not just China's problem. This is a common threat confronting all of us. This virus does not respect passports or nationalities, race or language. That is why we must all cooperate and collaborate and to resolve this problem together. I commit that we will continue to work closely with the Chinese authorities and in any way in which we can help them, it is also helping all of us collectively.

The Member has cited an example of volunteers. This is the time when you will see the best, and sometimes, you will see the worst in humanity. But I am confident that because of what we have been through 17 years ago – I recall that personally – I am confident Singaporeans will demonstrate the best of humanity and we will get through this and we will get through this together. So, rest assured, all the Singaporeans who are overseas – MFA – we will not leave anyone behind, we will look out for you.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.

[(proc text) "to amend the Hindu Endowments Act (Chapter 364 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann) on behalf of the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

Geographical Indications, or GIs, are terms which identify products as originating from a particular geographical location. They signal to consumers that a product has a special quality, reputation or other characteristics by virtue of its geographical location and origin. Many such products are food or drink. The Geographical Indications Act, or the GI Act, was enacted in 2014 and established the GI Registry, which had been agreed to under the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, or the EUSFTA.

The GI Registry is run by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, or IPOS. It commenced operations on 1 April 2019, after the EU Parliament ratified the EUSFTA. As of 31 January 2020, 140 GIs have been registered. In this time, IPOS has become more familiar with the operations of a GI Registry.

GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI evidently if this misleads the public as to the true geographical origin of those products. This is applicable for all GIs, whether they are registered or not. In addition, for wines and spirits, such GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI, even if consumers are not misled as to the true geographical origin of the goods in question.

A registered GI enjoys enhanced protection. Registered GIs which are not for wines and spirits would enjoy the same level of protection for GIs which are for wines and spirits mentioned earlier. Producers and traders in respect of registered GIs also have access to border enforcement measures such as being able to request that our Customs authorities detain suspected infringing goods which are to be imported or exported from Singapore.

The Bill makes technical amendments to the GI Act to address issues that have arisen in the course of running the GI Registry. The amendments will ensure the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry, and also provide greater clarity for traders and producers.

I will now take Members through the main features of the Bill.

The first set of amendments in the Bill clarifies how variants of a GI are to be treated during the application process. A variant of a GI can be a translation, or a transliteration, or any other variation of the indication constituting the GI. Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate. Say, for example, that oranges grown on Pulau Ubin are known to bear a unique and highly-prized sweet and sour quality attributable to the natural environment of Pulau Ubin, and such oranges are known by the Chinese characters 乌敏橙 – in Chinese – oranges. Such oranges might be referred to in slightly different ways. So let me give you the different ways in which it could be referred to. For example, they may be referred or identified in Hanyu Pinyin as "Wu Min Cheng", which is a transliteration. Or they may be also known as "Ubin Orange", which is a translation of the words in Chinese. They could also be called "Pulau Ubin Orange", which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. All of these can be variants of a GI and they can be registered.

The GI Registry has received a number of applications where, in a single application, multiple variants of the nature that I have described, constituting the same GI were included. This, no doubt, saved application fees for the applicant. These applications were accepted as-is and most of them have in fact been registered.

It is proposed in this Act that we amend and clearly state how such applications and registrations with multiple variants should be treated. So, for example, in a situation where multiple variants of a GI have been registered, a party may want to apply to cancel the registration because he finds one of the variants objectionable. If he is successful, it is not clear whether the entire GI registration should be cancelled, or whether there should only be a partial cancellation – that is, only of the particular variant that he finds objectionable.

Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Bill therefore amend the GI Act to clarify the following.

First, an application for registration can contain more than one variant constituting the same GI.

Second, after an application for registration is accepted and published for public inspection, third parties who oppose the application can choose to oppose the registration of one or more of the variants in the application, instead of all of the variants.

Third, where there is a refusal of registration of a variant, the other variants in the application for registration can nevertheless be registered if they satisfy the requirements of the Act.

Finally, similarly, other processes such as an application for cancellation of registration or a request for Qualification of Rights to be entered in the Register need not be in respect of all the variants.

The second set of amendments makes changes to the process for the entry of a Qualification of Rights in the Register.

A request for a Qualification of Rights, or more commonly known as a QoR, to be entered in the Register, is a request usually taken up by a third party, in order to clarify the scope of protection that the GI Act confers on a registered GI, in relation to whether a name or a term contained in the GI or a term which may be a translation of the GI is available for use by the third party.

To take up the example that I outlined earlier, let us say the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges applied for the registration of that GI for oranges, including all the variants which I have mentioned previously. Now, a Mr Wu Min Cheng, an individual who is a seller of oranges, he could request a QoR to be entered in the GI Register to state that he can rely on the exception in section 13 of the Act for the use of his personal name. If he is successful, he can continue to use the personal name, his personal name in relation to the oranges that he sells, even if these oranges are not of the Wu Min Cheng variety or originating from Pulau Ubin.

However, the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges can prevent Mr Wu from using the other registered variants, such as "Ubin Oranges", for example, for selling his oranges. Such a QoR also does not affect the ability of the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges from bringing an action against other producers for labelling their products as Wu Min Cheng oranges, in other words, producers other than Mr Wu.

This is different from opposing the application for registration or applying to cancel the registration of a GI, whether in respect of one or all the variants, because the reason for opposition or cancellation is that the GI or variant should not be protected as a registered GI at all. The end result of a successful opposition or cancellation of the registration of a particular variant is that the variant is not allowed to be registered or is removed from the GI Register. If the opposition or cancellation was against the entire set of variants, the end result is that the entire set of variants is not registered or is removed from the GI Register.

After the GI Registry commenced its operations, we found that certain types of QoR requests could achieve the same result as a successful opposition or cancellation. To illustrate the point, for instance, a QoR request could possibly be so broad as to result in a situation where the interested parties of a GI are effectively left with no rights in respect of a registered GI that they can enforce. This would render the GI registration nugatory. The QoR process was intended to enable an applicant to clarify the scope of protection conferred by the registration, and not to negate the GI registration altogether by wholly removing the rights conferred by registration.

Clause 5 of the Bill therefore clarifies that a QoR may not be requested, if the QoR request seeks a qualification of all the rights to be conferred in respect of a registered GI. For example, a qualification of all the rights conferred in respect of a registered GI may not be requested on the basis that the GI or variant is identical with the common name of the goods concerned in Singapore, as such a QoR would result in there being no rights conferred on a registered GI that can be enforced in respect of the registered GI or variant. This therefore makes it very clear that the QoR regime and the opposition or cancellation regime remains separate and distinct. They are meant as two different sets of parameters and protocols meant to apply to obtain two different sets of remedies. Applicants seeking to negate the rights conferred under the Act in respect of a registered GI or variant will not be able to use a QoR request as a substitute for opposition or cancellation proceedings.

Let me now touch on the third broad set of amendments which proposes further changes to the post-registration QoR process. Currently, QoR requests can be filed any time after the GI application is published. The requests are dealt with by the Registrar of GIs.

However, in the course of operating the GI Registry, IPOS has found the need to treat pre-registration and post-registration QoR requests differently. Pre-registration QoR requests relate to GI applications which are still pending before the Registrar. It would be more efficient for the Registrar to handle all pre-registration processes together, whether oppositions or QoR requests. In this way, the application for registration can be handled as expediently as possible. This also ensures that the applicant as well as third parties can have clarity about the protected rights as soon as possible.

On the other hand, once a GI has been registered – and this is the post-registration – there is no specified time frame for post-registration processes to be initiated. Each post-registration process can be independently managed. Further, GI disputes are often global in nature, with disputes around the world based on similar facts and issues. Given the desirability of taking into account the arguments and outcomes of disputes in other countries as well, when determining a post-registration QoR request, we therefore feel that the Registrar might not be the best forum for the determination of such disputes, especially when there is no longer an efficiency gain in doing so; in the same way as I have explained the pre-registration process.

The Bill therefore removes the post-registration QoR process. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be disputes as to the scope of the protection conferred upon a registered GI post-registration. The Bill therefore provides that any post-registration applications for a limitation as to the scope of rights conferred in respect of a registered GI, will now be filed in and heard by the High Court, under a new judicial procedure called an application for a Limitation of Scope of rights in respect of a registered GI to be entered onto the Register.

The scope of such applications, and the grounds on which such applications can be granted, are set out in the new section 48(a), inserted by clause 7 of the Bill. Having these issues dealt with by the Courts would also give the opportunity for Singapore decisions to be cited by courts in other jurisdictions. The changes I mentioned previously providing that a QoR request cannot be used to negate the registration of a GI or a variant, will also apply in the context of this new procedure for application for a Limitation of Scope of rights.

The changes sought under the Bill, as they are technical in nature and generally straightforward, are targeted to be implemented by the first half of this year.

Sir, in conclusion, these amendments will contribute to the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry, and provide also at the same time, greater clarity for traders and producers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Sir, the regime protecting geographical indications in Singapore has been developing robustly in the past year. In April 2019, the Geographical Indications Act 2014 came into effect, and, along with it, the registry of geographical indications started operations.

This was in line with our international obligations under the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Under the Schedule of the Geographical Indications Act 2014, the categories of goods that a geographical indication may be registered under relate to foodstuff or agricultural products. For countries where there are a lot of exports of such items that qualify for geographical indication, geographical indications help build up the reputation and quality associated with the produce in a different country. Although Singapore is not an agricultural exporting country, geographical indications are still relevant to us. Why? Singaporeans enjoy and consume foods from all over the world. Therefore, geographical indications add assurance relating to the unique flavour and authenticity of the product.

This Bill makes the geographical indications framework clearer through two key avenues – the qualification and limitation of rights, and variants of geographical indicators. At this juncture, I declare for the Hansard record that I am a lawyer and some of my work relates to intellectual property rights.

On qualification of rights before registration, clause 5 amends the law so that qualification of rights can only be made after publication but before registration. After registration, clause 7 inserts a new section to provide for a very similar process post-registration, albeit the term "limitation of scope" instead of "qualification" is used. Would the Minister elaborate on why the process, which in substance appears the same, has been bifurcated into pre and post registration?

The process is important as it sets out more clearly what is protected and what is not protected. This clarity facilitates better usage and protection of geographical indications by providing a better indicator for those who may be concerned over a potential infringement. Further, clause 5(d) and the new section 48(4) in clause 7 delineate when a qualification or limitation is appropriate and when a notice of opposition is appropriate. This provides needed guidance and ensures that the more appropriate process is used in any given circumstance.

The other main group of amendments relate to variants in a geographical indication. Variants play an important role in the intellectual property right of geographical indications. When a product's reputation and market expands across the globe, it and its geographical indication would probably have to be translated or transliterated in order to be represented in a different language. By protecting other forms such as translations and transliterations, we protect the essence of the geographical indication such that merchants are unable to circumvent the protection of geographical indications by simply changing the form in which it is presented.

This affords a more complete protection and assists in establishing a global market. It not only helps preserve authenticity and quality of products related to the geographical indication but also makes them more accessible to people who speak a different language.

In relation to this, the illustration in the Explanatory Statement for clause 2 refers to "Lion City Apples" as a variant for "Apples of Singapore." I must say a much less exciting example than "Pulau Ubin Oranges". I do like the ring of "Pulau Ubin Oranges". Would the Minister explain under what circumstances would a nickname for a place be recognised as a variant under the Geographical Indication? For official nicknames used widely and even at national celebrations such as a National Day Parade, it is clear that it is quite well known and accepted. However, there are times when the nickname may not be as widely known or accepted. Under those circumstances, would such "unofficial" nicknames be accepted?

Clause 3 allows an application for a variant to be separate from the main application or together with it. This flexibility is welcomed and allows for the accommodation of market forces – for instance, where the demand for goods change such that the geographical indication should be translated into a different language in order to have the full benefit of the intellectual property right in question.

Clause 4 of the Bill clarifies that variants need to fulfil the criteria of geographical indication in order to be registered. This ensures that variants are not a back door option for registering what was otherwise not registrable.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, geographical indications help guarantee the origin of a produce or food product, implying a certain standard or quality to it. In short, this Bill makes the regime clearer. Therefore, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the geographical indications or GI (Amendment) Bill seeks to clarify a number of technical points relating to the GI Act of 2014 which came into force in 2019. In particular, it prescribes how the act should be interpreted in respect of variance of a GI as well as clarifying the legal procedure by which an appellant can seek to qualify or limit the scope of the rights conferred by the registration of the GI. Through bringing about these certifications, the Bill is a significant step in the right direction.

I have a few questions and suggestions for the Minister and respect of this Bill. Before I raise these, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in the agri-food and processed food and beverage space among other product categories.

GIs are terms which are used to inform consumers that a product, mostly food and drink comes from a particular place. The GI Act of 2014 established a new system of registration in Singapore to improve, the certainty of protection given to GIS with effect from 1 April 2019. This had been part of Singapore's compliance with the Singapore European Union Free Trade Agreement where some 100 applications have been protected under the GI Act. Perhaps the most famous example of a GI is champagne. Other examples are Tennessee whiskey, Pinggu peaches, Darjeeling tea and Parmesan cheese. Essentially, GI's must identify goods where the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially due to the place of origin.

GIs help consumers gain assurance that the product they are buying and body the geographically grounded characteristics and bar reflected in the product name.

My first question would be, as a Singaporean consumer purchasing a product where a GI has been registered in Singapore, how can they obtain some degree of assurance that the product they are purchasing is a genuine GI product, as it were, rather than a product from a different region that has usurped the name protected under the registered GI? No doubt, once the GIs are registered, producers and traders of the GI products will be able to request customs, authorities to "detain, suspect infringing goods which are imported into or exported from Singapore", as IPOS declared in the media report.

But the ability of producers and traders of GI products to in force their rights may be uneven on the ground. Can IPOS consider working with GI rights holders, industry associations and other stakeholders to create an easy-to-use directory entirely funded by GI rights holders which will list legitimate products bearing the GI by brand, product type and retailer? Industry stakeholders will be strongly incentivised to fund such a directory.

Next, GIs represent an opportunity for local farming and food processing entrepreneurs to brand Singaporean products for enhanced competitiveness in export markets while also potentially contributing to the tourist experience for inbound tourists into Singapore who may seek good quality local food. In fact, it is not uncommon for tourist authorities to promote local foodstuffs and where they can be obtained. The Food and Agricultural Organisation, Asia Office said, as quoted in a media report by Food Navigator Asia, and I quote, "As the industry moves towards globalisation and bringing local products to the world, local or ethnic products are increasingly becoming a target for GIs as these are often the most popularly searched by tourists. It is becoming increasingly important to differentiate your products from the pack. The time for uniformity in F&B is gone and GIs are going to be a big contributor to this."

In this context, I have two other questions. Firstly, how many applications have been made for local geographic indications (GIs) to date? According to the same media report I cited earlier, and is confirmed by the Senior Minister of State, 140 GI applications have been made to IPOS since the GI Registry has been opened in April last year but it is unclear how many are for local GIs.

Secondly, will the Government consider working with local farming and food processing entrepreneurs to support their efforts to register GIs? Developing Singaporean GIs could be an avenue to boost the economic and job creation potential of the local food industry.

Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong.

I thank the two Members who have spoken, supporting the amendments and also speaking up in favour of using the geographical indicators.

The GI system that is being set up – and you have seen it operate in the last year or so – is obviously designed to achieve the purposes for which Mr Perera has outlined: to give a platform to recognise local producers, to give a basis on which to differentiate and to distinguish food products in particular and to operate a system on which you can say that something is domain to the location and that, is itself, is a distinguishing feature. And so, the purpose of this regime is really to set up an environment that promotes all of these and allows protection to be given to producers so that they can then leverage on the GI, or rather, the name of a product linked to the geographical location, in the context of Mr Perera's point in Singapore as well.

Let me just address the queries that have been raised.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the process is being bifurcated into a pre- and a post registration. This is something that I outlined earlier, but let me just reiterate the concept and also the paradigm by which this is to be operating.

In handling these pending applications, it is in the interest of parties that the Registrar moves as quickly as possible to reach a registration decision, so that all parties are clear about the protection that is accorded. In this context, the Registrar that handles the pre-registration QoR request together with the GI application will enable an efficient and expedient processing of the matters.

On the other hand, after the GI is registered, post-registration matters can be independently handled. We have therefore removed post-registration QoRs for registered GIs.

The new Limitation of Scope process is dealt with by the Courts and not by the Registrar. And as Mr de Souza knows, it is common for the GIs around the world to be based on similar facts and issues. There may be competing interests; there may be disputes on the factual circumstances and matrix which give rise to the GI and they often involve similar, if not, identical parties, as Mr de Souza will know. Therefore, there may be decisions by foreign courts which would provide guidance and indeed, it would also guide the nature of the decision in Singapore and vice versa. And in this context, it will be an opportunity for Singapore jurisprudence to be used in other countries as well. Given the above, the Courts, we feel, will be better placed to adjudicate on these matters.

Mr de Souza also asked about "Lion City Apples" and the use of the nickname, and I think circumstances under which the nickname for a place would be recognised as a variant of a GI, and under what circumstances that nickname could then be accepted.

For a variant to be registered in Singapore, just as it is with any application for registration of a GI in Singapore, the applicant seeking to register a variant must show that the variant has obtained recognition or registration as a GI in its country of origin. This would be done as part of the application for registration process before the Registrar of GIs.

As for Mr Perera's queries, the Singapore consumer obviously would also rely on the similar processes to ensure that there is no improper usurpation of the name. And that each time a GI is registered, there will be a thorough, exhaustive review of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for that particular geographical indication.

The suggestion that there may be a set-up that is used, funded by GI rights holders so that there can be a proper categorisation by brands and so on, is something we can consider. I think that is a useful suggestion insofar as it takes the debate further on how branding can be better organised, how there can be searches and ultimately, leading to better enforcement and policing of those rights.

The second point Mr Perera raised which I think I agreed with earlier is that this entire platform that the GI Act has created is indeed useful for Singapore producers because Singapore producers can then leverage on our own geographical location and indeed, there are several special places within Singapore whose names are very well associated with certain types of foods. And, to that extent, that can be used.

Mr Perera asked what is the breakdown for local applications. I do not have the number at hand but I will check and I will revert to Mr Perera.

Will the Government consider working with these producers? Certainly. I think what we do see is that the reforms that we make, not just in this Bill itself but generally in the context of the IP space, we see this as an opportunity for local producers, local companies to take advantage of the laws that we set up. As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I believe, we ensure that the laws that we set up have, in other words, to be very much pro-business and centred on the needs of the user. And so, if we are able to have a platform where producers, manufacturers can take advantage of and protect the GIs, then certainly, we will encourage them to do so and to see what further assistance can be offered so that there will be even more Singapore producers beyond the examples that Mr de Souza and myself have outlined which are illustrative only, I might add.

Sir, I will agree with the Members that the general point is that GIs continue to be relevant and maybe even increasingly relevant to Singaporean businesses as they add assurance to the unique flavour and identity and, of course, also authenticity of the product. And the system that we have set up, put in place about a year ago and now enhanced with these amendments, is designed to further all of these.

The changes that are being introduced reflect our continual effort to look at, update and enhance the IP regime and provide a fair and transparent GI regime. This, we believe, will further enhance our reputation as the IP hub of the region. Sir, with that, 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 Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (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 5.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.41 pm until 5.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

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