Hansard, Monday, 3 November 2014

1 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health with more Ebola cases spreading and the first case of human-to-human transmission of the Ebola virus outside of Africa, whether the Ministry has further plans to step up efforts to counter and contain any spread of the virus within the country.

2 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health in view of the worsening Ebola outbreak in West Africa and its spread to other countries, whether the Ministry will consider imposing a travel ban on the affected nations in Africa until the epidemic is brought under better control.

3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the current Ebola screening measures at Changi Airport are effective in detecting the virus given that its symptoms may appear up to 21 days after exposure to Ebola and that it is difficult to verify travellers' self-declarations of their exposure to Ebola; (b) whether there are plans to use rapid diagnostic test kits to diagnose Ebola; and (c) what lessons have been learnt from the cases of Ebola transmission in Texas, US and Spain to prevent the same mistakes from occurring in Singapore should an Ebola-infected traveller get through our border checkpoints.

4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the quantum and nature of assistance that Singapore has provided to countries in West and Central Africa to combat the spread of Ebola and treat patients infected with the virus; and (b) what further assistance Singapore plans to provide to the affected countries should the Ebola situation worsen.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 4 together?

Yes, please.

As of 31 October 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a total of 13,567 cases of Ebola, including 4,951 deaths. There continues to be widespread and intense transmission of Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Nigeria, Senegal, Spain, the US and Mali have reported imported cases, some with limited transmission. WHO has

Page: 15

since declared Nigeria and Senegal to be free of Ebola. In addition, a separate Ebola outbreak is ongoing in the remote areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) involving 66 cases and 49 deaths. No new cases of Ebola have been reported in DRC since 4 October. WHO has stated that DRC will be declared free of Ebola on 21 November, if there are no further cases.

Since 7 August 2014, MOH has instituted several border control measures. Travellers are provided with a Health Advisory on Ebola through the deployment of Health Advisory Posters and the distribution of Health Advisory Notices (HANs) to nationals from Ebola-affected African countries at all air, land and sea checkpoints, as well as other travellers who self-declare their history of travel to Ebola-affected countries. The Advisory tells them about Ebola symptoms and advises them to seek medical attention immediately and inform the medical staff of their travel history if they develop such symptoms.

MOH has stepped up screening measures against Ebola at our checkpoints. Nationals and travellers from countries with significant or potentially significant Ebola transmission – currently seen in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, DRC and Mali – arriving at our air checkpoints will be directed to a screening station where they will be screened for fever, requested to complete a Health Declaration Card which will include their contact details in Singapore and assessed for the risk of exposure to Ebola through a questionnaire.

Travellers who are found to have a fever will be sent to Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) for further assessment and testing. Those who are well but assessed to have a risk of exposure to Ebola will be kept under phone surveillance or quarantined for up to 21 days, depending on the nature of their potential exposure. Screening of travellers from countries with significant Ebola transmission is also conducted at land and sea checkpoints using Health Declaration Cards and questionnaire assessment.

The border health measures are part of a multi-layer defence against Ebola. While they alone will not be able to identify persons who are still in the incubation period and are not symptomatic or are not truthful in answering the screening questionnaire, they complement our overall efforts in looking out for travellers who may have Ebola infection.

MOH is concerned by the widespread and intense community transmission of Ebola in West Africa. As such, MOH is working with MFA, MHA, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to impose temporary visa requirements for nationals from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone for entry into Singapore, starting from 5 November. This move will allow for better oversight and control of entry of nationals from these countries and facilitate possible contact tracing. MOH will

Page: 16

continue to monitor the Ebola situation closely and calibrate our preparedness measures.

To keep our healthcare institutions in a high state of vigilance, we have given regular updates to all hospitals, polyclinics and primary care doctors on the Ebola situation. We have also provided them with guidance and protocols on the criteria for identifying suspected Ebola cases, how to refer such cases for further assessment and the subsequent management of suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola. MOH has also conducted preparedness exercises and visited our public hospitals to ensure that they are well-prepared and adequately resourced to manage cases of Ebola.

Suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola will be centrally managed in TTSH, which has been designated as the national disease outbreak centre. Meanwhile, Ebola virus testing will be centrally conducted by the National Public Health Laboratory's designated testing facilities at Defence Science Organisation (DSO) National Laboratories.

Currently, testing for the Ebola virus is done using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. This is the most sensitive method and the mainstay of diagnosis in all reference laboratories. Rapid diagnostic test kits to diagnose Ebola are being developed and tested but none has yet been approved for use. MOH will evaluate the performance of such rapid kits to determine their suitability for use in our environment when they become available.

The standard treatment for Ebola is supportive therapy. While there are experimental treatments and vaccines being developed and tested, none has been proven to be clinically safe or effective. MOH will continue to monitor developments in these areas.

Of the five Ebola cases that were diagnosed in Spain and the US, three involved healthcare workers who had provided care to patients who were infected with Ebola in West Africa. Investigations of these cases suggested possible breaches in infection control measures, such as improper removal of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Although our hospitals and healthcare workers have been trained on the proper use of PPE, we have not been complacent. Our hospitals have been reminded on the need for strict infection control measures and adherence to stringent protocols when managing suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola. Even with proper equipment, protocols and training, human error can occur, as was observed in the cases of secondary transmission in Spain and the US. MOH will continue to work with the National Infection Prevention and Control Committee (NIPC) and other experts to review our guidelines and protocols to ensure a high degree of competency and preparedness in our hospitals.

Page: 17

In response to appeals for aid, Singapore has contributed an aid package consisting of medicines, medical supplies and personal protective equipment to WHO. In addition, Singapore also contributed US$150,000 in cash to the WHO to support the WHO Ebola Response Roadmap. Singapore will continue to work with WHO on how to further assist in the global effort against the Ebola outbreak in Africa based on our capability and available resources, including the possibility of seconding one of our experts to assist WHO Headquarters in Geneva in their relief effort.

Mdm Speaker, three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister of State whether MOH can step up information dissemination on the Ebola virus, especially on its epidemiology scientific data which had been available for almost four decades? Does the Minister of State agree that the better informed the healthcare workers and the population are, the better will be the success on the control of the Ebola virus, especially on awareness and prevention and early detection treatment? Therefore, will the Minister of State adopt and promote actively on the policy of choosing facts over fear for everyone? May I also ask the Minister of State how adequate is our protocol to vigorously train healthcare workers to handle Ebola patients and, lastly, what are the contingency plans for contact-tracing and the control of the spread of the Ebola virus here?

I would like to thank the Member for the many supplementary questions.

First, I would like to reassure the Member as well as Members of the House that MOH takes the training of our healthcare workers in the handling of Ebola very seriously. We have done regular audits and checks on the training as well as the preparedness of our healthcare workers, especially those in the frontline, for example, in the Emergency Department. We make sure they adopt and practise the right protocols and procedures that have been stipulated by the National Infection Prevention and Control Committee.

At the same time, we do send circulars to all our healthcare professionals, including private general practitioners, to update them on the situation of Ebola in affected countries, as well as the measures that we are taking in Singapore. In that aspect, I would like to reassure the Member that we are doing all we can to prevent a possible imported case to Singapore.

Nonetheless, we understand that it is impossible to prevent subsequent cases that may appear on our doorstep. The important thing is that we have to be well-prepared for that eventuality.

Page: 18

With regard to the possibility of fear-mongering among the people, it is important that MOH continue to update the public on the epidemiology, the situation in West Africa and also to educate people that Ebola, although it is a fatal disease, is not easily spread from one person to another person because of the way that the disease is. It is spread through close contact with people who are infected with the disease and it is not through the respiratory route.

I thank the Member for those supplementary questions. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely and to step up our preparedness as well as necessary measures, as and when necessary.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am sure the Minister of State would agree that the greatest threat to us now would be the import of an Ebola case. I am heartened by the announcement that there are some new visa requirements. Two supplementary questions from me.

First, with regard to the just-announced visa requirements, I know it is a bit early, but I would like the Minister of State to comment on what he feels is the efficacy of such a move and whether a more comprehensive travel ban might be a better move. Maybe a total travel ban from the affected countries, at least until the so-called backbone of the epidemic has been broken.

My second supplementary question refers to whether or not there is any consideration for a travel ban for Singaporean nationals travelling to affected countries for non-essential reasons.

I would like to thank Dr Chia for the supplementary questions. That is a very relevant question, with regard to the imposition of a travel ban. I would like to highlight to Members of the House that the decision to impose travel restrictions cannot be taken lightly. It is based on certain principles: (a) the extent of the epidemic in the affected countries, that is, whether there has been widespread and intense community transmission as seen in the three West African countries; (b) the state of the healthcare and public health infrastructure in those affected countries; (c) the ability of the affected country to contain further spread; and last but not least (d) the recommendations from the World Health Organization, as well as expert inputs from our local agencies, including the National Infection Prevention and Control Committee.

Imposing a visa requirement, which we are doing from 5 November, will allow us to have better oversight of these travellers entering Singapore. We will be able to collect information, such as local contact details, local sponsor as well as their exact dates of travel,

Page: 19

and this will facilitate the process of contact tracing, should the need later arise.

In addition, it will also allow Singapore to inform the applicants at the point of visa issuance about our Ebola health advisory and the actions that they should take should they develop symptoms while enroute to and during their stay in Singapore. So, currently, we will not be imposing any travel ban on the affected countries in West Africa and this is also in line with WHO’s recommendation that there should not be any travel ban imposed on these countries. However, I understand that the situation is very dynamic and we will continue to review our measures as the Ebola situation evolves.

Thank you, Madam. One area of risk is the transmission that could take place onboard the planes that are bound for Singapore. My question is: do the authorities work with airports and public health authorities in other countries to ensure that passengers who board Singapore-bound planes are screened for infectious diseases, including Ebola?

I understand that the US Department of Transportation has a rule which permits airlines to deny boarding to air travellers with contagious diseases, and this rule also applies to flights by foreign airlines into the US. Does Singapore have such a regulation? At the minimum, does Singapore Airlines screen its passengers before its flights to Singapore?

I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. From what I understand, we do share information with other civil aviation authorities from the different countries on some of the protocols and measures they have taken. In fact, even in the affected countries in West Africa, they do have exit screening of travellers out of the country to make sure that they are asymptomatic before they are allowed to board the plane.

What is important is that Singapore has actually taken a more discriminate, stratified kind of approach to monitor the health of arrivals from affected West African countries. We divide them into both symptomatic as well as asymptomatic travellers. If they are found to be symptomatic when they arrive in Singapore, then they will be managed accordingly by being brought to TTSH for further assessment. But if they are asymptomatic, then we will have to probe further with regard to the risk of exposure.

If they have high-risk exposure, meaning they have been managing patients who are affected by the Ebola virus without any personal protection, then they will be put on very close surveillance, either being quarantined in Government quarantine facilities or even in home quarantine. But if the exposure is assessed to be low-risk, then we will put them on phone surveillance for 21 days to make sure that they are asymptomatic during this period

Page: 20

before they are allowed to continue with their unrestricted activities.

5 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the SAF will consider joining the broad coalition currently combating ISIS in Syria and Iraq; and (b) in what ways will the SAF contribute towards this effort.

Madam, the threat of jihadist terrorism is transnational. It extends across continents and beyond the confines of territorial borders. Singapore, as an international hub, is particularly exposed to this threat. Members of the public are well aware that in 2001, the Internal Security Department (ISD) disrupted a terrorist plot by Al-Qaeda (AQ) to mount suicide bombings in Singapore. This was with the help of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist network. This clearly showed that terrorist groups that are based in countries far away can pose a direct security threat to Singapore here.

In the last decade, Singapore responded to the terrorist threat from AQ and JI by dealing with it squarely, explaining to all Singaporeans what is at stake. We strengthened our social, psychological and physical defences at home and joined other countries to deal with forces in Iraq and Afghanistan which were the sources of radicalisation and terror. As a result, both AQ and JI are weaker today. However, this terrorism threat is a long-term one and new groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will emerge, even as existing ones falter. When they do, we must not lose focus or heart. In dealing with the threat from ISIS, we must continue with the approach that has served Singapore well and protected us thus far.

Like AQ and JI, ISIS is a terrorist organisation that poses a direct security threat to Singapore, our region and the rest of the world. ISIS was, in fact, AQ in Iraq before it splintered to become an independent organisation. Deputy Prime Minister Teo has provided extensive details of the threat from ISIS in his replies to Members' questions in this House in July and October. I do not intend to repeat his points but, with the Speaker's permission, will circulate relevant portions of his previous replies for Members' reference.

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Approximately 350 Southeast Asians, including from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, are reportedly in Iraq and Syria – 350 Southeast Asians. Many of them have joined ISIS and may return to threaten our security here, as the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces warned recently.

Page: 21

The threats to our region are, indeed, real. Some Malaysians and Indonesians are fighting for ISIS and have formed a militant group called Majmu'ah Al Arkhabily or "Group from the Archipelago" from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, in other words, an archipelagic group here. This group adds to the threat from existing terrorist networks, such as JI.

Leaders of organised militant groups in this region, such as Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia, have also pledged allegiance to ISIS and declared their similar intent to establish an Islamic State in Southeast Asia. In Malaysia, the authorities arrested militants in April this year and these militants were inspired by ISIS and had planned to attack pubs, a disco and a brewery in Malaysia.

ISIS, AQ, JI and their supporters target Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia because they have three goals in common. First, the political aim to overthrow legitimate governments and establish an Islamic caliphate through violence and brutality, including against innocent civilians. Second, using twisted religious beliefs to mislead and radicalise followers to commit atrocities, even suicide attacks, for their political goals. And, lastly, ISIS, like AQ, has ambitions to extend and entrench its terror network beyond its region.

For ISIS, two additional factors are of concern. ISIS can potentially sustain its efforts for a protracted period from the rich oil resources in occupied territories. ISIS has also embarked on an effective recruitment strategy, including the sophisticated use of the Internet and social media, to attract jihadists from around the world to join its efforts and to extend its linkages to other religious militant groups. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 foreigners have been reported to be in Iraq and Syria.

As we did before against AQ and JI, Singapore must resolutely oppose the spread of terrorism in order to safeguard our security here. It is in Singapore’s interest to support the multinational efforts against ISIS. ISIS exports terrorism to our region, whether by sending foreign terrorists to carry out terrorist operations or by radicalising regional elements who engage in violence in Iraq, Syria and, subsequently, their home countries. If this terrorism threat is allowed to grow and spread, innocent civilians here and elsewhere could be endangered and killed. By contributing to the international effort to tackle the threat at source, we are contributing directly to our own security.

This is why Singapore took a clear public stand against ISIS at the 10th Asia-Europe Meeting in October this year and at the UN General Assembly in September 2014 respectively. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have said that Singapore strongly condemns ISIS’ terrorist actions and welcomes the formation of a broad multinational coalition to combat the threat from ISIS. Singapore has supported UN Security Council Resolution 2170, which condemns, in the strongest terms, the terrorist acts and violent ideologies of extremist groups and urges UN member states to combat terrorism.

Page: 22

Singapore also co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2178, which went one step further by requiring all nations to make it a serious, prosecutable crime for their nationals to join extremist groups, such as ISIS. Singapore has undertaken counter-terrorism cooperation with international partners to prevent the movement of known foreign terrorist fighters and to stem the flow of financing to ISIS.

This is also why the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has participated in multinational coalition efforts against religious extremists who pose a terrorist threat to Singapore and Singaporeans. We did it in Afghanistan against AQ and the Taliban. The SAF will continue to participate in such efforts to stop the radicalising influence of terror groups that can harm our citizens here. Thus, the SAF will contribute assets and personnel to Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led multinational coalition to combat ISIS. We will join 33 other countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France and Canada, that have provided military support or humanitarian aid to the coalition.

The SAF will offer contributions within our means that are sustainable and useful to the efforts to combat ISIS. These will include SAF liaison and planning officers to the US Central Command and the Combined Joint Task Force HQ, a KC-135R tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling and an Imagery Analysis Team. These assets proved effective in our previous contributions and were appreciated by our international partners there. However, for the efforts against ISIS, there will be no combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Instead, SAF soldiers will operate from surrounding countries, together with other coalition forces.

Nevertheless, there will be risks to our SAF servicemen as they carry out their missions. To mitigate these risks, we will ensure that our servicemen are well-equipped and receive additional training in weapon handling and against Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and other hostile elements.

Whether the terrorism threat is led by ISIS, AQ or other religious extremist groups, we must tackle it resolutely and use a multi-pronged approach, as this Government has been doing, in order to keep our citizens safe. We recognise the key roles that international partnerships play, as in the exchange of information and joint efforts against transnational terrorist elements. But just as importantly, Singaporeans at home must understand that the radical ideology and acts committed by a small misguided extremist group in the name of Islam do not represent the majority of believers, who condemn these extremists as going against the teachings of Islam. Our Muslim religious and community leaders, including Mufti Dr Mohamed Fatris Bin Bakaram, have denounced ISIS unequivocally. The Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) has been actively countering the spread of terrorism. Their efforts have been critical in de-radicalising former JI operatives and helping rehabilitate them back into society.

Page: 23

Singapore’s integrated approach against religious extremism is working. One of the most important achievements is that we have maintained the trust and harmony between Singaporeans of different faiths and, indeed, strengthened it over time as we fought this common threat together.

I know that some Singaporeans may become fearful because of this terrorism threat and what Singapore must do to counter it. We should individually take appropriate actions to be alert and guard ourselves as we go about our daily lives. But we must not allow terrorists to paralyse us with fear to prevent us from doing that which is necessary or let them sow discord and distrust among us. If we relent, cower and look upon each other with suspicion and mistrust in the face of their threats, then the terrorists would have already fractured our resolve. The SAF will work with MHA to remain vigilant and step up security where needed to counter this threat and protect Singaporeans. Most importantly, Singaporeans must continue to be united and cohesive to combat this terrorism threat effectively.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. It is, indeed, a big decision that we are taking here today. There are four supplementary questions I would like to ask the Minister. One is that the Minister has reassured the House that at no point are any of our servicemen actually involved, but would there be any scenarios where they might? The second question is, while the offer is yet to be accepted by the coalition, what is the Ministry's estimation of the length of time that this operation will be required? Thirdly, in terms of the scope of assistance, which is largely confined to non-combat roles at the moment, does the Minister think that over a longer term, there may be an expansion of the scope of assistance? Lastly, as this is an issue of national importance and it affects every single Singaporean, what plans are there in place by the Ministry and the rest of the associated Ministries to engage Singaporeans on this important decision?

Mdm Speaker, the Member, Mr Alex Yam, has asked some questions about deployment and length. I will just, first, preface the answer by saying that, as everyone knows, the fluid situation in Iraq and Syria is extremely dynamic and, so, it is hard to tell. I said that, together with other coalition forces who are not stationed in Iraq and Syria, we will continue that footprint outside Iraq and Syria. On the length of deployment, I think we should review it annually to see how we are contributing, whether our efforts are effective and whether our combined efforts are effective.

On the scope and what else we could add, I think the four elements that I have talked about suffice for now – whether they are planning or liaison officers, whether it is Imagery Analysis Team, whether it is air-to-air refuelling, it will aid, as we have done previously in

Page: 24

Afghanistan and Iraq, to the coalition efforts.

His last question is an important one – national engagement. We have already begun national engagement and this will lift Members' spirit in this House. Just like we had SARS and we think that we are probably more prepared compared to other countries, similarly, the threat from AQ and JI has really built confidence among groups. And we did it behind closed doors and we discussed very candid aspects. I met with Malay/Muslim leaders with Minister Yaacob and Minister of State Maliki and there was instantaneous recognition that this was a threat to all of us. Regardless of faith, regardless of race, they understood it straightaway. It was very quick. The meeting was quite short. There were no "ifs" and "buts". This is a threat, we have to counter it at various levels.

So, I think if there is any good to come out of these combined efforts against religious extremists such as this, it is that a Singapore way has enabled us to harness and garner our collective spirit to say this is against us, this is against all of us, if something happens, people of all faiths will be maimed or even killed, let us deal with it together. So, we will continue that approach. We will continue to deal with small groups because these things are sensitive and sensitive things are better discussed behind closed doors and we will engage various aspects. We will continue to let our security agencies do their professional or threat assessments.

For Singaporeans, I would say this: we should go about our daily lives; being alert but yet not allowing them to rob us of our various privileges and our freedom to associate; do what we want, to worship, to come together as one people. And I think that, ultimately, is the test of whether we who believe in the right to act freely, to elect our government, to worship who we want to, will win versus these violent terrorists who will subjugate us through force.

I thank the Minister for his wonderful reply. I am glad with the Government’s approach in engaging many of our religious leaders, behind closed doors. I, myself, also had public dialogues. At a recent event with Berita Harian and the Office of the Mufti, even members of the public are generally quite supportive and understand the clear and present danger these terrorists present to Singaporeans and Singapore.

I have three supplementary questions. In considering whether Singapore will join this coalition, did we consider whether this would further endanger Singaporeans who may travel to the Middle East, for example, as had happened to some of the western counterparts as well? In terms of security of Singaporeans overseas, what is MINDEF's position and how can we alleviate or mitigate the situation? The second question – back home, as we combat this threat of ISIS, what is the position of our neighbours, especially those who are

Page: 25

predominantly Muslim? Are they with us on this and are we collaborating and cooperating with them? The third question – will the Ministry or ICA consider, as some countries have done, banning certain individuals from going to some of the countries to volunteer or embark on some of these activities?

I thank Mr Zaqy. Mr Zaqy asked if we have information about Singaporeans going there. Yes, indeed, we do, if you look at the handout. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Deputy Prime Minister Teo actually gave very detailed accounts of some families and people who were arrested before they could go and one of them was, of course, a self-radicalised individual, and I leave Members to read this. Indeed, Singaporeans, like Malaysians and Indonesians, are not immune to this radicalising influence to go there. And, yes, our Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts worry about this. They said it publicly. The Chief of Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI) was here and he asked for cooperation.

Why is there this worry? Because many people understand that Iraq and Syria offer the opportunity to train as terrorists, to learn how to make bombs, to learn how to let off bombs, to learn how to kill and they have the resources. It is not theoretical because those who came back from Malaysia and Indonesia have coalesced, as I said, to form a network for the Malay Archipelago to establish here, as ISIS has done in Iraq and Syria. As I said, this will also be an additional threat, on top of JI. Not theoretical at all, but threats are forming. Do we collaborate with our neighbours? Yes, we do. If you remember, for Mas Selamat, for other aspects, there is a lot of exchange of information and we recognise that this is a common threat and I think we will share information and will continue to have good working relationships with them.

There will be risks to Singaporeans who travel there. But, as I said in my reply, Singapore was a signatory to the UN resolution which calls for it to be a prosecutable crime. We are among some countries which have that; other countries do not. We send a clear signal to our Singaporeans that it is a crime to go to Syria and Iraq to aid the extremists and, as the example by Deputy Prime Minister Teo showed, the person who wanted to go there was detained.

I have a clarification in addition to my supplementary questions earlier. I have asked not just for those who are identified, who are travelling there, but in some countries, they have instituted a travel ban to some of these countries where you have a risk of them joining ISIS, for example. Is Singapore considering such a measure, whether for those who have been identified or the public in general?

Mdm Speaker, I would defer that decision to our ground agencies. I think our ground agencies are competent. You ban travel to Iraq and Syria, but if you look at the map, Iraq and Syria are quite porous, you can go in from anywhere. You can go via the

Page: 26

North or you can go in via the South. We aim for effect. Rest assured that ISD is monitoring, as the Deputy Prime Minister had shared. The person I was referring to was Abdul Basheer s/o Abdul Kader, who was a self-radicalised lawyer. He was detained in 2007 under the ISA. He was let out and then he was re-detained in October 2012. Another was Zakaria bin Rosdan. He tried to contact foreign militant groups online in order to join them and engage in violence in Syria. And the third is Khairul Sofri bin Osman who was interested to carry out militant jihad overseas in places like Syria. So, they were also detained.

Our security agencies know that this is serious. They have their means with which they can track people who are interested. Honestly, if these people wanted to go, even if you have instituted a travel ban, they will be able to get there. But our laws allow us to show that if you show intent of going, I can detain you. And I think that is the right stance because we do that before you cause damage, rather than let you go there and then come back and monitor and watch what you want to do to Singaporeans here and only act when you have done something.

Before you proceed to Question No 6, I wish to inform hon Members that there are currently cases pending before the Court pertaining to some of the matters raised in the Question. I will disallow any statement or supplementary question that will impinge on the principle of mutual respect and forbearance within this House and the Judiciary, or is sub judice. Mr Zainal Sapari.

6 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he can give a full account of the incident that happened at Hong Lim Park on 27 September 2014; (b) whether there has been any non-compliance by the organisers of both events in ensuring public peace; and (c) whether there is any follow-up action to ensure that such incidents will not happen again.

Indeed, Madam, the Police investigation into the incident has yet to be completed. The legal proceedings against certain persons related to the incident are also ongoing. It is not appropriate to reply to this question.

7 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether Hong Lim Park is for the sole use of Speakers' Corner participants; (b) what designated spots in Hong Lim Park are meant for Speakers' Corner activities; (c) what is the list of activities

Page: 27

permitted for Hong Lim Park; (d) when and for what activities can the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre facilities, such as the stage, be allowed for use by Hong Lim Park users; (e) what standard operating procedures pertain to the use of Hong Lim Park and the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre's facilities; and (f) how the recent incident pertaining to the use of the same ground by YMCA and advocates of the Return-My-CPF group can be avoided.

Madam, Hong Lim Park is a public park. It houses two lawns which have been designated as the Speakers' Corner. However, these lawns are not for the sole use of Speakers' Corner participants. Like any other park in Singapore, Hong Lim Park is a shared space for all Singaporeans to use and to conduct community events or other activities for the residents.

The Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre and its outdoor stage are adjacent to the Hong Lim Park. Hong Lim Park users can apply to the Community Centre for the use of its facilities and the stage. Usage is subject to the usual terms imposed by the Peoples' Association. For example, the stage should not be used for political or religious activities. The park and CC facilities have been used for different types of events, such as concerts, family days, sporting activities and other community events. Generally, the stage can be booked for use from 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm, as these are the opening hours of the CC, but special arrangements can be made to use the stage earlier. For the Speakers' Corner, Singaporeans can speak, hold demonstrations and performances after seeking NParks' approval.

Multiple events have been conducted on many past occasions by different groups at the same time at Hong Lim Park. There had been no untoward incident arising from this arrangement until the 27 September incident. As I had said earlier, as Police investigations and legal proceedings are on-going in relation to the 27 September incident, it is not appropriate to comment on the incident or to give a view on what could or could not have prevented such an incident.

Thank you, Minister. In view that there is an upcoming major special needs activity, the Purple Parade, coming up on 15 November 2014, plus Senior Minister of State Teo Ser Luck happens to be one of the attendees in two weeks' time, I wish to seek the Minister's assurance that the unpleasant episode of 27 September 2014 will not be repeated. That is my first supplementary question.

My second supplementary question is that I wish to also seek Minister's comments on how MND intends to more effectively communicate, on an on-going basis, these policies and practices to stakeholders, such as applicants and users and also Community Club staff and

Page: 28

management. Better safe than sorry.

The use of Hong Lim Park, or any other park in Singapore, is subject to terms and conditions which are well-publicised on our website. When people apply, they also go through the rules and regulations. So, people have been reminded. They know what to do. Particularly for Speakers' Corner, it has been around for 15 years since the year 2000. There had been no incidents in the past until this recent one. Can I give an assurance that such a thing will never happen again? Can I give an assurance that nobody will speed on the road, though we all know that one should not speed?

8 Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry plans to look into measures to help our SMEs and other local enterprises tap on the business opportunities arising from the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community by the end of 2015.

Mdm Speaker, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) aims to create a single market and production base, through simplified customs procedures and harmonisation of standards and a more efficient and predictable trading environment in ASEAN. This will translate into benefits, such as a freer flow of goods, services and investments, resulting in shorter time-to-market for businesses.

AEC will help unlock the growth potential for our SMEs and local enterprises, by creating a larger economic hinterland that can help our businesses overcome the limitations of our small domestic market and resource constraints. IE Singapore and SPRING have a comprehensive and broad-based suite of assistance schemes that will help companies develop capabilities and internationalise. For example, IE's Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) facilitates internationalisation by providing companies with ready market information and platforms for learning. Companies can also receive support for legal, tax and business consultancy services to aid their efforts. IE's Global Company Partnership (GCP) supports SMEs with more developed internationalisation plans by providing customised support for capability building, manpower development, market access and financing.

In the lead up to AEC 2015, the Government will step up efforts to promote broader awareness of how SMEs can benefit from the AEC. The Singapore Business Federation (SBF), with support from MTI, has also recently organised the AEC 2015 SME Business Forum, which provided a platform for Singapore SMEs to learn about the opportunities arising from the AEC. SMEs that would like to seek advice on how they should prepare themselves for the

Page: 29

AEC can also do so at any of the many SME Centres islandwide.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. As we know, the AEC is progressing at different paces across different ASEAN countries as well as across different sectors. Can the Minister of State share with us what are MTI's plans in terms of whether there are priority sectors that it plans to push our SMEs towards or to promote for SMEs and also specific countries which are further upstream or further developed on the AEC path?

We have not, so far, tried to prioritise any sector. It is important that we help support as many SMEs as we can as they branch out or expand because Singapore has its land as well as resource constraints. We are planning for many different trips. In fact, I will be leading a business delegation within this month to Indonesia and also trips to the other cities and countries are being planned across ASEAN. ASEAN, as a hinterland, is how Singapore businesses can also use in order to survive and even to strengthen their own business operations throughout.

There are things they cannot do in Singapore that our hinterland or our neighbours in the ASEAN Community can help us with. That is exactly where we are coming from, and we hope that AEC 2015 will help give us that advantage.

9 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of weak third quarter GDP data, what are the risks to the Singapore economy and whether there are any counteracting measures planned to strengthen the economy.

The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Madam, based on advance estimates, the Singapore economy grew by 2.4% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2014, the same pace of growth as in the previous quarter. On a quarter-on-quarter seasonally-adjusted annualised basis, the economy expanded by 1.2%, a reversal from the 0.1% contraction in the previous quarter.

Growth in the third quarter was supported by the manufacturing sector and key services sectors. Within manufacturing, the electronics and biomedical manufacturing clusters were the main drivers of growth. Among the services sectors, the finance and insurance and business services sectors performed well on a year-on-year basis, even as growth in some labour-intensive sectors, like food and beverage services, was weighed down

Page: 30

by labour constraints. On the other hand, the construction sector slowed sharply as a result of weaker private sector construction activities, following several rounds of cooling measures in the residential property market.

Overall, taking into account the third quarter performance, GDP growth in the first three quarters of 2014 is estimated to be 3.2%. For the full year, the Singapore economy remains on track to achieving the growth forecast of between 2.5% and 3.5%. This is a healthy rate of growth considering the sluggish global economic conditions and on-going domestic restructuring.

In terms of the risks to the economy, MTI's assessment is that the key risks stem from uncertainties in the global macroeconomic environment. In the US, there are uncertainties over the pace at which the Federal Reserve will exit from its accommodative monetary policy. In China, there are risks of a sharper-than-expected slowdown, given the possibility of a spike in debt defaults amidst tighter regulations of the shadow banking sector and a slowdown in real estate activities. In addition, on-going geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the risk of an Ebola outbreak globally, pose downside risks to the global economy. Should any of these risks materialise, the Singapore economy may grow more slowly than expected.

Nonetheless, as the global situation remains fluid, MTI will continue to monitor the situation closely and stands ready to respond in the event of any short-term shocks to the economy. At the same time, the Government will continue to press ahead with efforts to restructure the economy so as to position the economy for sustainable growth and create good jobs for Singaporeans over the long term. These include helping firms to raise productivity through the various assistance programmes, as well as helping Singaporeans to develop skills relevant to the future economy through the setting up of the SkillsFuture Council.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response and I appreciate the response he has given on the risks posed by the external environment. But there is a lot of discussion about our own restructuring effort that is constraining our GDP growth. The tight labour market has resulted in higher costs that have run ahead of productivity growth and we have yet to realise growth in labour productivity that is central to transforming the Singapore economy. Generally, productivity has been flat, compared to our Government's target of 2% to 3%.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how we can be sure that the policies and targets that are being put in place to restructure the economy and boost productivity are, indeed, the right ones, and if they should be recalibrated after five years of restructuring experience. Do we need to have finer measurements of productivity in order to confirm that

Page: 31

we are on the right trajectory even when the top-line numbers of productivity growth are not reflective? In other words, maybe we are making progress but the top-line growth rates are not showing up. The Senior Minister of State has shared the GDP growth projection for this year. Could the Senior Minister of State please comment on Singapore's longer term competitiveness and GDP growth?

Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Madam, I thank Ms Foo for her supplementary questions. Indeed, it is true that the macroeconomic conditions that we are facing now provide us with some headwinds and also some crosswinds. And depending on the sector that we are in, some of the sectors which are dependent on the US market, for example, are doing fairly well. But those that are more closely related to China and the Euro zone will find the demand lacking and, therefore, their export business may be affected.

On the domestic front, many in the services sector will continue to be faced with cost pressure, especially on manpower cost. If they are in sectors that are very competitive, for example, in the F&B and retail business, they may be faced with the challenge of not being able to pass on the cost to the consumers. Therefore, without being able to do so, they will feel their profit margins being squeezed.

Nevertheless, the Government is working with the various trade associations and industry bodies to roll out productivity improvement plans that are very customised and tailored to the needs of the sector. For instance, the construction sector is known to suffer from slow productivity growth. This is measured in terms of value-add per worker. But if you monitor the square metre constructed per man-day, they are actually making progress over the last three years. In other words, for every man-day, they are constructing more square-metre space year-on-year. However, if this increase is not reflected in the prices of their contracts, then the net effect may be a reduction in productivity.

What we are doing with the various sectors is to make sure that there are more indicators that just value-add per worker as a measure. There is a whole set of finer measures that are peculiar to the industries. For the retail sector, for instance, there is "sales per square foot of retail space". There is also turnover of inventory and so on. I would like to assure the Member that there is a whole series of measures to help us finetune the sectorial productivity plan.

Our long-term target for GDP growth is between 2% and 5%, but this is on the optimistic assumption that the external environment is favourable. It will be all right as long as we are able to achieve productivity growth between 1% and 3%. And as we all know, achieving productivity growth of 3% is a very challenging target. So, most likely, our growth target for

Page: 32

this decade will be between 2% and 4%.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, do you want to ask a question?

Thank you, Madam. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that he made and ask for more clarification.

The Senior Minister of State referred to weakness in China and the EU which we are now seeing. Those represent short-term challenges. I also agree with the Senior Minister of State that I think our productivity plan is on track but it would take some time before those show results.

What will happen if the short-term global challenges create weaknesses in the domestic economy? Do I interpret his answer correctly to say that, in the short term, our restructuring may actually place limitations on the types of responses that we are able to provide in response to global weaknesses?

Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Madam, I thank the Member for his question. Well, let me also say that I am going to give a fuller reply on productivity measures on Parliamentary Question No 29, so it is either sometime later or tomorrow that I will address that issue. In terms of productivity gain, I do not think we can have a model where we have an unrestrained number of and injection of workers into the pool to realise our growth. I do not think that will help us achieve qualitative growth – in other words, good quality growth.

What we are trying to focus on now is, given that manpower constraint is a fact and given this constraint, the question is how do we grow out of the current level of GDP? If we benchmark our industries against other best practices in other advanced economies, we know there is still room for growth: maybe it has to do with the way we embrace technology; maybe it has to do with the skill level of our workers. And also, sometimes, it is the way we structure our industry: maybe certain components are lacking, certain supply chains are missing.

Therefore, when we benchmark our industries with the rest, we find lessons to be drawn in how we can improve our industries' structure and competitiveness. We want to see the wages of our workers go up because this is good for them. But we also want to maintain or improve our competitiveness of that particular industry. The link between these two is actually innovation and productivity. There are companies that can do it and we want to encourage many more of our companies to be able to do so.

Page: 33

10 Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein asked the Prime Minister (a) what will be the impact of the US Federal Reserve rate hikes to Singapore SMEs and households; (b) whether there are any specific segments that are particularly vulnerable; and (c) what are the safeguards to lessen the impact of a steeper than expected rate hike on these vulnerable segments.

Madam, I am taking this question on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Madam, market participants are expecting the US Federal Reserve to start raising interest rates at some stage next year. We can also expect some bumpiness in global financial markets in view of uncertainties over the pace of interest rate normalisation.

Singapore has coped well thus far, given our strong economic fundamentals and our healthy reserves. Further, our financial markets are resilient, with the foreign exchange and money markets continuing to function well and our banks' balance sheets being sound.

The normalising of interest rates in the US, when it occurs, should be viewed positively as it signals a sustained recovery in the US economy, which should, in turn, benefit Singapore's exports. The rise in interest rates in the US and in the region should also enable more efficient and appropriate pricing of risks. The alternative of a continued prolonged period of low interest rates will likely lead to borrowing excesses and asset market instability.

Higher interest rates will impact some existing groups of borrowers in Singapore, as elsewhere. Companies and households that have borrowed heavily when interest rates were low will be vulnerable. Highly leveraged companies, especially those with low net profit margins, may find the increase in borrowing costs eroding their cash flows.

The Government will continue to monitor financing conditions and ensure that viable businesses have continued access to affordable loan financing. SPRING administers a range of financing schemes to help ensure that credit remains accessible to SMEs.

The overall financial position of the household sector remains healthy. However, as MAS has indicated before, a small segment of highly leveraged households could be vulnerable should interest rates rise more quickly than expected.

We have, therefore, taken a series of measures to encourage financial prudence. These measures have prevented borrowers from taking on excessive leverage for their property

Page: 34

purchases and they have helped to reduce the impact of eventual interest rate hikes. MAS has also introduced new regulations on credit card and unsecured credit. This is with the view to helping those individuals with credit problems avoid accumulating further debt.

Taken together, the measures have tempered the growth of household debt, from a peak of nearly 13% year-on-year in Q3 2011 to 5.6% in Q2 this year. New housing loans have lower loan-to-value ratios and shorter loan tenures. The proportion of borrowers taking multiple housing loans has also declined. MAS will continue to encourage financial prudence to keep household debt at a manageable level.

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Before the implementation of the cooling measures for the property market, many Singaporeans had taken the opportunity to upgrade their properties, particularly to private properties. Many of them had actually taken floating rate packages. I believe, even from my personal experience, that many have actually over-extended themselves, in terms of taking the property loans.

I believe that they are one of the groups vulnerable to a steep increase in interest rate. Given the ongoing global economic environment volatility, there is also this risk of heightened job insecurity. I would just like to highlight that these are some of the vulnerable groups. I am just wondering whether there are any safeguard measures that we can put in place for this group.

Madam, we understand the concerns that the Member has highlighted with the people who may have over-stretched in terms of taking on property loans. We should look at this in two parts. First of all, the cooling measures or the property-related measures which have been implemented not just recently but, in fact, since 2009, and these include tighter Loan-to-Value Ratios, cap on loan tenures or Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework, more recently.

As I have said, at the macro level, I think these measures have worked well in stabilising our household debt situation. They have helped to strengthen household balance sheets. As I have mentioned earlier, they have, firstly, tempered the growth of household debt; and secondly, if you look at the risk profile of new borrowers, the risk profile has improved as well. For existing borrowers, as the Member has highlighted, there may be a small group who are vulnerable. That is a separate matter. Then, it is not so much in terms of taking the pre-emptive measures which we have done, but looking at help measures which we continue to do. The Government has a range of assistance measures which are focused and targeted, and these continue to be reviewed to make sure that they are effective.

Page: 35

11 Ms Chia Yong Yong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether a survey has been conducted, or an analysis done on existing data, on the percentage of profits contributed by companies as part of their corporate social responsibility commitment to Singapore and what strategies will the Government adopt to encourage such responsible commitments to mitigate the strain on the application of public funds to social causes.

In 2012, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) surveyed over 100 companies on corporate giving. Three in five companies surveyed said they contributed around or less than 0.5% of their pre-tax profits for year 2011 to local non-profit organisations. Cash donations were the most common form of giving and the median donations in cash were about $12,000 per company that year. That comes from a survey done by NVPC with 100 companies. It is not comprehensive but it provides a dipstick.

Besides the survey, we also have data from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and, according to the claim submitted through the IRAS in Year of Assessment 2012, companies which claimed for approved tax-deductible donations collectively donated about 0.32% of their pre-tax profits, with an average donation of about $30,000 per company. In Year of Assessment 2013, this percentage increased to 0.53%. So, from 0.32% in Year of Assessment 2012 to 0.53% in Year of Assessment 2013, with an average donation of about $46,000 per company.

More generally, we have seen corporate giving being on the rise. For example, over the past 10 years, donations by companies to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) doubled from $325 million in 2004 to $644 million in 2013. Companies have accounted for about two-thirds of total giving to IPCs for the past 10 years.

There are various financial incentives in place to encourage corporate giving. First, the Government offers 2.5 times tax deductions for donations to IPCs. Second, the Government supports the good work by non-profit organisations by matching donations through various schemes to encourage giving to the social sector. These include the Care and Share Movement for the social service sector, the Singapore Universities Trust for giving in the higher education landscape, the Community Silver Trust for the intermediate and long-term care sector and, more recently, the Cultural Matching Fund to benefit the arts and heritage sector.

To complement these financial incentives, the National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) is now stepping up its efforts to get more companies involved in giving back to the community. For example, the NVPC has started a regular series of lunches with CEOs

Page: 36

and business leaders. Through these sessions, the NVPC will facilitate the matching of companies with non-profit organisations. The NVPC hopes to share best practices and build a network of like-minded companies which can make a significant impact on society and benefit many social causes. This will strengthen current efforts by NVPC to promote corporate giving, which includes many of these existing efforts like the SG Gives portal, the Community Foundation of Singapore and the annual President's Volunteerism and Philanthropy Awards.

12 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the findings of the 18-month evaluation study on our road management measures that lead to the recommendation of implementing Singapore's next generation electronic road pricing system based on Global Navigation Satellite System technology; (b) what is the projected cost of maintaining the current ERP system relative to the new proposed system; (c) what will be the alternative use of land space freed up by the existing gantries; (d) what is the potential impact on motorists in terms of total ERP charges for long-distance compared to short-distance travellers; and (e) whether the Ministry is confident that the desired outcomes in managing our transport system can be achieved under the proposed system.

Mdm Speaker, the 18-month System Evaluation Test was a technical assessment to determine if Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) based on the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology can broadly carry out three functions. One, to conduct and enforce congestion charging, including distance-based charging; two, to collect and disseminate traffic data; and three, to provide other value-added services, such as electronic road-side parking. The conclusion is that it can.

The tender for GNSS-based ERP is ongoing and, as such, I should not disclose any of our cost estimates as it may well skew the tender submissions. What is clear, however, is that maintaining the current gantry system, which has been in place since 1998, will not be financially prudent.

The annual operating cost has risen by 80% over the last decade and a large part of the system is coming to the end of its life-cycle and will have to be replaced even if we do not move to a GNSS-based system. Physical gantries also take up land that could be freed up for more roadside greenery, for example, which would also be visually more pleasing. Although I have no doubt that many motorists would miss the presence of those gantries when they are eventually removed, especially as we have come to love them very much when they are not switched on.

Page: 37

The GNSS-based ERP can help traffic management in several ways. First, it can allow for distance-based pricing along the congested roads where we decide to implement ERP, which is more equitable as motorists will be charged according to the distance that they travel on these congested roads. However, exactly how much motorists will be charged, whether for short or long distance travel, will depend, amongst others, on the state of congestion then and what it takes to shift the traffic. Second, GNSS-based ERP is a smart technology where every vehicle can become a sensor for LTA to develop a more accurate and "live" picture of the traffic situation and intervene as necessary. Third, the same data can be broadcast to motorists to help them better plan their journeys and avoid congested roads.

While GNSS-based ERP can, indeed, improve traffic management as I have described, it alone cannot ensure that our roads continue to be relatively smooth-flowing overall. This requires a holistic approach through vehicle growth and population controls and the enhancement and promotion of public transport.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. Will this new GNSS ERP system infringe any form of privacy rights since it is able to track the whereabouts of every vehicle?

I think this is certainly something that we will pay very close attention to. What I can assure Members is that the data is aggregated and is anonymised, and that is usually how we would treat the information from traffic systems.

Some clarifications for the Minister. I think GNSS generally is good. But can I ask the Minister how it would impact different motorists, for example, taxi drivers who dwell and travel more distances within the congested roads as well as commercial and delivery vehicles which have to also dwell longer in congested areas? The second question is whether or not there will be an enlargement of the ERP catchment area. There is always a concern that when you leave your house, there is an ERP.

Mdm Speaker, I want to thank the Member for the two very good questions. First, we want to try to make sure that it is an equitable system. Today, I think what happens is that for as long as you pass the gantry, you are charged the same amount, regardless of the extent of travel along the priced road.

Going forward, we do have the option of pricing it in a different way. We will have to make sure that we take into account some of the implications on different groups of users and to try and arrive at as fair a solution as possible.

Page: 38

The second supplementary question was on the enlargement of the area. I had said earlier when I spoke on this subject in May last year – at the point of transition, only those congested roads that are then priced would be priced when we move to the GNSS-based ERP system. Subsequent to that, we will continue to adopt the same principles as we have today, which is that pricing is actually based on congestion along the affected roads.

I just want to expand upon the question from Mr Zainal just now. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that the privacy of the drivers is not compromised and that the data is not misused? I understand that this system would not be subject to the Personal Data Protection Act. Would it be made clear to the public what information would be collected and what it will be used for?

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. As I mentioned in reply to Mr Zainal Sapari earlier, what we can assure Members and commuters is that we will anonymise and aggregate the data. If we look at the situation today with all the mobile devices and how they are being used and how that can actually already be used to track the location of any particular individual, I would think that the situation with the GNSS-based system should not be of any concern.

13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the considerations adopted by schools when engaging external vendors for enrichment workshops; (b) whether schools are able to conduct such workshops using their own teachers or resources; and (c) whether schools have appropriate feedback policies when receiving feedback from their students on such workshops.

Mdm Speaker, schools conduct enrichment activities to broaden the school's curriculum according to the different needs and interests of their students. The type and frequency of enrichment activities may vary according to the students' needs. For example, schools may offer enrichment activities in the areas of self-management and social skills, sports and fitness, aesthetics and enterprise. These activities help to develop 21st century competencies in our students, such as communication, leadership and collaborative skills.

Schools engage vendors to conduct some of these workshops when there is value in tapping on the external expertise of those with requisite professional training or relevant life experiences, to complement the teachers' role. For instance, to promote an active lifestyle and a love of sports in students, external trained personnel are engaged to conduct enrichment programmes aimed at exposing students to specialised sports, such as

Page: 39

rollerblading and kayaking.

MOE provides schools with guidelines to assess the suitability of external vendors and the basket of criteria include their ability to deliver the programme objectives and their qualifications and experience. Schools may subsequently have the teachers conduct the enrichment programmes and workshops when they have built up their own expertise in the defined area or they may continue to use external vendors.

Students' feedback is sought on vendor-run enrichment programmes and workshops, usually through evaluation forms filled in by students. Teachers also conduct a review and reflection session with the students. Students' feedback and comments enable the school to evaluate the effectiveness of the enrichment programme and consider whether to engage the vendor for future programmes.

MOE will continue to work with schools to ensure that school programmes, including those run by vendors, remain relevant to the needs of our students.

I have received feedback from teachers who said that, if they are asked to conduct such enrichment classes, they are concerned about how the school would manage the feedback. Because if students are unhappy with the way the teachers conduct their enrichment workshops, then the teacher does not want to have to face the publicity of adverse social media reports and face embarrassment of having to deal with the students. May I ask the Minister what better way can we encourage students to go back to the school to provide feedback instead of publicising it on social media platforms?

I thank Mr Lim for his supplementary question. First, our teachers conduct a wide range of classes, including what they have to do in academic lessons, as well as in CCA. Indeed, there is a feedback mechanism even for existing classes. In terms of your question about social media, we discourage students from providing comments on social media on this because there is an existing channel for students to provide their feedback to the teachers to see how the classes can continue to be improved.

I thank the Minister for the clarifications earlier. The Minister alluded to the fact that we could always get feedback in terms of evaluating such courses. However, in recent times, we also had complaints where certain vendors – NGOs or from certain religious organisations – have also conducted such enrichment classes. In such cases, what is the vetting process put in place by the Ministry? For example, some kids may not know better where there are certain nuances or biasness in terms of some of the courses that are carried out.

Page: 40

I mentioned earlier on that when schools engage external vendors for the programmes, there is a set of guidelines which MOE has issued to the schools. Schools will use these guidelines to evaluate the vendors in the first instance and then there is a selection process. In the selection process, schools may interview potential instructors, look into the background of these instructors, obtain feedback from other schools or organisations that have previously engaged the potential instructors or even request a lesson observation.

There is a set of procedures in place for us to evaluate the vendors before even engaging them and then there is a process of getting feedback from students to make sure that the programme achieves its objectives.

14 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for National Development if the Ministry will consider offering first-time HDB flat buyers an option to choose a shorter lease of 70 years in addition to the current standard 99-year lease for new HDB flats.

Madam, buyers who prefer flats on a 70-year lease can buy them from the resale market and still be eligible for housing grants if they are first-time buyers.

As for new flats, HDB buys land from SLA for public housing on a 105-year lease. This has enabled HDB to build and sell new flats on a 99-year lease.

We do not think it necessary for HDB to sell new HDB flats with a 70-year lease, alongside 99-year flats. We do not think there will be strong demand for such an option. First, the upfront cost which HDB has to incur to offer a 70-year lease option is the same as that of a 99-year lease. Secondly, while a 70-year lease flat should be cheaper than a 99-year lease, the cost reduction is not directly proportionate to the reduction in lease. In other words, the market value of a property with 70-year lease does not equal to 70% of an identical property which has a 99-year lease. In fact, it is significantly higher. This is due to the time value of money and the fact that flats with a shorter lease tend to depreciate faster.

The fact is that we price new flats on a 99-year lease to be highly affordable for first-time buyers. With significant housing grants, first-timer families who today earn $1,000 per month can afford a 2-room BTO flat in a non-mature estate. Those who earn $2,000 can afford a 3-room BTO flat and those who earn $4,000 per month, a 4-room BTO flat. They can do so with little or no out-of-pocket cash.

Page: 41

However, we do offer HDB flats with short leases where it serves specific buyers' needs. For example, Studio Apartments are sold on a 30-year lease to senior citizens as their retirement homes.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I want to assure him that I recognise that the current schemes in place have made it more affordable for first-time owners.

My supplementary question goes back to the underlying reason why I asked the question in the first place. I am not asking for this to replace the 99-year option but to offer this as an additional option primarily because while I recognise it would not be 70% of the cost of the new flat but it would lower the price and make it even more affordable.

I hope the Minister could continue to consider ways to make it more affordable to own new flats and that this be placed on the radar screen as something which you do not rule out, if not for the present, perhaps in the future then. Just as for industrial spaces – the lease used to be 60 years and, now, they are on 30-year leases. I hope we will continue to explore ways to make new flats more affordable.

Yes, Madam, I keep my options open and I am always open to good ideas and suggestions. My sense is that if you offer a parallel option – a 99-year lease and a 70-year option – I doubt there will be any takers for the shorter option, for the reasons I have given. But I will not rule out some future possibility when we may want to set aside an entire block, for whatever reasons, for 70-year leases without any parallel 99-year option. Then, there may be a possibility of such a scheme, as proposed by the Member. But only if we decide that it is attractive and necessary at that particular point in time. At the moment, I doubt it.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18-19, 30-32, 34-41, 43-44 and 46-53 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 15-17, 20-29, 33, 42 and 45 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 November 2014.]

Page: 42

[(proc text) "to amend the Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 136 of 2004 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act (Chapter 274A of the 2012 Revised Edition) and the Trade Union Act (Chapter 333 of the 2004 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 43

Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the Private Members' Bills, namely, items 9 and 10 of the Orders of the Day on the Order Paper for today, be taken immediately after item 3.

I give my consent. Does the Whip have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the Private Members' Bills, namely, items 9 and 10 of the Orders of the Day on the Order Paper for today, be taken immediately after item 3." – [Mr Gan Kim Yong]. (proc text)]

Page: 44

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

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

Mdm Speaker, since the Government first announced the Pioneer Generation Package, many Pioneers have started to enjoy the healthcare benefits provided to them.

In July this year, 440,000 Pioneers received their Medisave top-ups which can be used to meet medical needs or medical insurance expenses. For many Pioneers, these top-ups have come on top of the annual GST Voucher – Medisave top-ups paid to seniors aged 65 and above.

In September alone, which was the first month since Pioneers received their PG cards, there had been about 317,000 Pioneer visits to Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs), Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) clinics and polyclinics which qualified for special subsidies on consultation and treatment. The Pioneers’ bills at the subsidised SOCs and polyclinics will be reduced even further when subsidies for their medication come into effect in January next year.

We also introduced the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme (PioneerDAS) where eligible Pioneers can receive monthly cash supplements. As of end-October 2014, about 14,000 Pioneers are benefiting from PioneerDAS.

Next year, all Pioneers will also receive additional subsidies to help pay for their MediShield Life premiums when the programme comes into effect. This will ensure that all Pioneers get to enjoy the enhanced benefits of MediShield Life, including the many Pioneers today who are not insured under MediShield.

The Pioneer Generation Package will provide these healthcare benefits to Pioneers for the rest of their lives. This support is on top of the substantial healthcare benefits that the Government already provides for all Singaporeans and which have been continuously enhanced. To ensure that funding for the Package is available beyond the current term of Government and regardless of the state of the economy, the Government will set up a

Page: 45

Pioneer Generation Fund.

Mdm Speaker, although the Pioneer Generation Package was only introduced earlier this year, awareness levels are relatively high. A survey by MCI showed that about eight in 10 Pioneers are aware of the Pioneer Generation Package. This is a significant improvement from just six months ago.

Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr Amy Khor, and I chair a Taskforce comprising members from the public and private sectors to reach out to Pioneers. Since its formation in April 2014, the Taskforce has rolled out various communications and outreach efforts on the Pioneer Generation Package, such as through TV interstitials, radio segments and print advertorials and even at getais, in both the official languages and dialects. This complements the letters and welcome packs mailed to Pioneers.

The People's Association and its Grassroots Organisations have, together, held more than 800 dialogues and briefing sessions on the Pioneer Generation Package. Many community organisations, such as MENDAKI and CDAC, have also stepped forward to spread awareness about the Pioneer Generation Package.

We are mindful, however, that even with these outreach efforts, it can be challenging for Pioneers and their caregivers to fully understand the Pioneer Generation benefits they stand to enjoy. Many Pioneers are not familiar with online resources or prefer face-to-face explanations which also allow them to seek clarifications.

We have, therefore, set up a Pioneer Generation Office to gather and train a group of volunteers called Pioneer Generation Ambassadors. These Ambassadors will visit the homes of our Pioneers to explain the Package to them and answer their queries. The Pioneer Generation Ambassadors' engagement is intended to be sustained and ongoing so that the Pioneers will always have a contact point whom they can approach if they have questions about the Pioneer Generation Package. The programme has just started in Nee Soon, Tampines and East Coast and will be introduced progressively to other constituencies.

Let me now turn to the Bill itself, which provides for the establishment of the Pioneer Generation Fund and its administration. As stated in Budget 2014, the Government will set aside $8 billion to meet the full cost of the Package. With accumulated interest over time, we estimate this amount to be sufficient to meet the projected cost of the Package, which is slightly over $9 billion.

Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the main features of the Bill.

Page: 46

Part II of the Bill sets out the purposes for which monies in the Pioneer Generation Fund may be used. It places the general responsibility for the management and administration of the Fund on the Minister for Finance and provides for the presentation of annual financial statements and Auditor’s report to Parliament.

Part III of the Bill defines the eligibility criteria for an individual to be considered a Pioneer and outlines the benefits which Pioneers stand to receive as part of the Pioneer Generation Package. The benefits include annual top-ups to the CPF Medisave Account; MediShield Life premium subsidies; extra subsidies for outpatient treatment and cash grants under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme.

Part III also provides for the powers of the Appeals Panel and how appeals may be made. The Panel may determine a citizen of Singapore to be a Pioneer provided that the person is born on or before 31 December 1949. As stated in Parliament on 8 September 2014, it was recognised, after extensive deliberation, that for any age criterion, there will be those who marginally fall short of the criterion. The Panel thus decided that it was not feasible or fair to allow age-related appeals without extending the new age criterion to all Singaporeans. This is why the Bill provided that the Appeals Panel will only be looking at citizenship-related appeals.

Parts IV and V of the Bill contain general provisions, including the power to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill and the proper conduct of officers and entities exercising functions under the Bill. Any decisions of the Appeals Panel made prior to the passing of the Bill are also taken as valid, so that the Panel could grant Pioneer status to those who have successfully appealed earlier.

Madam, the purpose of the Pioneer Generation Package is to recognise our Pioneers' contributions in developing Singapore. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said, it is "a special package for a special generation" who have built up Singapore to what it is today. The Package reduces the medical expenses of Pioneers, enables them to save more for their other needs and thus helps their family members as well. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Madam, this Bill is one that provides reassurance for our Pioneers, of our commitment to care for them, no matter what our future economic or fiscal outcomes are. It also provides for peace of mind for themselves

Page: 47

and their families. It is, indeed, a generous move on the part of the Government.

A central focus of this Fund is the various healthcare subsidies and assisted payment plans, without means testing. This is appropriate for the thrust of this Bill and the Fund because, when surveyed, our seniors and Pioneers have voiced rising healthcare costs and the ability to pay for their medical management and treatment as two of their top concerns and challenges.

A clarification, Madam: the term "healthcare provider" under clause 2 is defined as "any organisation providing one or more health services in the course of business". Can I ask if we should consider defining this with greater clarity or specifics? This is because the PG card, for example, can only be utilised in Government restructured hospitals as well as private entities, such as GP and dental clinics with the CHAS logo. The benefits and subsidies are not applicable when the Pioneers seek treatment at a private healthcare institution or healthcare provider. This can be critical, as leaving the definition generic and non-specific can lead to misinterpretations and confusion with consumer as well as Pioneer utilisation decisions. Of course, there are mentions in the Bill of public schemes and public authorities, but I feel that it should be a bit clearer.

Pertaining to the Fund and its funding: the Government has provided the seed funding for this and will monitor and regulate the funds. Can the Minister outline what other sources of income, donations, support and fund-raising can be utilised to augment this fund? Also, for interested parties, donors and sponsors, how do they go about doing this?

Another clarification with regard to clause 16: many of the disbursed funds will be through portals like Medisave, MediShield Life. For outpatient claims and other claims, how will the Ministry regulate this? Will there be some maximum claimable limit set, for example, annually, or will it be on a case-by-case consideration? This is not really very clearly defined and outlined and, in my interaction with the community and in the many dialogue sessions we have had, many Pioneers and their families have been asking for some clarity on this as well.

Next, for Pioneers who are in detention, for example, in prisons and also being incarcerated long term, how are they able to utilise their PG card and Pioneer status subsidies? Some family members have been asking for clarification on this as well. How about those who have been institutionalised, such as the Pioneers in nursing homes and old folks homes? How do their families practicalise their claims and utilisation?

Madam, whilst the majority of our Pioneers are delighted and happy and they welcome the package, how do we reduce misuse? I hesitate to use the term "abuse" as I feel these

Page: 48

cases are really unintentional and result more from a misinterpretation of information or the lack of information.

I have had some feedback from dental clinics. For example, some Pioneers had gone down to get their dentures done and were apprised of the cost by their dentist and even paid some of the downpayment as well. The mould had been prepared but they defaulted and then they came back to ask for reimbursements which created some misunderstanding and some problem as well with the clinic. This, of course, adds to the costs of dental practice, as we understand, not forgetting also taking up the time of AIC and MOH staff to follow up and investigate as well. Many of these issues can, I feel, be sorted out with better communication and use of clear signages and explanations at the clinics. I would appreciate the Ministry's inputs as well on this.

Also, Madam, such a package requires sustainable, impactful communications to educate the Pioneers and their families. I have to congratulate the Government on the many initiatives that have been put forth for this. One group of personnel though that I feel we can strengthen and align better with will be our frontline counter staff at Specialist Outpatient Clinics, GPs and dental clinic assistants. These are the people who will be our "ambassadors of the Pioneer Generation Package". The interaction that they have with the Pioneers will colour the perceptions of the Pioneers about the package. Therefore, we need to update and brief these personnel so that they have a very good and in-depth understanding of the utilisation processes.

I have actually encountered several elderly who have developed a negative view of this extremely good package, which is really unfair, because they were told by some of these frontline staff to go back and forth, to go back to their GPs, for example, to get assessments done for disability claims and so on and so forth. If we can simplify it for them and do it under one roof, that would certainly make it easier for our Pioneers. Indeed, simplification and streamlining processes for the Pioneers will have the positive impact that is intended.

As one of the Pioneer Generation residents in my constituency told me, she really felt that this package made her feel the real meaning of 家有一老, 如有一宝, which essentially means if you have a Pioneer or a senior in your home, it is really like having a valuable gem at home. Well, she interpreted it to me and said that it is like the Government is treating them as though they are valuable gems of the country, of the nation, and they really feel appreciated.

Madam, this Bill reflects the honour and privilege we accord our Pioneers, the generation that built Singapore. They more than deserve this. Thank you very much and I

Page: 49

support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill. This Bill is, by far, one of the boldest and most generous initiatives undertaken by the PAP Government in looking after the welfare of our senior citizens.

This fund is set up with a noble aim to recognise and thank each and every of our Pioneer Generation Singaporeans for their contribution in making Singapore what it is today. This Fund will greatly alleviate theirs and their families’ anxiety and concerns on healthcare bills as they live out their golden years.

Since September 2014, many of our 450,000 Pioneer Generation Singaporeans had experienced a significant reduction in their healthcare cost. Many, who did not qualify for the Pioneer Generation Package, came to see me at my Meet-the-People session (MPS) to appeal for inclusion in view of the benefits experienced by their Pioneer Generation friends.

In last Friday's Straits Times article, it was reported that many seniors who have not seen a dentist in a very long time are finally getting their teeth checked and fixed. Some 24,000 PG seniors visited the dentists with their PG Card in hand.

Currently, the large healthcare discounts for the Pioneer Generation are almost in full swing except for the subsidies of medicines and premiums for MediShield Life. Nonetheless, members of our Pioneer Generation are generally happy with the benefits of the PG Package.

The total cost of the PG Package in nominal terms will be slightly over $9 billion, and, with the accumulated interest over time, it is projected that the Pioneer Generation Fund will be enough to pay for the full cost of the package. Hence, sustainability is an important consideration with this package. With the multi-faceted subsidies to benefit 450,000 members of the Pioneer Generation, the Government will need to fulfil its obligations to those eligible for life.

Our Pioneer Generation seniors can also be assured, knowing that the Government has prudently set aside the full amount of the PG Fund now to ensure the sustainability of this package. This is a guarantee that Singapore will honour the commitment made to them, regardless of future economic or fiscal circumstances. In doing so, our budgets in subsequent years can be freed up to meet future needs and challenges without burdening future

Page: 50

generations.

What is clear is the need to ensure the PG Fund is well governed, prudently utilised and effectively deployed to achieve the desired outcomes for our seniors. We should also guard against being too bureaucratic or conservative in its application, resulting in an overtly under-utilisation of the PG Fund.

Several factors, however, can accelerate the utilisation of the PG Fund, threatening its adequacy. In 1990, the life expectancy of Singaporeans was 75 years, but, today, it is 82. The World Health Organization placed Singapore fourth in the world with the global average age of 70 years. Our citizens are able to enjoy longer longevity where a large part is credited to a world-class healthcare system and greater awareness of a healthy lifestyle. Should there be a breakthrough in science and medicine that enables us to live much longer, more PG Fund will be needed.

Mdm Speaker, I would also like to call for more transparency in healthcare costs for medicine and treatments. We need to avoid indiscriminate pricing by healthcare providers, which may have a double-whammy effect on making healthcare more expensive for our seniors and accelerating the depletion of the PG Fund.

Notwithstanding the Finance Minister’s pledge to ensure the benefits of the PG Fund do not run out, how can we ensure that the cost of living, especially healthcare costs, is insulated from spikes in an inflation? Singapore is a small country with highly porous borders and we are highly susceptible to global economic factors. At the moment, our inflationary rate is manageable, but there is no guarantee that external forces, such as the excessively high price of oil, would not result in the cost of living in Singapore spiralling upwards.

We have, for many years, achieved Budgetary Account balances, with some exceptions, mostly in surpluses. However, it is a known fact that with many rebates, close to 70% of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. Our Government's revenue has for some years now been dependent on indirect tax for income. Thus far, we have been fortunate to achieve fiscal surpluses. But, as more pressure builds up on providing social support, as well as the need for maintenance and replacement of existing infrastructures, our people need to be assured that the Government would not take the route of increasing direct income tax or other indirect taxes to raise revenue to fund demand for similar generous social measures.

Mdm Speaker, the PG Package and its many wonderful provisions reminded me of the traditional Chinese delicacy of 盆菜. This dish takes hours and hours of preparation, served in a large earthen pot. At every layer, it is stuffed with delicious delicacies. But, for the country, this is both a source of celebration and concern. Concern because, even in the face

Page: 51

of one of the worst global financial meltdowns in 2009, we had had to utilise $4 billion of our country's reserves.

This year alone, we are introducing various social programmes costing many billions. Moreover, the funding of the PG Fund is drawn from our Net Investment Returns of our reserves, and the source of the latter is dependent on prudence, governance and strong economic growth. Although the approach is one of prudent fiscal spending, for a small economy like Singapore, we are highly susceptible to shifting global external conditions beyond our control. The question is whether Singapore can continue to enjoy the trade winds of good investment yields from its reserves.

Mdm Speaker, we need to avoid well-intended good policy marred by poor execution. In this regard, we have introduced many measures that go to the heart of easing the living of all Singaporeans as much as possible, sparing no effort or funds. Many members of the Pioneer Generation may have little or no education, are monolingual and ignorant of current affairs. Thus, it would be a shame if people do not understand how they can benefit from all the goodness and benefits of the PG Package.

I must add that the Government has embarked on an aggressive and comprehensive outreach and communication plan to reach out to as many of our PG seniors and the public as possible. It is good to do a stock-take and see how effective this has been and what more can be done.

Mdm Speaker, the PG Package has been a popular policy with the recipients. This is evident as more than 100,000 of the PG members have started using their cards in just over two months. On the ground, during my interactions with my residents, many are appreciative and commented that the PG Package benefits are good. During my MPS, I have received appeals from seniors to be included even though they missed the qualifying criteria.

Many argued that they, too, have contributed to the building of Singapore. Some naturalised citizens, too, want to be included on grounds that they have been in Singapore for longer than their citizenship status. Although clauses 13 through 15 addressed the issue of who qualifies, as well as the appeal process, I hope for more transparency in the deliberation of the appeal. On what grounds would exceptions be made on these appeals?

Mdm Speaker, the crux of the issue is for members of the Pioneer Generation who need help to be able to receive them as quickly and seamlessly as possible. This is the basic issue that we have to address. The Government had spared no effort and resources in trying to get the message of the PG Package down to the recipients. We, therefore, owe it to ourselves, as well as the Pioneer Generation Singaporeans, to avoid hiccups and delays in the delivery,

Page: 52

such as subsidies in medicine and premiums for MediShield Life. With this, I support the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill. I also declare my interest: I am the President of SPD, a voluntary welfare organisation which falls within the definition of "healthcare provider" under the Bill, and a board member of SG Enable.

Madam, the principle of honouring our Pioneers and caring for this special group in their senior years is right and laudable. The healthcare-related needs of seniors intensify with age. It is, therefore, good and timely that greater attention is paid to such needs. An important component would, naturally, be financial assistance.

It is heartening that the healthcare-related schemes announced to-date by the Government under the PG Package do not require means-testing. By such, the PG Fund is rendered more accessible to Pioneers.

In this context, it is noted that clause 3 of the Bill states the purpose of the Act as "to recognise and honour the participation and sacrifice of Singapore's Pioneers in the development of Singapore by providing to them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of financial relief, assistance or other support to meet their healthcare costs, and other costs of living in Singapore." The Explanatory Statement to the Bill is similarly worded.

Madam, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the phrase "and are/or may be in need of financial relief". This phrase suggests that for a scheme to qualify for funding under the PG Fund, the disbursement of monies or provision of benefits to any Pioneer must be subject to means-testing or differentiation on the ground of financial need. If so, a scheme that benefits Pioneers without the requirement for means-testing would not qualify for funding under the PG Fund. That would be inconsistent with the declared intentions that the announced healthcare-related schemes should be drawn from the PG Fund because the current announced schemes do not require means-testing.

To address the foregoing concern, as well as concerns as to whether a Pioneer participated and made sacrifices in the development of Singapore, the language in clause 3 may be amended by replacing "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" with simply "Pioneers". This would remove doubts as to whether the PG Package healthcare-related schemes, as announced, are eligible for funding under the PG Fund and would also grant the Government greater flexibility in designing and qualifying future schemes under

Page: 53

the PG Fund. I do recognise that there are other possible interpretations of clause 3. But I would suggest that we should make a plain reading plain.

Madam, I support the provision under section 13(3)(c), which provides that a verification application for an individual under mental incapacity may be made by a donee under a lasting power of attorney. I would request that in the drafting of the regulations, a verification application may also be made by a Court-appointed deputy.

In relation to section 18 of the Bill, Parliament may also wish to consider the need to reserve a power or discretion to exclude or restrict any Pioneer or class of Pioneers from receiving benefits under the Act where it is expedient in the public interest, particularly in view of the stated purpose of the Act. This power or discretion may be incorporated into section 18(2).

Madam, allow me to now move on to some practical issues.

In as much as the intention is to make the PG Fund accessible to Pioneers, we need to take a holistic approach between schemes under the PG Package and other existing schemes. We should make accessibility to all these schemes as seamless and painless as possible. For example, whilst one common Functional Assessment Report is utilised for schemes administered by AIC, Sg Enable, SNTC and HDB, the form of the report states that it is, I quote, "NOT valid for claims under ElderShield and the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE)". With due respect, I fail to see a compelling reason, notwithstanding that ElderShield and IDAPE are administered by insurers, to subject the elderly to different functional assessment exercises for a similar assessment outcome. Would the Government consider rationalising the Functional Assessment Report requirements?

We should bear in mind the challenges enroute to obtaining such assessment reports. There are transport and other logistical challenges, such as how to go, who to accompany; there are cost constraints, such as taxi fare, caregiver to take leave, sometimes no-pay leave, payment for costs of assessment and certification; waiting time to obtain appointments, waiting time at the relevant clinics. It can be very debilitating for the patient and caregiver. Let us not make our Pioneers whom we wish to honour and their caregivers who are already under tremendous stress, undergo multiple assessments unnecessarily.

On a similar note, I would, therefore, request the Minister also to clarify if there would be requirements for periodic reassessment after an initial functional assessment has concluded that a disability is permanent or likely to be permanent.

Page: 54

In relation to PioneerDAS, the FAQs state that the sums disbursed under PioneerDAS may be used to pay for any expenses, at the discretion of the Pioneer. The Pioneer may also nominate a caregiver who is at least 18 years old to receive the payments. I have two concerns, which apply to all disbursements under the PG Fund. The first is that the Pioneer may be vulnerable and subject to undue influence. The second is that the minimum age of a caregiver who may be nominated to receive the payments should be raised to above 18 years. The minimum age would be an arbitrary number, I agree, but the relevant authorities would be in a good position to assess what an appropriate uniform minimum age would be, with discretion granted to the various scheme administrators to make exceptions as the circumstances may warrant. Pioneers should also be strongly encouraged to nominate suppliers and service providers to receive the relevant funds received from the PG Fund. This would reduce the risks of dissipation, which may otherwise leave the Pioneer deprived of the funds.

Under PioneerDAS, the FAQs also state that if a Pioneer passes away, the caregiver is required to submit a death certificate. Potentially, disbursements can continue to be made for as long as the death certificate is not submitted. Instead of relying on the diligence or good faith of the caregiver and the claw-back provisions, the registration of the death of a Pioneer could be immediately uploaded onto the scheme administrator's system through the Registry of Births and Deaths.

The FAQs also state that the Pioneer and his caregiver may nominate different bank accounts for different schemes. So, you could have a Pioneer with different bank accounts for PioneerDAS, ElderShield, IDAPE and the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant. We are concerned that the potential number of bank accounts would result in greater difficulty for the Pioneer to monitor and track transaction trails. I would, therefore, also urge the Government to rationalise payments into a single account, regardless of whether the schemes are administered by the public, voluntary or private sectors.

Having said the above, I would also like to urge my fellow Singaporeans to recognise that the responsibility should not be the Government's alone. It must be a family and community effort. Honouring our Pioneers does not lie in dispensing funds alone. It lies in according them respect and dignity. They should not be viewed as a burden to our community, but as valuable members of our community and, where applicable, as role models and mentors for the younger generation.

It is as frightful to be aged and lonely as it is to be aged and poor. The role of the family is something which no Government or VWO can assume. Loneliness is not a condition that the Government or a VWO can relieve. Love is not something that the Government or a VWO can give.

Page: 55

As we consider, debate upon and execute various Government schemes for Pioneers, I urge each Singaporean to examine our roles in relation to the Pioneers, seniors, people with different or special needs and others within our families and community.

We, who have seniors in our families, are we willing to assume responsibility for them? We, who have seniors in our neighbourhood, are we willing to be neighbours to them? We, who are employers, are we willing to engage and employ our seniors on fair terms? Are we willing to redesign the work scope and workspace to accommodate their needs whilst tapping on their experience? We see our seniors taking public transport, working in public places. Should we be kind and gracious to them? Do we even notice them? Or do we think that someone else will?

It is not a scheme or package that makes a country kind and gracious. Yes, that sets the tone. But it is every individual – you and I. Singaporeans. The young today will be aged one day. The able-bodied will slowly suffer functional disabilities. It is not someone else’s problem. It is our problem. We are the ones who determine the type of community we live in and the type of community we will live in in the future. The Government has set the tone for us in this Bill. The question now is: what will we, the common folk, do?

Our Pioneers merit special treatment. They made extraordinary sacrifices to build families under unfavourable conditions. Born before 1949, there was barely any real opportunity to secure any education or home. They grew up among the ravages of unemployment and socio-economic disadvantages in the 1950s and 1960s. CPF was started only in 1955. Neither was there a real opportunity to build up savings with their meagre salaries.

The true benefits of economic progress were enjoyed by the younger generations born after them. Our healthcare system has prolonged their life expectancies. Our education has made it hard for them to participate in the labour force. Even our modestly-priced public housing in the initial years was beyond the reach of many low-skilled workers. Some have been displaced from their agricultural livelihoods to make way for public housing, industrialisation and infrastructure. In other words, they were displaced to make way for our future.

This Fund is but a token of appreciation to recognise their past. We, their children, benefited from our economic progress built on their past and their sacrifices. We must work together with the State to galvanise more efforts to provide the seniors and the Pioneers with a dignified twilight.

Page: 56

Mdm Speaker, on that note, I support the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill.

Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr David Ong and Ms Chia Yong Yong, for their support of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill. As I speak, I am trying to look through my reading glasses. I am beginning to experience what it is like to cope with seniority. So, what Ms Chia, in particular, says about the challenges that our seniors, our Pioneers faced, I cannot say I relate to completely but I am beginning to experience it and it resonates with me.

I would like, Mdm Speaker, to respond to each of the Members' points. In order to organise this, I will respond to Assoc Prof Fatimah's points first, then Mr David Ong's and Ms Chia's, if that is permitted.

So, let me start with Assoc Prof Fatimah who had a question on how certain groups of Pioneers, such as those who are currently incarcerated or those who are in nursing homes, can benefit from the Pioneer Generation benefits.

Pioneers who are incarcerated already receive medical care provided by the Singapore Prison Service and, so, do not require subsidies for outpatient treatment while in prison. However, they will still receive the Medisave top-ups and receive premium subsidies for MediShield Life when it is implemented.

Pioneers in nursing homes are eligible for the same benefits as all other Pioneers, on top of the Government subsidies that they may receive for long-term care. Like other Pioneers, they can get the Medisave top-ups and the subsidies for outpatient treatment, which are useful if and when they are referred to the specialist outpatient clinics for treatment. Those with moderate to severe functional disability will benefit from the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme (PioneerDAS), which I introduced earlier, which can be used to support the cost of long-term care.

We have also reached out to our nursing home providers to inform them how to facilitate their patients' applications for PioneerDAS. And when MediShield Life is implemented, they will also receive special subsidies for Pioneers and have insurance coverage in case they are hospitalised.

Page: 57

Assoc Prof Fatimah is right to point out that Pioneer benefits do not apply to all clinics and settings and has asked whether we need to clearly define the term "healthcare provider" under section 2 of the Bill. The list of healthcare providers that disperse Pioneer Generation benefits will be gazetted under section 19 of the Bill. We also intend to put up this list of healthcare providers online so that members of the public can check against this list.

The important point is how Pioneers can more easily identify the healthcare providers where Pioneer benefits are available. In this regard, I am pleased to share with Members that, in fact, the CHAS GPs and subsidised SOCs have all been provided collaterals, such as standees, and encouraged to display these collaterals prominently so that Pioneers can see clearly that benefits are available to them. I think something visual, big and prominently located is easier for the Pioneers to identify. So, that is what we will continue to encourage the healthcare providers to do.

The PG Fund has been sized so that it is sufficient to cover the projected costs of the entire package. So, there is really no need for individuals and organisations to donate to the Fund. We encourage them instead to donate directly to charities or platforms, such as the SG50 Care and Share Movement. The impact of the donations will be doubled with the matching grants from the Government. This will provide additional resource support for the good work of our community organisations which directly help the vulnerable elderly. Monies in the PG Fund will be invested with the Government, which will pay a fixed return to the Fund annually. This is the same for other funds, such as the Goods and Services Tax Voucher Fund.

Assoc Prof Fatimah also asked whether there is a maximum claim limit under the package. As Members are aware, there are existing rules on how much a Member can withdraw from his CPF Medisave Account or how much he can claim via MediShield Life. The same rules apply to Pioneers. However, there is no cap to the number of years a Pioneer may claim the PG Package benefits because the Government is committed to providing them to all Pioneers for as long as they live.

Moving on to Mr Ong's points, he raised four main ones.

First, he emphasised the need to ensure that the PG Fund is well-governed. Let me assure Members that the Fund is subject to the same stringent governance structure already in place for other similar funds. It will be audited annually and its financial statement will be presented to Parliament every year.

Second, Mr Ong highlighted the concern of indiscriminate pricing of medicine and treatments by healthcare providers, especially where there are subsidies which are very

Page: 58

attractive. Madam, I believe that the vast majority of doctors are conscientious and take it upon themselves to always act in the best interests of their patients. Nonetheless, MOH closely monitors the claims submitted by the CHAS GPs and will not hesitate to call on clinics to account for exceptional claims. Let me add, too, that, as patients, we have to be careful to avoid asserting undue pressure on doctors by seeking treatment or medication excessively.

Third, Mr Ong is right to remind us that there could be unexpected or external factors that may lead to accelerated depletion of the Fund. We have, therefore, included a buffer for inflation and also taken into account utilisation due to the ageing demographics of Pioneers when sizing the Fund. But his broader point about the need to contain healthcare cost increases is an important one and there are three key strategies, as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman during his Budget round-up speech earlier this year.

First, we must rebalance the structure of our healthcare system to shift from an over-concentration of treatment in acute hospitals even when treatments can be effectively delivered through primary care or step-down care providers.

Second, we must ensure that we have the right incentives for healthcare providers, doctors and individuals and we must avoid over-prescription by ensuring that treatments are clinically necessary and cost-effective.

Third, all of us must take responsibility for maintaining healthy lifestyles and utilise healthcare services prudently. This is a long-term effort and we will all need to do our part to control healthcare costs.

Finally, Mr Ong asked about the Appeals Panel criteria. For citizenship-related appeals, the Panel has been considering the relevant factors of each case. These factors include whether the appellant had been in Singapore in the early years of Independence, demonstrated clear efforts to sink roots in Singapore and had obtained Singapore citizenship shortly after the 1986 cut-off date.

On age-related appeals, the Panel had deliberated on the matter extensively and it was a very difficult debate. It recognised that, for any age criterion, there will be those who marginally fall short of the criterion. Some appeals pointed out that they actually missed out the 31 December 1949 criterion by a mere few hours. So, the Panel has decided that, as difficult as it is, it was not feasible or fair to allow age-related appeals without extending the new age criterion and to all Singaporeans. In other words, shift the line completely. It is decided that it is not feasible to do so and, so, the Bill reflects these decisions accordingly.

Page: 59

Let me now turn to Ms Chia Yong Yong's points. Ms Chia has asked to replace the line, I quote "them who are elderly and are or may be in need of" from section 3 of the Bill with "Pioneers" should this give the impression that the PG benefits will be means-tested. The Government does not intend to introduce means-testing to the PG Package. The intent of the Package is to honour and recognise the contributions of all Pioneers in nation-building, regardless of their financial status. As such, they receive similar special benefits, on top of healthcare subsidies which the Government already provides for all Singaporeans.

Let me assure Ms Chia and Members that section 3 is an acknowledgement that our Pioneers are likely to be less well-off and be in need of greater assistance. It is meant to reflect a fact and not to signal the Government's intent to restrict Pioneer benefits to the financially needy. So, I want to make that clarification and I hope that Ms Chia would be willing to accept this clarification, which is also a matter of record in this debate.

Ms Chia had a suggestion to provide for a verification application for an individual under mental incapacity to be made by a Court-appointed deputy under section 13(3) of the Bill. The Appeals Panel has operated for a while under the current provision and it has not encountered such an instance. Nonetheless, we understand where Ms Chia is coming from and we will keep the suggestion in view. I can also give Members the assurance that we will exercise flexibility when it comes to accepting appeals on behalf of persons with mental incapacity. The intent is to evaluate the appeals on their own merits than the way in which they are received. Yes, there is a provision in the Act but I can give Members the assurance that we will be willing to exercise flexibility in accepting appeals.

Ms Chia has also suggested that we consider the need to reserve discretion to exclude or restrict any Pioneer or class of Pioneers from receiving benefits under the Bill, where it is expedient in the public interest to do so. There is actually no need for us to reserve this discretion as the PG Package is a commitment by the Government to all Pioneers that they will receive these benefits for life. Such a clause would be counter to this intention.

Ms Chia raised several very useful points on the PioneerDAS, ElderShield, Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE) and the Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant. She is right that we should endeavour to make access seamless. Her point also underscores the challenges that the Government faces when introducing new schemes and the tremendous effort that needs to go into their implementation, so as not to confuse citizens and make it seem as though they have to jump through multiple similar hoops in order to access the benefits. Now, they are very important feedback that we should rightly share with MOH in whose purview these schemes lie and which will need to be involved in making the improvements. So, I give Ms Chia and Members the assurance that we will take it up with MOH and we will explore ways in which we can ensure that the implementation

Page: 60

process makes access to the scheme more seamless.

Once again, I thank Members for their very thoughtful comments and for their support of the Bill. In closing, I could not help but be struck by Ms Chia's speech, especially the second half. I think she said something that I have felt for a very long time, ever since I began serving as a Member of Parliament. She said, if I may quote, that "loneliness is not a condition that the Government or a VWO can relieve. Love is not something that the Government or a VWO can give". She is very right. And in the passing of this Bill, I also join her in calling on all Singaporeans to work together with the state to galvanise more efforts to provide the Pioneers with a dignified twilight. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 2 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 17 – (proc text)]

Ms Chia, I understand that you have an amendment to move to clause 3. Do you have a copy of the amendment in writing and are copies available for distribution?

Yes, Madam [A handout was distributed to hon Members]. Madam, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 12 and 13, to leave out the words "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" and insert the word "Pioneers".

The hon Member has indicated that she would like to move an amendment to this clause and the amendment has already been distributed to Members. As inadequate notice has been given of this amendment, it is subject to the consent of the Chair and the general assent of Members present. I give my consent.

Page: 61

Let me now turn to Members of the House. Are hon Members agreeable to the amendment to be moved? Can I have an indication from hon Members whether you are agreeable to the amendment to be moved by Ms Chia to clause 3, an indication of yes or no? Can I have a louder sense of whether it is an indication of a yes or a no?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

Mrs Teo, do you wish to say something?

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to humbly request Ms Chia to reconsider tabling this notice of amendment. As I have explained in my response speech to the Member's comments during the Second Reading, the intent of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill is really not to restrict the benefits at all. The line in which she referred to in section 3, in fact, is merely a statement of a fact. This clarification would already stand part of parliamentary records.

As to the proposed amendment to clause 18(2), in fact, it would restrict the provision or benefits to the extent that was not intended by the PG Package. We do not think that it is necessary to insert the words "or if the Minister deems it expedient in the public interest to so declare". In other words, we do not think there is any need to give the Minister this power to exclude any particular group of Pioneers or any Pioneer from enjoying the benefits. So, I just want to make that clarification.

Ms Chia, do you wish to reconsider or do you intend to proceed with your amendment?

With Mdm Speaker's permission, if I could just clarify my motivation to move this amendment. I have heard the Senior Minister of State. I think, all the more, if the intention is that we do not wish to conduct any means-testing, that we should remove any doubt that financial need may be a criterion in any scheme that is to benefit under the Fund.

This is to avoid any argument subsequently that a scheme had been improperly administered because it fell outside or did not satisfy clause 3 because there was no requirement for financial differentiation. I would urge the Senior Minister of State to consider and advise me accordingly.

Mrs Teo, do you wish to respond?

Page: 62

Yes, Madam. In fact, in section 3, it more or less falls within the preamble of the Bill. In the preamble of the Bill, we described the intent of the Bill. In describing the intent of the Bill, we provided the background as to why the Government has decided to put forward a package that would provide relief to Pioneers in their twilight years. It is meant to focus on supporting them in their healthcare expenses.

One of the reasons that we provide for putting up the PG Package is to record the fact that in the earlier years of nation-building, many of our citizens would not have been in a position to save very much or to accumulate balances that would help them in their retirement years. And that is primarily because their wages were not very high in those years. So, it is really intended as a provision of a background and I think it has to be read in that context. That is why I reiterate and really hope that Ms Chia can take it from that perspective.

Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I do apologise, but I would like to put this to the House. Thank you, Mdm Speaker.

Ms Chia, please move your amendment.

Chairman, I beg to move, "In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" and insert the word "Pioneers".

[(proc text) Amendment negatived. (proc text)]

Chairman, point of Order. As you have indicated, Madam, the notice for amendment came very late. It really has not given us enough time to consider this. I wonder if it may be possible to put this to a vote at a later time, possibly tomorrow, because we are likely to have to sit tomorrow.

Mrs Teo, assent has already been given to move it, but Members have not agreed to the amendment. There has been a strong endorsement to say "No" to the amendment. So, assent was given to move it, but the amendment is not accepted because the majority of the Members of the House do not agree to the amendment.

[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

Ms Chia, you have also given an indication that you intend to move an amendment to clause 18. Would you like to indicate your amendment?

Page: 63

Madam, in view of the explanation given by the Senior Minister of State, I would not move the amendment. And I apologise to the House for the late notice.

[(proc text) Clauses 18 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, if I may just touch on the earlier proposal by the Member, Ms Chia, on clause 3. Although the Bill would be passed, I think we want to make a note that we will still take a look at the Bill again and, if it is possible to do so, introduce a Notice of Amendment. So, I just wanted to put that on record.

[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Page: 64

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

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

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2014, or "the Bill" for short, covers income tax changes announced in the 2014 Budget Statement as well as other changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime.

The draft Bill was released for a public consultation exercise from 4 to 24 July this year. MOF has evaluated all the feedback received and, where relevant, accepted the suggestions.

Madam, the tax changes announced in the 2014 Budget Statement have already been debated in this House. Let me highlight the key changes.

First, the Productivity and Innovation Credit, or PIC Scheme, has been extended for three years till Year of Assessment (YA) 2018 to provide more time for businesses to put in place productivity improvements. We have also introduced a PIC+ Scheme to provide additional support to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which are making more substantial investments to transform their businesses. Under the PIC+ Scheme, qualifying SMEs can enjoy a higher expenditure cap of $600,000 for each PIC qualifying activity per YA. This is 50% or $200,000 more than the existing PIC cap of $400,000. Other enhancements have also been made to the PIC Scheme.

From YA 2014, businesses can claim PIC benefits for training of seconded staff from other organisations or persons working for them under centralised hiring arrangements. Such arrangements are quite common in the hotel and food & beverages industries and occur when the hiring function of a group of companies is centralised in a single entity and employees are subsequently deployed to related entities within the group. The cost of training such staff is borne by the respective entities to which the employees are deployed or seconded and should rightly be supported by PIC since they also improve business productivity. This change was made in response to industry feedback.

Second, the additional 50% tax deduction for R&D activities has been extended for 10 years till YA 2025 and the scheme to allow writing down allowance for acquisition of

Page: 65

Intellectual Property Rights has also been extended for five years till YA 2020.

In line with the definition used by the World Intellectual Property Organization, intellectual property rights must be creations out of intellectual activities and we have, therefore, added a negative list to exclude items which do not meet the definition. We will be excluding customer information and documentation on work processes, such as Standard Operating Procedure manuals, that do not contain any industrial know-how. However, documentation on work processes containing industrial information or techniques that will assist in the manufacturing or processing of goods or materials will continue to qualify for the writing down allowance under section 19B in the proposed legislation, provided that they relate to industrial know-how that can be legally protected. These are provided for in clauses 20 to 22 and 30 to 32.

Third, we will make clear that Additional Tier 1 hybrid instruments issued by Singapore-incorporated banks will be treated as debt for tax purposes. This means that distributions on such instruments will be deductible for issuers and taxable in the hands of investors, unless specifically exempted from tax. The change will help maintain a level-playing field for these banks as their distributions will be deductible, similar to the tax treatment accorded to banks incorporated in countries like the United Kingdom. These are provided for in clauses 6, 8 and 48.

Fourth, the quantum of parent relief, handicapped parent relief and other handicapped dependant-related reliefs will be increased from YA 2015 to provide greater recognition to individuals supporting their dependants. We will also allow sharing of the parent relief and handicapped parent relief among claimants according to a proportion agreed between the claimants. This is provided for in clause 45.

Madam, MOF regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I shall now outline other key changes arising from MOF's periodic review of the tax regime.

First, we will introduce anti-abuse measures for the PIC Scheme. IRAS has come across abusive arrangements aimed at artificially creating or inflating PIC claims, especially where cash payouts are involved. While such cases constitute a minority of PIC claims, additional measures are necessary and have been included in the Bill to tighten the qualifying conditions for PIC cash payouts, as well as to target abusive arrangements and the intermediaries who promote or facilitate such arrangements. These measures include: requiring a PIC automation equipment to be in use before an application for PIC cash payout on the equipment can be made; strengthening the Comptroller’s powers to deny PIC benefits arising from PIC abusive arrangements; and imposing penalties on intermediaries who promote or facilitate PIC claims for such abusive arrangements. These changes are elaborated in clauses 40 and 42. These changes are not expected to affect businesses making

Page: 66

bona fide PIC claims, but seek to deter the small minority of businesses which attempt to make artificial or inflated PIC claims. IRAS will also continue to ensure timely disbursements to businesses for their legitimate claims.

The second amendment arising out of our regular and periodic review is to allow expenses incurred by a person for the purpose of complying with statutory and regulatory requirements of his business, to be tax-deductible with effect from YA 2014. This promotes good corporate governance and voluntary compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The change is provided for in clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill.

Third, we will allow Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) members who have reached the retirement age to withdraw investments from their SRS accounts without the need to liquidate the investments. Currently, such SRS members can only make withdrawals in the form of cash. This necessitates the liquidation of SRS investments. To reduce transaction costs for SRS members, they will be allowed to withdraw their SRS investments by transferring them into another investment account, such as their personal Central Depository accounts, without the need for prior liquidation. Similar to cash withdrawn from the SRS accounts, the value of such SRS investments withdrawn will be brought to tax. Clauses 5, 53 and 57 provide for these.

Fourth, we will amend the Act to enable Singapore to ratify the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. This is a multilateral exchange of information treaty that Singapore signed in May 2013 to enhance Singapore’s international tax cooperation framework.

The changes will allow Singapore to be in a position to engage in spontaneous exchange of information (EOI), as well as administer group EOI requests, both of which are requirements under the Convention. Spontaneous EOI refers to an instance where IRAS, in the course of tax assessment, comes across information which it thinks is relevant to a foreign tax administration and transmits the information to that tax administration spontaneously on its own accord. Group EOI requests are requests for information on a group of persons where the persons are not individually identified, but can be identified as a group using certain unique characteristics. For example, a country may ask for information on its nationals who bought a certain product from a certain bank over a specified period. Such international cooperation measures are increasingly adopted by countries working together to combat cross-border tax evasion and our moves are in line with that of a responsible tax jurisdiction in the international community.

To harmonise our tax cooperation framework across all EOI instruments, we will also incorporate these two changes in other relevant arrangements such as Avoidance of Double

Page: 67

Taxation Agreements. The changes are provided for in clauses 2 and 61 to 63.

The remaining legislative changes are mostly technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mdm Speaker, I wish to declare that I own and operate businesses that are subjected to the corporate components of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.

This Bill covers a large number of changes. I will focus on some aspects related to the PIC scheme and to also propose an item for the Government to consider in future amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill.

First, on PIC. A survey of local companies released by PWC Singapore last month reported that only 6.3% of those surveyed intended to tap on the R&D tax benefits offered in the PIC scheme. The report suggested a mismatch in defining R&D for business and tax purposes. The report concluded that "what is clear from the results is that respondents are seeking more engagement via a two-way dialogue with IRAS in the R&D claim progress".

Madam, I have spoken previously in this House about the extremely low utilisation of R&D support under the PIC scheme. The report is consistent with my own observations about the experiences of technology companies, especially the smaller ones that have found difficulties in claiming cash payouts under the PIC scheme for R&D. It seems that IRAS applies a very strict definition of what would qualify as R&D activities which makes it difficult for smaller companies to tap on PIC to help them in what they may consider as necessary R&D activities for their own development.

It would be unfortunate if companies hold back on investing in R&D because of the difficulties in securing Government support as I believe that such expenditures are needed to make quantum leaps in productivity as new technologies, systems and methods can drastically change business models to great advantages. This is especially essential if Singapore is to move into the next lap of having innovative companies that are competitive on the global stage.

Compared to other categories of allowable claims in PIC, R&D expenditure does appear more difficult to claim under the cash payout. Companies may be tempted to take a more

Page: 68

convoluted method if they really want to try very hard to claim PIC support, say, for original software development. For example, a company could place out their staff with another software company and get the software company to build the application and then sell back the completed system, with all intellectual properties (IP) to it, and then hire back the staff involved in the development. Or, perhaps, have the system charged as website development by a friendly third-party developer if the product is a web-based system. This may allow it to qualify for claims under IP or website capital expenditure. I do not think this is a scenario IRAS wants to encourage. Nevertheless, with the seemingly difficult experiences that some companies may have with qualifying under R&D support for PIC cash payout, some may, indeed, try creative methods to claim R&D work through another aspect of PIC that is more lax.

While I appreciate that the Government wants to tighten abusive PIC claims, I hope that when it conducts its regular reviews of the PIC scheme, the Ministry can look into how R&D activities can be broadened in the PIC definition so that companies that genuinely wish to commit their staff towards building essential systems to support innovative new business processes can benefit from this scheme.

Next, under the changes proposed to tighten PIC claims to prevent abuse in section 371, I wish to seek clarification on what the Ministry would consider as PIC automation equipment to be "in use" so that it qualifies for cash payout. This is because, sometimes, businesses may invest in spare capacity, say, for disaster recovery use or for future anticipated use. Perhaps, it would be useful to clarify if situations such as these can qualify for PIC cash payouts.

Lastly, for future amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, I would like to suggest that the Ministry look into more relevant packages to encourage more merger and acquisition (M&A) activities amongst our local companies, especially the smaller ones. I have spoken about this before in this House as well. Even as we try to encourage productivity amongst our companies, my concern is that we have many companies that are very small in size. Even with Government support for automation and productivity measures, it is often very difficult to extract significant increases in productivity if the scale of business is small. Hence, M&A is a way to encourage the amalgamation of businesses to provide the scale for automation and changes to business processes that could see our companies becoming more competitive on the global scale.

The current M&A tax incentives are due to expire in March next year. My reservations over the existing M&A tax incentives are that they are structured in a manner that makes it unattractive or not very meaningful for smaller companies to tap on the schemes for M&A. Hence, utilisation of this scheme appears to be very low. Since I have already given suggestions previously in this House on my proposed changes to the M&A scheme, I shall not elaborate on this today. I hope that these suggestions can be incorporated in the design

Page: 69

of new M&A tax schemes in the future. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo.

Mdm Speaker, first, let me thank the Member, Mr Yee, for his suggestions on the M&A scheme. Indeed, I think one of the issues that he highlighted is that some companies are so small that it is quite difficult for them to have the capacity – the bandwidth – to undertake not only R&D activities, it is even difficult for them to get started on productivity improvements. But what I am glad to share with Members is that, notwithstanding the difficulties, actually, our SMEs have done quite well in terms of embarking on the productivity journey.

If Members recall, we started PIC about three, four years ago and, in the first year of its implementation, at the time, just about one in three of the SMEs were able to file claims and enjoy the benefits of PIC. So, it was 34%. If we fast forward three years down the road, that number has gone up to 42%. So, we have seen an improvement in terms of the take-up of PIC amongst businesses. Some of it can be attributed mainly to just greater awareness. Others can be attributed to enhancements in the schemes so that they provide more timely support to the SMEs in their pursuit of productivity improvements and we would like to see this continue and that is why the scheme is being extended for a further three years. We hope that that gives businesses that sense of urgency to embark on their productivity journey.

Forty-two percent may not seem like a big enough number but I just want to remind Members that it is 42% in a particular year. Cumulatively, if we add it up, in fact, the number could be larger. In other words, if we add up all the businesses – SMEs that have taken advantage of PIC to embark on productivity improvements – I believe that the number is bigger than 42%, because 42% is the number of SMEs that applied in the most recent year. So, that is part of our challenge and it is an ongoing one. It is going to be a multi-year effort, it is not going to happen overnight and it is going to require sustained effort.

Mr Yee sought clarification and this was in relation to the tightening of the disbursements of cash payouts. He wanted to know when IRAS required that the automation equipment be "in use" in a business before it would consider disbursing the cash payout. And he wanted to know when we say "in use", what is it referring to? I could outline briefly what we are looking for.

Page: 70

At the minimal, for the equipment to be "in use", it ought to be on the premises or in the place of operation of the business. In other words, it is deployed for the purposes of the business. It is not sitting in the warehouse or, in some cases, not yet even delivered and only an order has been placed and it is, perhaps, not even being manufactured yet. So, "in use" has to be minimally within the premises or the place of business.

Another consideration would be that the business has an intention to use this automation equipment. The example that Mr Yee raised, supposing this was to be used as standby equipment for disaster recovery or some other purpose, the business is very well in a position to articulate its intended use and they can explain to IRAS what that equipment is being deployed to do. Even if it is as a standby equipment for disaster recovery, they can explain what that automation equipment is being used for. So, that is the intention when we require that the automation equipment be "in use".

But, Madam, the more important point that I wanted to highlight to Members is that in deciding to tighten and introduce some of these anti-abuse measures, we have been very careful in that they ought not be a very broad sweep and it has to be targeted at where the problem arises and we know from the task force that has been formed and the investigations into cases that have been brought to IRAS’ attention, that the abuses tend to occur for the cash payouts.

In other words, besides the cash payouts, where the claims of PIC benefits are to offset the taxes payable, there have been very few problems. It is really, where cash payouts are concerned, that it appears, to some unscrupulous intermediaries or businesses that are not bona fide, to be a very easy way to get hold of cash. So, the anti-abuse measures are not broad sweeping. They are targeted at mainly those that involve PIC cash payouts. That is still our intention to make sure that the anti-abuse measures are not in any way standing in the path of genuine businesses trying their best to make productivity improvements.

Mr Yee had also highlighted his concerns about R&D and whether there is a two-way engagement between IRAS and the potential applicants. We had started by talking about some businesses being of very small scale and Mr Yee has given suggestions for future amendments to consider whether the M&A scheme can be improved. Therein lies the difficulty that when we see that the level of R&D activity amongst SMEs is not as high as we would like it to be, one of the contributing reasons is that many of them remain very small. So, in terms of SMEs undertaking R&D activities, that has been one challenge.

MOF and IRAS have also reviewed feedback and found that there is an issue with R&D submissions by SMEs. Quite a number of them do not qualify due to insufficient information provided to support their R&D claims or lack of clarity in understanding the qualifying criteria. In this regard, I agree with Mr Yee that we have to make a greater effort to reach out and to

Page: 71

help our SMEs understand what the scheme is about and also to take feedback from them on how we can continuously improve on the administration of the scheme.

One of the ways in which we have done so is to release a revised e-Tax Guide that provides more clarifications on the R&D qualifying criteria, explanations of its review process for R&D claims and the types of documentation that companies can use to substantiate their R&D claims.

To further help the SMEs, IRAS has also published a simplified set of guidelines on its website and will certainly work with the SMEs to identify alternative ways of supporting their R&D claims. IRAS is also willing to provide more examples of qualifying industry-specific R&D activities, starting with the Information Communications and Technology (ICT) sector and the F&B industry. In other words, what IRAS will do is to go sector-by-sector and say what kind of activities within each sector will qualify for R&D support. So, the revised guidance should help SMEs with their R&D claims. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo]. (proc text)]

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

Page: 72

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

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

The main role of the Public Trustee is to function as an administrator of last resort for estates of deceased individuals which do not exceed $50,000 in value. The Public Trustee manages about 8,000 estates each year, including cases involving un-nominated CPF monies. The Public Trustee can also be appointed as an ordinary trustee where there is a clear public interest, or as a litigation representative of minors in suits relating to trusts or the administration of a deceased person's estate.

The Public Trustee (Amendment) Bill 2014 seeks to make three main changes to the Public Trustee Act.

First, to introduce a new system for paying interest to the estates governed under the Act;

Second, to change the name and composition of the Public Trustee Investment Board; and

Third, to require the Public Trustee's views or written consent to be sought or obtained, before it is appointed to assume various duties under the Act.

These amendments arose from MinLaw's regular review of the Act and seek to enhance the operations of the Public Trustee. I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.

First, the new system for paying interest to estates. Mdm Speaker, presently, trust monies held by the Public Trustee are pooled into a common fund established under the Act and invested with the sanction of the Public Trustee Investment Board. These monies are invested primarily in fixed deposits. Interest income is paid to the individual trust estates each year at a rate which is declared in advance by the Minister.

This practice of declaring the interest rate in advance means that the actual interest earned may differ from the interest rate that was declared earlier, resulting in a surplus or

Page: 73

deficit for any given year. Surpluses are held in a reserve fund and are used to top up potential deficits.

Clauses 10 and 12 introduce a new "flow-through" system for the payment of interest income. The Public Trustee will specify the rate of return payable to each trust estate at the end of each pre-determined investment period. This rate of return will thus be based on the actual interest received during the investment period, after accounting for the costs related to the investments.

Second, Madam, I move on to changing the name and composition of the Public Trustee Investment Board. The second set of amendments is connected to the first. Presently, the Public Trustee Investment Board oversees the Common Fund by, amongst other things, sanctioning the investment mandate and activities of the Public Trustee.

First, the Public Trustee Investment Board will be renamed as the Investment Board.

Second, the composition of the Investment Board will be changed to comprise:

the Permanent Secretary of MinLaw as Chairman;

the Public Trustee; and

three other members to be appointed by the Minister, of whom at least one must be a public officer.

The Chairman of the Investment Board will be the Permanent Secretary of MinLaw, since the Public Trustee's Office is under MinLaw.

While public officers will continue to form the majority of the Investment Board, two members of the Investment Board may be from the private sector. This will enable MinLaw to tap on members from the private sector with expertise in investment and fund management in the oversight of the Common Fund.

The third amendment pertains to requiring the Public Trustee's views or written consent to be sought or obtained. Currently, the Act provides that the Public Trustee may be appointed to:

represent a minor;

Page: 74

administer small estates;

become a trustee of any will or settlement or instrument creating a trust; or

be granted probates of wills or letters of administration.

However, the Act does not require the Public Trustee’s views or written consent to be sought or obtained before being appointed. As a result, there have been cases where the Public Trustee was appointed even though the parties were well able to afford the engagement of a private trustee.

To address these concerns, clauses 5 and 6 require the Public Trustee's views to be sought before being appointed to represent a minor or administer small estates. In such cases, it is more likely than not that the public interest will be served by having the Public Trustee to act in these cases. Hence, the Court can order the appointment of the Public Trustee on giving notice to the Public Trustee and hearing the Public Trustee's views.

Clause 7 requires the Public Trustee's written consent to be obtained before being appointed a trustee of any will, settlement or instrument creating a trust.

Clause 8 requires similar consent before an executor who has obtained probate or an administrator who has obtained letters of administration may apply to transfer the estate to the Public Trustee for administration.

Collectively, these amendments will ensure that the State's resources are deployed to administer cases only where there is sufficient public interest for the Public Trustee to do so.

There are also miscellaneous amendments to be made to enhance the Public Trustee's administrative efficiency. The amendments in clause 3 allow the Minister to appoint Deputy Public Trustees, while the amendments in clause 4 allow the Public Trustee to authorise persons to carry out his functions. The amendments to clause 4 will allow the Public Trustee to outsource the fund management function to a professional fund manager.

To summarise, the Bill brings about a number of operational changes to enhance the performance of the Public Trustee's duties and functions and the management of the Common Fund. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Page: 75

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

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

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

I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.41 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Page: 76

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

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

Human trafficking is the acquisition of an individual by improper means, such as force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them. It is a lucrative transnational crime involving the recruitment, manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals. Many have referred to Trafficking-in-Persons, or TIP in short, as modern-day slavery and the global problem remains acute.

Singapore is often described as a destination country for TIP. Through our existing criminal laws and active enforcement, the TIP situation in Singapore has been kept under control. Notwithstanding this, Singapore remains vulnerable to such crimes, not least because of our attractive economic conditions and status as a regional hub. This challenge is exacerbated by the increased movement of persons across national boundaries today and the ease with which they can do so. As such, we must continue to effectively detect and deter TIP activities with strong laws, supported by robust enforcement and victim support measures.

Why do we need this specific law? While we have laws in place, such as the Penal Code, the Women's Charter, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to criminalise specific aspects of TIP, these do not operate under a consistent TIP framework. Furthermore, these laws were enacted some time back and would not have factored in prevailing TIP trends.

For example, the Women's Charter is gender-specific and does not cover situations where men are trafficked. The Immigration Act deals more with the smuggling of persons into Singapore, as opposed to trafficking in persons. The Children and Young Persons Act provides protection to a child or young person who is defined as under 14 and 16 years of age respectively, whereas the international standard classifies persons below 18 years of age as children for TIP purposes. Lastly, while the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) protects foreign worker well-being and employment conditions, the penalties contained within were crafted for employment offences, not the more serious labour trafficking offences.

Mdm Speaker, allow me to emphasise that underlying this Bill is the need for us to show care and compassion for people, whether Singaporean or foreign, who have been, and continue to be, victims of human trafficking. If one is talking about vulnerability, this is a

Page: 77

group of individuals that are extremely vulnerable, perhaps the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and, therefore, we must, out of principle, take steps to protect and care for them. Our role is not just to help them – we need to partner them and give them a sense of hope. We should partner them to restore their dignity – their dignity as a person, as a human being.

When I visited a local shelter this year, I was moved by the commitment of the staff in their care for trafficked women. During a tour of the centre, they shared the centre's philosophy: "It is worthwhile to leave the whole world behind to save one life." Such is the commitment of the many good people who assist the vulnerable who fall prey to trafficking syndicates.

The Bill shares that ethos. Indeed, if a syndicate is deterred from exploiting just one person as a result of this Bill, it would have served its purpose. Of course, it is hoped that the Bill will protect more than just one person from being exploited.

It was against this backdrop that I had mooted last year the proposal to introduce a dedicated law against human trafficking. I was very encouraged by the Government's shared concern and their support. There was close collaboration with the interagency Trafficking-In-Persons (TIP) Taskforce, co-led by MHA and MOM over the past 11 months.

As part of developing the Bill, the Taskforce and I also canvassed views from all segments of society. This is in the hope of creating a law that reflects the values of the community and one that we can collectively endorse and co-own. Between March and April 2014, four separate public dialogues were conducted. These complemented two private dialogue sessions with NGOs, VWOs and interested Singaporeans. A consultation paper was also hosted on the REACH portal from 19 March to 18 April 2014. Almost 300 individuals, including NGOs, business leaders, religious groups and students, participated in the focus group dialogue sessions while others provided written feedback.

Key findings during the public consultations were considered carefully. For example, it was raised during the public consultation that Singapore's definition of key TIP terms should not only be closely aligned with international benchmarks and standards, but should also be adapted to suit the local context. Another key finding was that the Bill should cover TIP perpetrators and all parties in the criminal value chain, including abettors, middlemen and facilitators of TIP offences. With the valuable feedback from internal and external partners and stakeholders, the draft was refined and augmented to ensure that this enforcement Bill would allow Singapore to deal holistically and decisively with human trafficking in Singapore and regionally.

Page: 78

The objectives of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill before Parliament today are four-fold. First, the Bill clarifies our legal regime by providing a formal definition of TIP and prescribing appropriate penalties to allow us to deal with human trafficking in a more targeted and deterrent manner. Second, it empowers enforcement agencies with the necessary investigation and enforcement levers to tackle TIP. Third, it provides measures to protect and support trafficked victims and encourage the reporting of trafficking or suspected trafficking activities. Lastly, the Bill will bring Singapore closer in line with international standards and uplift efforts to combat TIP in Singapore and the surrounding region.

Mdm Speaker, let me now highlight the key aspects and provisions of the Bill.

Clause 3(1) creates the offence of trafficking-in-persons and makes clear the three necessary elements for the offence to be made out. First, there must be an "act" of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of an individual. Second, this act must be accompanied by "means" of a threat or use of force, or any other form of coercion, abduction, fraud or deception, or of an abuse of power or a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over the trafficked victim. Third, these must be done for the "purpose of exploitation", such as sexual exploitation, forced labour or organ removal. As TIP is a serious charge, all three elements must be proved. Cases which fall short of the required thresholds may still be taken up by other existing laws, where appropriate.

The trafficking offence is gender-neutral, meaning that the trafficking of male and female victims is equally covered. The consent of a trafficked victim to the intended exploitation is also irrelevant when determining whether the offence is made out, that is, the offender cannot claim his victim’s consent to be a valid defence. The elements of the offence and definition of key terminology are adapted from and are consistent with the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, or the UN TIP Protocol, in short.

Also, as aligned with international standards, the Bill defines a person under 18 years old as a child, and clause 3(2) stipulates lower requirements for the trafficking offence to be made out for child victims in recognition of their vulnerability to exploitation. To afford a child greater protection under the law, there is no requirement for the Prosecution to prove the methods or means used. It is sufficient for the Prosecution to show that there was an act to recruit, transport, transfer, harbour or receive a child victim for the purposes of exploitation.

Page: 79

As TIP is a transnational crime, clause 3(4) holds a trafficking offender liable in Singapore, even if his acts which comprise the offence straddle between Singapore and another jurisdiction. This recognises the transnational nature of trafficking activities where the acts of recruitment and transportation often take place overseas, with Singapore being the destination or the transit point.

Besides traffickers, persons who abet the offence are similarly liable to be punished. Clause 5 sets out acts which constitute abetment of the trafficking offence under the Penal Code. These include conveying instructions, providing transport or shelter, or participating in any act to promote the actual or intended exploitation of the trafficked victim. The scope of this clause covers ringleaders and masterminds who order their subordinates to carry out the trafficking acts, as well as middlemen who knowingly make arrangements to place trafficked victims with their exploiters.

It will additionally be an offence under clause 6 of the Bill for a person to receive any payment in connection with the exploitation of another person with the knowledge that he or she has been trafficked. This targets persons, such as pimps and labour agents, who have received payment from the trafficking activity but who are not directly involved in the trafficking offence itself or in the abetment of it.

Taken together, these provisions create an encompassing umbrella of offences that target the main TIP actors and allow us to take them firmly to task.

Having outlined the scope of the trafficking and related offences, let me now touch on the penalties. To provide sufficient deterrence and reflect the severity of human trafficking, the Bill prescribes stiff penalties in the form of mandatory imprisonment terms and fines. Under clause 4(1), a first-time offender of a trafficking offence shall be punished with a fine not exceeding $100,000 and with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Convicted persons may further be liable to caning not exceeding six strokes, which can be imposed at the Court's discretion where warranted. To send a stronger signal against those who are minded to re-offend, the penalties for a repeat offender will be a fine not exceeding $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 15 years, essentially up to one-and-a-half times what a first offender could be liable to receive. Caning of up to nine strokes will also be mandatory for repeat offenders. Similar penalties are prescribed for the offence of knowingly receiving payment in connection with exploitation of a trafficked person.

In calibrating the penalties, we have benchmarked them against comparable crimes of similar gravity in other Acts, such as the offence of importing a woman for purposes of prostitution under section 373A of the Penal Code which also provides for a maximum 10-

Page: 80

year imprisonment sentence. The provision of a caning sentence is also found in other crimes, such as abduction and sexual assault, and is apt in this instance, given that elements of force and coercion, as well as the serious exploitation of the human form, are present in trafficking offences.

Clause 4(2) also provides for the Courts to consider imposing heavier penalties within the prescribed range of penalties, where aggravating circumstances are present. These aggravating circumstances are not exhaustively defined and may include situations where death or injury is caused to the victim, where drugs or weapons are used during the act, where the offender has abused his position of authority or trust, or where the victim is particularly vulnerable.

Madam, the enforcement powers are set out in Part 3 of the Bill. Clause 7(2) vests the relevant inspectors from MOM and MOH with authority to use the powers in Part 3 as "enforcement officers" under the Bill. Police Officers are similarly empowered to invoke the powers in the Bill and can, additionally, rely on their powers conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code.

The specific powers in clauses 8 to 16 are mapped over from existing legislation, primarily the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. These include the power to enter and search premises, interview and gather evidence, retain and dispose of property seized during investigations and to arrest without warrant. These focused powers have proven to be necessary and effective by MOM officers in investigating labour violation cases and will be similarly useful in the context of investigations into potential trafficking cases.

I now come to the victim protection and support provisions under Part 4 of the Bill. Much has been discussed regarding the welfare of trafficked victims during the public consultation exercise and also leading up to today’s debate. I would like to take this opportunity to explain what the clauses purport to do and how they work with the existing victim care framework.

First, on the measures to protect victims in sensitive cases, the Bill adapts relevant provisions from the State Courts Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Women's Charter. Under clause 18(1), the Court can order the entire proceedings relating to a sexual exploitation case, or any part of it, to be held in camera, which means that it is closed to the public and the media. Where the victim in a sexual exploitation case is a child, in-camera proceedings are mandatory. In addition, a gag order will be in force for all proceedings regarding sexual exploitation. Clause 18(2) prohibits any person from publishing the name, address or photograph, or any other fact, which is likely to lead to the identification of the trafficked victim in such proceedings. These measures protect victims from being identified

Page: 81

and encourage them to testify in confidence.

This does not mean that sensitive cases that do not involve sexual exploitation will be denied similar protection. Clause 18(5) expressly provides that the Court's powers under section 7 of the State Courts Act and section 8 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act – that is, to order any proceedings to be held in camera or to prohibit the publication or disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness, are not prejudiced. Under those Acts, the Court can order such proceedings to be conducted in camera if the Court is satisfied that it is "expedient in the interests of justice, public safety, public security or propriety, or for other sufficient reason to do so". Notwithstanding, it should be noted that it is a fundamental pillar of criminal justice that trials be conducted in open Court. Any deviation deservedly requires strong justification and much will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

With regard to victim support, currently victims of abuse, including trafficked victims, are provided a range of services which includes temporary accommodation, food, counselling services, medical care and temporary employment. Each victim is assessed thoroughly, as the needs differ from individual to individual and the support measures are tailored and provided accordingly.

The Bill endorses this established approach and codifies it under clause 19(1) which states that the Director of Social Welfare – or any person authorised by him – may provide trafficked victims with any such assistance as he considers practicable and necessary. This includes, but is not limited to, temporary shelter and counselling services. Both measures have been expressly cited as examples because they are commonly provided to victims to ensure they are quickly removed from their environment of harm and are supported in their recovery. Clause 25 makes a consequential amendment to section 16 of the Children and Young Person’s Act to allow the Director of Social Welfare, in his capacity as a protector under the Act, to commit trafficked child victims to a place of temporary care and protection where their safety can be ensured and they can receive specialised support.

I should also add that these discretionary victim support measures complement other provisions in existing legislation, which we have refrained from duplicating in the Bill, which the judge hearing the case can nonetheless leverage on. For example, section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code continues to apply and already makes it mandatory for a Court to consider whether to make a compensation order after convicting a person of an offence. Such order must be made where it is appropriate. This provides a means to compel an offender to pay damages to the victim, especially where the victim may not have the financial means or faces difficulties seeking such redress from the offender.

Collectively, it can, therefore, be seen that we have a robust and flexible victim care framework in place; one that meets individual needs and signals our commitment to this

Page: 82

area.

I will now touch briefly on the other provisions in the Bill. To encourage the reporting of trafficking or suspected trafficking activity, clause 21 makes clear that information provided by informers cannot be admitted as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. In addition, no witness shall be obliged or permitted to disclose the name or address of any informer in respect of the offence, or state any matter which might lead to his discovery. Clause 24 empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to make rules for the purposes of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, human trafficking is real, cruel and must be stemmed. We, as a society, must speak up for the voiceless and helpless by sending as strong a signal as we can against these serious crimes. Indeed, this is the ethos behind the Bill. To prevent TIP from taking root in our community, our laws have to be comprehensive yet targeted, possess sufficient bite to punish perpetrators and deter would-be offenders and offer protection and support to those in need. The Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill strengthens these fronts by supplementing our existing suite of laws and measures. It raises our standards of fighting TIP, both locally and internationally, and will serve as a beacon to our enforcement officers who are involved in this effort.

On this note, I would like to place on record my thanks to the TIP Taskforce, led by MHA and MOM, for their invaluable partnership in the past one year. I experienced first-hand their deep resolve to curb human trafficking in Singapore. Their partnership was especially meaningful to me, when debating and discussing the operational needs of the enforcement officers who will be relying on the powers contained in the Bill when carrying out operations on the ground. I would also like to thank MSF, MOH, MinLaw, AGC, Singapore Police Force and ICA for the valuable discussions we had on the policy considerations for the Bill. It has been a privilege to work alongside these officers, and the officers in MHA and MOM who are dedicated to the cause of combating TIP and, of course, the 300 individuals from the religious groups, business community, NGOs, VWOs and like-minded Singaporeans and residents who participated in the six focus-group dialogue sessions. Thank you for your passion, support and ideas, without which this Bill would not have been possible.

Madam, this Bill seeks to dismantle human trafficking syndicates and protect people who have been trafficked. It plants a flag on Singapore – a flag that signifies that we will not stand for trafficking of people on or through our shores.

In closing, I would like to share with colleagues in this House two stories of two different ladies whom I met during my visit to the shelter for trafficked women.

Page: 83

The first is a story of a lady who was working as a chef in a country in the region. She was offered a job to work as a chef in Singapore. She considered her options carefully and found that the potential earnings that she could make from taking up the offer far exceeded what she was then earning in her home country. So, she left her child behind and came to Singapore in the hope of earning more money to support her family back home.

Upon arrival in Singapore, she was told that she was in debt to the man who had arranged her entry into Singapore and that she would have to work as a prostitute and sexually service as many men as would be necessary for her to repay her debt. She refused to work the first day, she refused to work the second day and was adamant that she would not become a sex worker, and good for her. She said she was physically beaten up on the third day as a sex worker to pay back what she owed. Soon after, she found an opportunity to escape and sought help. She is currently residing safely in a shelter and away from her environment of harm.

The second story is one of a lady who was destitute and was told she could earn a sizeable amount of money by coming to Singapore. In her desperation to earn money to support her family, she agreed to the offer and left her home town. Upon her arrival, she was similarly told to prostitute herself to make a living and to repay her debt. She was told to work on a daily basis from 9.00 am to midnight – and all of us in this House can agree that this is extremely exploitative by any measure. After three days, while her captors were distracted, she saw an opportunity to escape and she took it. She is now recovering safely in a shelter and receiving counselling support.

These two stories encapsulate what this Bill is all about – whether it is sexual exploitation, labour trafficking or organ trafficking, this Bill seeks to protect the most vulnerable of the vulnerable – the innocent who often do not have a voice and who are caught in a merciless web of exploitation. The intention is that this Bill will dismantle syndicates and prevent the exploitation of innocent women, men, girls and boys.

I firmly believe that, one day, perhaps soon, societies will be measured by how they care for and protect their most vulnerable. If this Bill can help save one life, then it would be all worthwhile. It is our hope, of course, that it will save many more lives than just one. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Page: 84

(Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]

Mr Deputy Speaker, the anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce once said that, "You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know."

Today, we look back at the dark history of slavery all across the world and we continue to say, no more, no more to enslavement, no more to the demeaning of another. Proudly, we point to the history of the emancipation of the slaves and say we have changed the world. Yet, perhaps by glorifying the end of old slavery, we may have sadly ignored the reality that slavery has evolved and is still as insidious and abhorrent as before.

Even in this city we call home, this clean, safe, secure country that takes pride in our laws, efficient judiciary and safe streets, we are similarly unable to avoid the scourge of modern slavery in the form of human trafficking. Whether it is trafficking of persons into sexual slavery or labour abuses, whether it happens on home soil or existing as a transit point, we need to admit that the problem does exist in Singapore and we have to solve it.

It is easy to gloss over the problem and just focus on our economic growth, our standard of living. But just as we can choose to look the other way, it certainly does not stop the problem from staring right back at us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this historic Bill. I congratulate the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza on his passion and drive in pushing this Bill to fruition. I support its noble intentions to punish the perpetrators of depraved and heinous crimes of trafficking of the innocent. And I look forward to Singapore playing a bigger role in ending the possession of persons as mere commodities, to be traded and denied their basic rights.

But I also hope to see the Bill humanised. By a cursory look of the Bill itself, it is perhaps understandable – and Mr de Souza had alluded to this – why it stands accused in certain quarters of being thick on punitive measures but thin on victim protection. An activist pointed out to me that there are 11 clauses under Part 3 in relation to enforcement and, yet, only two clauses under Part 4 of the Bill for victim protection and assistance. Let me state clearly that the punitive stance of this Bill is not a bad thing. I welcome any action to punish and put a stop to anyone perpetrating trafficking. But I also hope for more focus on the rights and protection of victims.

We cannot rely on the silenced to tell us of their suffering, I, therefore, beg the indulgence of everyone in this House to allow me, for the moment, to lend my voice to the

Page: 85

voiceless, as Mr de Souza has also pointed out. This is, after all, a Bill of the voiceless.

I met Mya, a 21-year-old girl who came from Mong La in Myanmar. This was in 2009. Despite her youth, she already had the weight of the world on her shoulders and she looked as if she was already in her 40s. She was born blind and was sold by her aunt to traffickers at the age of four. Hers is perhaps a heart-wrenching story like no other. She was held captive in a brothel far away in a neighbouring country, she serviced up to 15 clients a day from age six. By the time she was rescued, she was 16 and her first instinct was to try to run back to the brothel and the captors she was rescued from because it was the only reality that she knew of, the only "home" she was aware of. By then, she, unfortunately, had contracted AIDS and she passed away two months after I interviewed her.

Closer to home, there are stories as well and these are some that volunteers who are out doing the difficult task of outreach on the streets have shared with me.

One lady, J, was an attractive young lady with a good singing voice. She packed her bags, ready to leave home for an exciting stint as an entertainer in Singapore. She had a six-month visa and the promise of good pay. With this, she should be able to provide a better future for herself and her disabled son back home. Yet, on arrival, she discovered that she was not going to be an entertainer of the usual sort. On her arrival, her employers stripped her and confined her to a cold room, forcing her to agree to prostitute herself. Fortunately, she was rescued. Yet, she was to be dealt a bad deck of cards as, during her medical checks, she was discovered to have cancer and did not have much time left.

She was told that she may have to stay for up to two years to assist with investigations but, after a long struggle of a year, she decided that she would have to forfeit her right to justice and compensation so she could return home and spend her remaining time with her son. She, too, passed away soon after she returned.

There are also two young cousins, one under-aged, and they would probably have an experience that would horrify anyone. On arrival in Singapore, they were raped to break them mentally into accepting that sexual relations with strangers were "normal". I was told of another Bangladeshi sex worker who, in this case, came willingly to work on the promise of $1,000 a month for two months of work, a sizeable income for her to bring home. She was told she only had to service five clients a day. Yet again, as fate would have it, she did not realise that the $1,000 did not include deductions for meals, lodgings, transport. And she was coerced into doing more than she was comfortable with. The five men became 10 on weekdays and up to 45 on weekends, starting from 2.00 pm in the afternoon to 6.00 am in the morning. She aged dramatically in those two months.