Hansard, Monday, 4 May 2020

Order. Hon Members, today is the mid-way point of the extended circuit breaker period in Singapore’s fight against COVID-19. I am heartened to see that Singaporeans have, by and large, remained steadfast in cooperating with all the various measures imposed. Some citizens and private enterprises have even embarked on their own ground-up initiatives to do their part in looking out for the well-being of the most vulnerable in our communities and keeping them safe. This is indeed the SG United spirit in action that will make Singapore emerge better and stronger from this crisis.

As I have said before, and it bears repeating, the onus remains on us, parliamentarians, to continue to lead in critical times both within this Chamber and within our communities. It will not be business as usual as we find different ways of remaining connected to our constituents in carrying out our roles and responsibilities. But those roles and responsibilities are real. But even as we do so, we stand in solidarity with all Singaporeans in supporting and adhering to the Government’s circuit breaker measures as these are adjusted with time and depending on the prevailing situation. All Members from today will wear masks within Parliament House and only remove them temporarily while delivering speeches in the Chamber so you can be heard clearly.

Whatever challenging circumstances we face as a nation, the essential and fundamental role of Parliament continues. All over the world, other parliaments are similarly doing their best to persevere despite the extraordinary COVID-19 times we are living in. And our Parliament in Singapore can do no less.

This is why the Bill that the Leader of the House will be introducing today is timely and significant. In the current climate of uncertainty brought about by COVID-19, it is imperative that we prepare for exigencies, such as the scenario where it is impossible, it is unsafe or inexpedient for all Members to meet at one place for parliamentary proceedings. So, we must be primed and ready to swiftly respond should such exigencies happen. The Bill therefore proposes an amendment to the Constitution to establish a legal framework for arrangements to be made for Parliament and its committees to meet and despatch business; with Members being present at two or more appointed places, if necessary, under continuity arrangements.

As Speaker, I have provided my views and advice on the parliamentary law and procedures to be considered at the drafting of the Bill. The ultimate form and modalities of such continuity arrangements would be looked into once the Bill is passed. For now, I look forward to hearing any views Members may have on the Bill, on how such continuity arrangements can best serve our work in Parliament when exigencies arise.

In tackling the evolving COVID-19 situation, what must remain constant is that we must always be planning and preparing in advance the best that we can. We must remember that this pandemic outbreak is unprecedented in scale. Should the worst-case scenario happens, we will work in concert in executing these contingencies, with the safety and well-being of one another, our families and loved ones always being of the utmost priority.

We will learn where we can from other countries and other parliaments, and implement what works best in our Singapore context.

We must not let our collective Singapore can-do spirit succumb to this virus now. When, and not if, this crisis is over, we must remain vigilant and tackle any new or emergent threats head-on with the same resolve and fortitude. This is how we will always be able to “Majulah Singapura!”, confidently advancing onward as a nation and as a society.

Before I begin, maybe if I could, on behalf of the House as well, to convey our best regards to Mr Low Thia Khiang who is warded in ICU and we wish him the speediest recovery. Our thoughts are with him.

Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching –

1 To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether Singapore has an ethical framework ready to prioritise resources and patients when our healthcare system reaches a breaking point due to widespread community transmission; and (b) what are the plans to ramp up our healthcare capacity to avoid the need for implementing such an ethical framework.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health what plans are in place to ensure the rapid scale-ability of our acute care infrastructure and ICU beds in the event of a rapid escalation of COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalisation.

3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the impediments to testing of asymptomatic individuals who are deemed to be at risk from COVID-19 due to proximity to those tested positive, or for other reasons; and (b) to what extent has testing been expanded to those who do not exhibit typical COVID-19 symptoms.

4 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Government's current strategy and approach for COVID-19 testing; (b) whether the current testing approach is sufficient to provide reliable information about the spread of COVID-19 in the community; and (c) what is the Government's current and desired testing capacity for COVID-19.

5 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the Government has plans for widespread use of antibody (serological) testing for COVID-19 to determine the extent of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the Singapore population and identify those who are immune to the disease.

6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health what are the metrics the Government will use to decide if the movement control measures such as those imposed under the current circuit breaker can be gradually lifted.

7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health (a) whether antibody tests are a valid way to assess the reach of the COVID-19 virus; and (b) whether such antibody tests can be used to assess the level of 'herd immunity' in the community and be part of the plan to gradually return the community to work.

8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the impact of the increasing number of COVID-19 infection cases on the ability of our healthcare professionals in public service to provide health services to Singaporeans and Singaporean residents; and (b) whether there are plans to enlist the help of healthcare professionals in private practice or who have retired to bolster the number of healthcare professionals needed to deal with the pandemic.

9 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health (a) how many healthcare workers have been infected by the COVID-19 virus; (b) in how many of these cases have the workers been infected in their line of duty; and (c) what measures are in place to support healthcare workers and their families should they fall ill with the virus while fulfilling their duties.

10 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health in respect of healthcare workers who are working long shifts during this COVID-19 outbreak, whether they will be provided with some form of compensation or wellness support in terms of leave and mental care when the COVID-19 situation stabilises.

Question No 1, Sir.

Speaker, Sir, I will be making a Ministerial Statement later. May I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 10 in my Statement instead.

Please do. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the latest update on the COVID-19 infection situation in the foreign worker dormitories; and (b) whether the stepped-up measures have been effective in containing the spread.

12 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Manpower given that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India Riot in 2014 noted "housing available to foreign workers in Singapore ranks well in the world", whether the Government will appoint a COI to (i) investigate the causes of the COVID-19 outbreak amongst residents of foreign worker dormitories (ii) identify the responsibility borne by the various stakeholders, including any lapses committed between the 2014 COI and the present date and (iii) propose reforms to be implemented to ensure that a similar public health crisis will not recur.

13 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower on the employment prospects for fresh graduates amidst the difficult economic environment, what are the available employment and other options and how can employers and the Government work together to assist fresh graduates.

14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider amending the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act so that its regulatory framework applies to all purpose-built dormitories, factory-converted dormitories, construction temporary quarters, standalone temporary quarters, construction temporary quarters, quarters in buildings under construction, and temporary occupation licence quarters.

15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider (i) increasing the minimum gross floor area of 4.5 square metres for each resident in a foreign workers' dormitory and (ii) not including the basic living facilities such as living quarters, kitchen, dining, and toilet areas in the computation for the minimum gross floor area.

16 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether a Commission of Inquiry will be appointed to investigate the causes of high COVID-19 incidence amongst foreign workers (FWs), particularly (i) pre-COVID-19 outbreak living conditions of FWs in dormitories and non-dormitories (ii) how these conditions may have led to the disease spread (iii) the kinds of support provided to dormitory operators to ensure physical and psychological health of FWs (iv) forms of support provided to FWs not living in dormitories (v) how dormitories housing fewer than 1,000 FWs are regulated; and (b) if so, whether the COI will recommend strategic policy changes to improve the living conditions of FWs and enhance our future public health emergency preparedness.

17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus among foreign workers in the dormitories (a) what lessons can be drawn from the management of dormitories and whether safe distancing can be practically practised in the existing purpose-built dormitories; (b) what roles have dormitory owners played to mitigate the spread of the virus; and (c) whether there is evidence that infected foreign workers have spread the virus to the community beyond the migrant workers.

18 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Manpower since the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act was enacted on 1 January 2016 (a) how many warnings have been issued to licensed operators of foreign workers' dormitories for not meeting the licence conditions under section 11 of the Act; and (b) how many have been charged and fined.

19 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower what is the recourse available to employees who have not been paid their wages despite their employers having received the benefits of the Jobs Support Scheme including employees who have been placed on no-pay leave or reduced pay.

20 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower whether all essential workers among the foreign workers living in all dormitories and other forms of accommodation have already been safely separated from the non-essential workers by 19 April 2020.

21 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the COVID-19 infection in the foreign workers dormitories (a) what will be the measures to improve the living conditions in the dormitories and contain the spread of COVID-19; and (b) as the healthy workers are relocated to old schools, army camps and flats in the community, how will they be educated on hygiene and social distancing habits to reassure our residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister Josephine Teo will be delivering her Ministerial Statement, may I also have your permission to allow her to take Question Nos 11 to 21 in her Statement, please.

Yes, please. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

22 To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the rationale for extending the wage subsidies under the Jobs Support Scheme to shareholders who are also employed as directors, whose companies have made CPF contributions for their salaries, and whose assessable incomes do not exceed $100,000 in the Year of Assessment 2019.

Question No 22, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) is designed to support employers to retain their local employees. As such, it previously did not cover the wages of business owners, who are both shareholders and directors of a company or shareholder-directors.

We have since received feedback from some shareholder-directors, especially from smaller companies and start-ups. Although they receive support through the JSS for their employees’ wages, their own personal wages formed a significant portion of their companies’ wage bills but were not covered by the JSS. They also did not qualify for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme.

We recognise the challenges faced by these shareholders-directors. We have therefore reviewed our policy to include their wages under the Jobs Support Scheme. By supporting them, we hope that these shareholder-directors will be able to retain their own wages and livelihoods, just as we would like them to retain their local employees.

At the same time, by setting an assessable income criterion of $100,000, we can better target the JSS support at shareholder-directors who need the support more.

We estimate that this enhancement will benefit about 50,000 shareholder-directors. The May 2020 and subsequent JSS payouts will include support for qualifying shareholder-directors. The May 2020 payout will also include back-payment for companies with qualifying shareholder-directors who were excluded from the first JSS payout in April 2020.

23 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the payment of $300 to Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) Plus holders who are spouses of Singaporeans, whether such a payment may also be extended to LTVP holders who are spouses of Singaporeans.

The Solidarity Payment is aimed at providing timely support to Singaporean households during this challenging period of heightened safe distancing.

Arising from concerns over some Singaporean families with non-citizen members, we decided to extend the one-off $300 payment to Permanent Residents and LTVP+ holders who have a Singaporean parent, spouse or child.

While Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders who are spouses of Singaporeans are not eligible for the Solidarity Payment, they are able to take up employment to support their families. They also receive benefits as part of a Singaporean household, such as GST Voucher – U-Save rebates and special payments, and Service and Conservancy Charges rebates.

If they or their Singaporean family need further financial support during this challenging period, they may seek help through their MSF Social Service Offices, which provide assistance to those who fall into financial hardship. The assistance provided includes the COVID-19 Support Grant. We will exercise more flexibility when considering ComCare applications during this period, to ensure affected Singaporean families can get help.

There are also many Social Service Agencies and those in the community providing support to families in need.

Sir, I thank the hon Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer to my question, and also, his assurance given to Singaporean families with LTVP holders as well, in terms of the help that can be given to the families. My query is in relation to the policy reason for carving out LTVP holders from the LTVP+ holders who would be able to get Solidarity payments, given as I understand the rationale behind the issuing of Solidarity payments to Singapore PRs and the LTVP+ holders is really to help the family. LTVP holders who are spouses are also part of the families as well.

I thank the Member for the follow-up question. For LTVP and LTVP+, we have in our system different sets of support for various schemes for different groups of people, one of them being their residential status. So, we need some clear alignment of this. Therefore, this is a way that we are aligning this, with existing schemes that we have. Bear in mind that this support is for a very urgent situation and therefore, we have extended it to a wide range. There are already many support schemes, as I have said.

The assurance that I would like to give Mr Murali is that, as I have said, if families need support, they can approach our Social Service Agencies and many other service agencies that are providing this support. No one will be denied support just because of this particular status.

24 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the total number of Singaporeans and PRs who have applied for the Temporary Relief Fund as at 30 April 2020; (b) how many have returned the cheques or payouts; (c) what is the penalty for wrong declarations; (d) whether there is any penalty if they realise their errors and return the monies; and (e) whether there is a deadline to return the payment.

Sir, the Temporary Relief Fund was set up to provide timely financial assistance to lower and middle income Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who lost their jobs or faced significant income loss due to the economic impact of COVID-19. It was made available during the month of April 2020, and prior to the start of other assistance schemes including the COVID-19 Support Grant and Self-Employed Person (SEP) Income Relief Scheme (SIRS).

As at 30 April 2020, MSF has received a total 537,080 applications for the Temporary Relief Fund. Of this figure, 3,171 individuals have returned their payouts from the Fund. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Social and Family Development", Official Report, 4 May 2020, Vol 94, Issue No 131, Correction by Written Statement section.]

MSF is working closely with the Police to investigate fraudulent claims for the Temporary Relief Fund. Abuse of the Temporary Relief Fund may constitute an offence of cheating, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, a fine or both.

Where individuals returned their cheques or payouts, this will be a mitigating factor in our assessment of fraudulent claims. Individuals should return their cheques or payouts by the end May 2020.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

25 To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many residents are currently housed in interim housing and welfare homes; (b) how many of them are homeless with relatives and without relatives respectively; and (c) how many have refused to be housed in a welfare home or housing despite the arrangements made for them.

26 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what steps are being taken to deal with rough sleepers at public areas to ensure compliance with the requirement under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 that every individual must stay at or in, and not leave, his or her ordinary place of residence; and (b) whether there are sufficient places in shelters to house these rough sleepers.

Question No 25, please.

Mr Speaker, I will address Mr Gan Thiam Poh’s and Mr Murali Pillai’s questions on homelessness in this reply, as well as the question from Ms Anthea Ong1, which was filed for tomorrow.

Okay.

As the COVID-19 outbreak evolves, ensuring the safety of those who are homeless and rough sleeping is of paramount importance to MSF and the PEERS Network, which stands for Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers. The PEERS Network currently has 26 members and includes Government agencies, social service agencies and ground-up community groups.

We have seen an increase in the number of people seeking shelter over this past month. When the PEERS Network was formed in July 2019, less than half of the 65 people engaged were willing to accept help. During the circuit breaker, nearly 300 have come forward so far to seek shelter and assistance, including many who were affected by travel restrictions.

Since the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 were effected, we have worked closely with our colleagues in the frontline agencies, such as the Police and NParks, to refer homeless people and rough sleepers to our shelters, to our Social Service Offices and to relevant social service agencies for shelter and financial assistance. Those who are homeless will not face penalties under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020, if they are assisted by us.

We are deeply grateful to our community partners and social services agencies in the PEERS Network who have continued their efforts amidst the COVID-19 outbreak by reaching out to homeless people and providing social intervention. We have also distributed care packs with hygiene kits and surgical masks to temporary shelter residents, as well as homeless persons in the streets, alongside encouraging them to accept shelter and help.

To meet the need for more shelter spaces, we have worked together with both existing and new PEERS Network partners to offer their premises as Safe Sound Sleeping Places, or S3Ps. Since the start of the circuit breaker, our PEERS Network S3Ps have expanded both capacity and operating hours to keep our friends indoors as much as possible. They have allowed their homeless guests to remain in the S3Ps throughout the day and provided them meals. PEERS partners, such as the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple, Catholic Welfare Services, Good News Community Services and New Hope Community Services, have also stepped forward to run new S3Ps as we expected that there would be more people needing shelter during this crisis.

Twenty seven new organisations have answered our call for action, bringing the total number of organisations setting up or operating S3Ps to 35. Some of these are the Singapore Anglican Community Services, together with the Anglican Diocese of Singapore, Kassim Mosque, Ang Mo Kio Methodist Church, Pasir Panjang Hill Community Services, Assyakirin Mosque and Tao One Ltd. HDB has also provided vacant rental flats to our community partners for them to operate S3Ps during this crisis.

Together, all the S3Ps are able to accommodate some 700 rough sleepers. Currently, we have about 400 spaces available. We would like to thank all our partners for generously welcoming our homeless friends of the street as guests into their premises and operating the S3Ps round the clock at this time.

There are currently about 70 families and 75 individuals in our Transitional Shelters. These shelters provide a safe place for residents while social workers help them address their social issues and work towards long-term, stable accommodation.

There is a small proportion of homeless individuals who may be destitute as they lack family support and are unable to care for themselves. There are currently about 1,900 such individuals housed in Welfare Homes. We provide care and rehabilitation at Welfare Homes to improve their physical and emotional well-being and, where possible, re-integrate them back into the community. MSF encourages potential destitute persons to admit themselves to Welfare Homes for their own safety and well-being. We do not track the number of individuals who decline help.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how many residents in Transitional Shelters and Welfare Homes have relatives. We do not have that information readily on-hand, but 90% of individuals in Transitional Shelters and Welfare Homes are single, divorced, widowed or separated.

Ms Anthea Ong asked about the learning gathered from our strategy on the homeless with the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis has reaffirmed the importance of close collaboration between Government agencies and community partners. Together with our partners and other members of the community, we have been able to more quickly extend help to the homeless during this period. Our aim is not only to keep homeless people and rough sleepers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, but to help them resolve their underlying challenges and to get back on their feet beyond this period.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply and I especially thank him for being on the ground to help the homeless people. I understand that, as the Minister mentioned, a lot of the homeless people are now seeking shelter at the places of worship because they are empty at this point of time. But when they go back to their usual function, could I ask whether MSF has plans for housing for this group of homeless people?

A number of our S3P partners in the PEERS Network are prepared to provide these spaces beyond the circuit breaker. In fact, even prior to circuit breaker, a number of our PEERS partners, both religious and secular organisations, who already run activities on an on-going basis on their premises, have set aside space as a shelter. So, quite a number are able to provide that commitment beyond this period. We, of course, respect that a number of others may not have the space available after this. Having said that, we continue to establish transitional shelter spaces as well as spaces in S3Ps to support them.

The key, of course, is to work with them to resolve the underlying social, family and personal circumstances in order for them to return home, in order for them to find permanency and shelter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the hon Minister for his explanation to my Parliamentary Question. I am heartened to note the cooperation between the PEERS Network, community partners and religious organisations. I think it is very uniquely Singapore to have religious organisations coming together to provide help to rough sleepers across religions. My question is in relation to the current situation involving rough sleepers who are not yet housed. May I please ask the hon Minister's assessment of the current situation and what further steps he anticipates to take during the pendency of the COVID-19 measures?

Sir, over the course of the work of the PEERS Network, we have reached out to and befriended many homeless people to understand what are the circumstances behind their current plight. While some have no home, a number actually have homes they cannot return to because of family disputes. To the extent that we know them, we have reached out to them through our network of partners to bring them into the S3Ps in order for them to be sheltered from the open, in order for them to get help and in order for them to be kept safe during this circuit breaker period.

There are, of course, other rough sleepers and homeless whom our network do not know. Even during the circuit breaker, as an essential service, they continue to reach out and look out for people who are in need of help. There are, of course, some people, including seniors, who are unable to go back home, especially in the day time, because of their family circumstances, because of disputes with other members of the family.

Our safe distancing ambassadors, as you have read in the newspapers, have gone around with the help of social workers to identify people who are out there in the open, not because they refuse to comply but because they have serious underlying issues back home. These social workers then work with the network and with other partners to try to resolve those issues and in the meantime find a temporary space for them to take respite. This work is on-going and the more partners we have in this network, the more effective we will be in making sure that every Singaporean remains safe.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response to my question for tomorrow. Could I actually ask two supplementary questions which are really relating to the questions I had in my Parliamentary Question. Do we have any idea how many of the homeless persons have actually been booked by the Police under the Destitute Persons Act since the start of the circuit breaker? Also, how are we ensuring that the COVID-19 relief measures that we have put out actually reach these homeless persons as well? Because in the sense that they are actually on the streets, how would we actually reach out to them to make sure that they are also coming forward to obtain their relief measures?

The Member asked, first, how many homeless people have been booked under the Destitute Persons Act. There is no punitive penalty against a person being homeless. The Destitute Persons Act is a legislation of last resort for people who are unable to care for themselves and have no support. A small group of these homeless people are destitute and are subject to this Act. Even for that group, we persuade them to take shelter, and persuade them to admit themselves to a welfare home to get the support they need and we reserve the use of the legislation as a matter of last resort. So, that is number one.

I think the Member actually means to ask how many homeless people have been served with composition fines under the Control Order. I do not have that number. I think we have to ask MEWR for the latest data. But I think MEWR, together with social service agencies, are mindful that there are some people who have underlying issues behind their being out in the open. So, that is a very important aspect of exercising enforcement and discretion.

The second question the Member asked is how do we ensure that people who are homeless and have no access to, say, a mailbox, get the support provided under the various budgetary measures. In fact, even before the COVID-19 pandemic,our PEERS partners, together with MSF and the other agencies, in reaching out and befriending homeless people have been working with them to ensure that they get the benefits under the GST Voucher, Merdeka Generation and Pioneer Generation packages and when they encounter some challenges, for example, because they do not have ICs and other issues, we have worked with the relevant agencies to make sure that those obstacles are removed to get the help that they need.

So, likewise, even during this pandemic period, we have been reaching out to people who are homeless and see that they get the support they need, including working with CPF Board and other agencies, so that they get the Solidarity payment and other support.

For homeless people, our partners reach out to them and tell them about the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF), COVID-19 Support Grant and SIRS, have the forms and brochures with them available. In fact, in February, I visited one of our S3Ps and our shelters, and spoke to the social worker who had been given the material for the TRF by the MSF officers and given the forms for TRF. I believe that would be in March instead, not February. And these social workers then helped the homeless people to fill in those forms and to make the necessary applications.

27 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what actions are being taken to track down the originators of fake messages claiming a "partial lockdown" in Singapore and whether the culprits will be prosecuted once they are identified.

The Police take a serious view of all reports of falsehoods regarding the COVID-19 situation, including those that claim “partial lockdown”, as these may cause public alarm. The Police will investigate such cases and take firm action against the culprits.

For instance, Police identified a 40-year-old man who allegedly circulated a false message claiming that he had "intel" that the Government would close all coffee shops and food courts, and open supermarkets only two days a week. He urged readers to go "stock up" on items. The man was charged on 27 April 2020 for an offence of communicating a false message under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. This carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, a fine of up to S$10,000, or both.

Sir, considering considering the impact of such fake messages on the public, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, how else can Police signal that perpetrators of such fake messages will face the full brunt of the law? Can the punishment be more severe for people who make such fake messages?

The Police have taken this very seriously and have taken stern measures. The law is quite strict on this and I think it is adequate deterrence for those who persist in such conduct. We have, in addition to the law, also taken complementary measures such as advisories and various other measures. I think it is important that broader public communication efforts to clarify and rebut inaccurate information are done in tandem with legal enforcement.

In this case, the Government has issued a clarification via the Gov.sg WhatsApp channel on the same day that the rumour of the partial lockdown was circulated. A clarification was also issued on the MOH website. But I think the point Mr Lim Biow Chuan made is very clear – that we will not go easy, we will not take this lightly and perpetrators, if caught, will be taken to task.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam. I will try to recognise all of you with your mask on.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to seek a clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on why action against this message claiming partial lockdown, was not taken under POFMA, whether it is relevant and whether that was something that could have been used against the perpetrator.

The offences under the Miscellaneous Offences Act and POFMA while similar, involve different elements which the prosecution is required to prove. Every case of communication of false message is assessed based on the findings rising from investigations and the Public Prosecutor exercises his discretion on the most appropriate charge. The approach is on a case-by-case basis and is calibrated on what is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

I would like to point out that offences under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act are also regarded as serious and carry an imprisonment term of up to three years or fine of a maximum of $10,000, or both.

28 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether guidelines or legislation can be considered to enable restaurants to pay smaller commissions and foster a more equitable partnership with third party food delivery companies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the concerns of food services businesses, as the commissions they pay to food delivery companies will reduce their earnings. However, we need to carefully consider whether legislation is the appropriate solution in this situation.

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has been monitoring the developments in different sectors of our economy, to guard against anti-competitive behaviour. In the case of third party food delivery companies, they have explained publicly that their commission rates are in line with those charged before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the Circuit Breaker period, some of these companies have offered assistance to restaurants and hawker stalls, such as removing on-boarding fees, waiving commission for self-collection orders and charging zero commission in the first month for businesses that are new to the platform.

Third party food delivery companies offer food ordering, delivery and payment services. They are also aggregators that offer food services businesses access to their customer networks. The food delivery companies have explained that their commission rates are required to cover their business costs. These include insurance and payment to their riders, as well as costs to develop and maintain the IT systems and databases.

Sir, one important factor is that there are alternative options available to food services businesses and consumers, if they do not wish to go through the food delivery companies. There are vendors who can help food services businesses to set up their own online storefront, with co-funding support from Enterprise Singapore (ESG). There are also ground-up initiatives to help food establishments publicise their products and reach out to consumers directly. One example is the "Hawkers United – Dabao 2020". This is a group that was formed on social media to help hawkers. In addition, food services businesses can choose how the food reaches consumers. This includes self-collection by consumers, delivery by the food services businesses themselves, and using the services of third party logistics providers. Some food outlets offer a combination of these options.

There are trade-offs among the different options, and market conditions will also evolve in tandem with changes in supply and demand. Third party food delivery companies may charge higher commission rates, but they can offer end-to-end services and access to a larger consumer base. So, there are trade-offs. Hence, food services businesses should weigh the pros and cons of the different options before making a commercial decision on which one they want to choose.

This approach will produce a better outcome for all stakeholders compared to capping commission rates through legislation. The availability of alternative options, including the possibility of new competitors entering the market, will serve as a check against excessive commission rates and continue to incentivise delivery companies to provide value to businesses who are using their platforms and services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are difficult times for our businesses. The Government will continue to support our companies and our workers. Our objective is to help viable businesses to survive this crisis and to prepare for the recovery, when we are able to gradually ease the restrictions and allow more economic activities to resume. We have various schemes in place to help our companies and workers, covering different areas such as workforce training, productivity improvement and adoption of digital solutions. Our businesses who need assistance can approach Enterprise Singapore and the Trade Associations and Chambers and we will do our best to help them.

One example is the Food Delivery Booster Package by ESG to fund five percentage points of the commission charged by Deliveroo, foodpanda and GrabFood. The objective is to reduce the costs for food services businesses which are using these online platforms. For food services businesses that choose to go through approved third party logistics partners to deliver meals to their customers, ESG will assist them by co-funding 20% of the delivery cost that they are paying to these third party logistics providers. The Booster Package has benefited more than 9,000 food services businesses so far. It was originally scheduled to end on 4 May. In view of the extended Circuit Breaker period, ESG will continue to provide this Package till 1 June 2020.

Ms Foo.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive answer on what help the Government is providing through ESG. Nevertheless, I would like to bring back the point on the 30% to 35% commission charged by GrabFood, Deliveroo and foodpanda in the market. They have a dominant share and continue to have a dominant share during this COVID-19 period and there has been a lot of feedback from F&B outlets whether help can be given to them.

What I would like to ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary is whether the Government has monitored the size and growth rate of the delivery platform business, especially since the COVID-19 outbreak. Whether the Government feels legislation should be necessary to govern the practice of such businesses – I would say they are very large now – to avoid predatory behaviour as well as provide transparency, some kind of format that they have to provide transparency to the consumers to show how much the delivery companies charge restaurants and pay the delivery riders. I think that form of transparency is important. The same practice has been imposed on banks. When banks charge commission, we compel the banks to share with the customers; it would be similar thinking along that line.

I would also like to ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government will consider temporary measures to limit commissions charged by delivery platforms – maybe just temporary – during this COVID-19 pandemic, where restaurants dine-in operations are not allowed. If we do not do a permanent arrangement, can we do a temporary one, so as to provide these restaurants a fighting chance to survive?

A number of cities in the US, including San Francisco and Seattle, have already passed Emergency Orders temporarily capping delivery app commissions at 15%. And there are many other cities in the process of doing so.

Speaker, Sir, when we assess the policy options, I think it is important that we look at the incentives that these policies will create and the outcomes that they are likely to produce and not only on the intent of the proposal. So, we may have good intent when we suggest certain policy changes using legislation, but it does not mean that good intent alone will produce positive outcomes. I think that is something which we have to be quite careful in deciding what option we want to take to tackle the problem.

In my main reply, Sir, I mentioned that an effective way of dealing with this issue is to create alternative options so that you give businesses and consumers choice. And that is a check against anyone – whether it is GrabFood, foodpanda, Deliveroo or any other company – being able to charge excessive commission rates.

So, this is what we have been trying to do. To reduce the entry barrier to help companies that want to seek out alternative options. These options can include having customers pick up their own food. It can include the food services companies working with a third party provider to deliver the food on their behalf. It can also include them doing the delivery to customers on their own.

I think this is the approach that will produce a better outcome compared to using legislation, which is a rather blunt instrument. And what rate do you want to set? If you set it too low, one of the consequences would be that the food delivery companies would then not be able to provide some of these services because they have their costs to cover as well. And they have explained what cost component goes to who – how much of it goes to the riders, how much of it for insurance, supporting the IT systems and maintaining the customer databases. So, yes, I think we do need to keep an eye on making sure that the system is fair, making sure that there are sufficient alternative options. But in the end, I think we should place our focus on what is the outcome that we can achieve.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Speaker. I believe I have made my point. Actually, I would like to speak by apologising to the Senior Minister of State. I had mentioned "Senior Parliamentary Secretary"; it is actually "Senior Minister of State". I have made my point, so I will not repeat myself. Thank you.

29 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many companies providing essential services or in the key economic sectors are allowed to operate during the circuit breaker period; (b) how many workers working in the essential firms and key economic sectors are allowed to work at their usual work places; and (c) how has the number changed after the further tightening of economic activities on 20 April 2020.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the circuit breaker period starting 7 April 2020, around 21% of our total workforce continued operating on-site at approximately 80,000 entities. This excludes workers and companies that could continue operating from home via telecommuting arrangements.

Under the enhanced circuit break period starting 21 April 2020, 17% of our total workforce continued operating on-site at approximately 45,000 entities. Again, this excludes workers and companies that could continue operating from home.

I thank the Minister for the reply. As the number of community COVID-19 infections is reducing, what is the Government's plan to reopen the economy? If the Government do reopen the economy, which are the broad sectors, particularly the production and service sectors, will be first to be allowed to resume the services and production?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had given this reply yesterday during my media interview. There are two parts to it.

First, the sectors that will progressively reopen as priority. So, first, let me put this in context. During the circuit breaker period measures and during the enhanced circuit breaker period measures, all our essential services continue to function. At the same time, all the productions that are part of the global supply chain, including petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and certain parts of manufacturing also continue to function. This is to ensure that, domestically, we are able to play our part to meet the essential needs of fellow Singaporeans. At the same time, this allows us to fulfil our responsibilities and obligations to the global supply chains. So, this set of measures are on-going.

As we progressively reopen our economy, we are also looking to reinforce our position to fulfil our responsibilities to the global supply chains, be it pharmaceuticals, biomedical, electronics or petrochemicals. We are also determined to make sure that our hub status as both a Financial Hub, Trade Hub, Aviation and Port Hub status continue to function, not just for the benefit of Singaporeans, but also for the global community. These are the sectors that we gave priority for the progressive reopening.

The second point as to how we progressively reopen, as I had mentioned yesterday, we need to start the preparations now, so that come next week, we can progressively reopen. There are a number of things that we need to do together to prepare our companies to expand their capacities as they reopen.

First, we need to put in place the contingency arrangements to have a safe working environment. This includes the safe distancing work arrangements within the respective companies. It includes safe rest areas and the safe cohorting of different sets of workers to allow for business continuity, and it certainly requires us to have a higher standard of hygiene and cleanliness within our work premises. These are measures that will last us a long time beyond the circuit breaker measures and these are good practices that we should put in place for sustainable operations, going forward.

This week, ESG and EDB will progressively work with our companies and trade associations to put in place the respective measures, so that we can open up and restart up some of the production capacities that have not been done in the last two weeks. That is how we intend to do so.

At the same time, we must also embrace technology to see how we can use technology to help people who need to interact with one another, to come in contact with one another, to track and trace them, should there be an incident.

As I mentioned yesterday, this will be a long fight. We are far from over in this battle with COVID-19. We will need to put in place measures for safe operations. At the same time, if there is a flare-up in any particular one sector or one company, we must be able to quickly put in place measures to isolate that group of workers from the rest, so that the rest of the economy can continue to function.

There will be another set of companies and operations that will need to rethink their business model for longer term sustainability. For example, those companies that are involved in social entertainment, as well as those companies that require high level of interactions between the workers and the customers or amongst the customers, will also need to rethink their business model in order for us to restart those operations safely. This is how we intend to do it in a systematic and progressive manner to reopen the economy, so that more of our people can get back to work.

Having said that, the work from home measures will continue for many people who can continue to do their work from home. We have been able to do this for the vast majority of our economy and those measures are likely to continue in the short to medium term.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister for Trade and Industry. We have received feedback from some residents who operate businesses in essential services that under the tightened circuit breaker, they were asked to suspend their operations, whereas they know of others in the same industry who were not asked to do so. So, could the Minister share how MTI actually comes up with these guidelines or restrictions for companies? And why is it that there appears to be companies in the same industry that do not get the same instructions from MTI, in essential services?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of the measures under the circuit breaker period and the enhanced circuit breaker measures have to do with trying to reduce the amount of social interactions and reduce the load, for example, in the transport sector. So, we try to reduce the numbers to the minimum possible, while maintaining the level of essential services required by our local community.

For essential firms, we will first want to make sure that they have a minimum level of operations that can continue to do so. So, even for essential firms, it does not mean that all essential firms get 100% of all the workers that they need. The essential firms will pare down to what they really need to continue their operations in a safe and efficient manner.

I believe Ms Lim may refer to some examples like some of the food establishments that are considered essential and, progressively, we have asked some to wind down. One of the reasons for us to do this is that as demand falls, we hope to be able to aggregate the services provided by various companies. So, all else being equal, for those companies that provide a series of services in an aggregated manner with a minimum number of staff required, we will be able to prioritise them and help them to continue their operations. But on the other hand, companies that have standalone operations and require perhaps a disproportionate amount of staff, we will advise them to restructure their operations to pare down their numbers or, if not, to temporarily suspend their operations for the moment.

Having said that, of course, this is an on-going process. We work with all the essential firms and companies to size up the demand for their workforce. And depending on the period of the circuit breaker at different points in time, they will require different set of workers for both operations and for safe maintenance.

30 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister what is the extent to which businesses have been able to benefit from Singapore's COVID-19 financing schemes, which were rolled out to provide them access to credit and improve cash flows, with specifics on (i) total quantum of loans dispersed (ii) number of business loan applications approved (iii) approval rates and (iv) average applicable interest rates, for the period ending 30 April 2020.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as SMEs are a vital part of our economy, the Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS, and Enterprise Singapore or ESG, are working closely with the banking sector to ensure that SMEs continue to have access to the financial support they need to tide through this difficult period. This is done through the ESG loan schemes.

The loan schemes have seen strong interest. Based on ESG’s data, SME borrowers have applied for more than 2,500 loans amounting to about S$1.9 billion since the beginning of March this year. This is about six times the credit extended over the same period last year. The approval rate of these loan applications has been high, at 90% to 95%.

Under the ESG loan schemes, the Government takes 90% of the loss if a loan goes bad, with the banks assuming the remaining 10%. This has helped bring down the credit spread that the banks charged.

The ESG loan schemes were then further enhanced when MAS launched a new Singapore Dollar facility for the banks and finance companies. It provides them with fully collateralised funding for two years at an interest rate of 0.1% per annum, for the purpose of their loans under the ESG schemes. This funding differs from the existing five-year, uncollateralised funding provided by the Government.

Together with the earlier enhancements to the ESG loan schemes, this is expected to bring down interest rates for such loans to 2%-3% for most borrowers, compared to 6% or more for most other unsecured working capital loans to SMEs today.

We have also seen good take-up of the complementary set of relief measures to help SMEs during this period. These measures were announced earlier by MAS and the financial industry. They include enabling SME borrowers with secured loans to defer principal repayments until 31 December 2020. Many SMEs have requested to do so. As of 30 April 2020, more than 2,500 applications have been processed, with nearly all applications approved. More than S$4.5 billion of secured loan facilities have benefited from this measure to-date.

MAS and ESG will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our measures.

Ms Foo.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the very encouraging set of numbers that he has revealed, about six times' increase.

Nevertheless, Minister, amongst the SME circle, the expectations seem to be varying. Many people are focusing that the Government has committed to risk-share at 90% and made cost of fund available at 0.1% for these SME loans. So, the feedback so far has been that actually the rates offered by banks have been quite different and they feel that the rate has yet to reflect the Government's support. So, I would like to ask the Minister for his view – three questions.

The loan application volume – yes, we have seen significant increase but it is unusual times, so the loan volume and the interest rate, whether these are in line with the Government's policy intention; is it seeing the volume it expects?

Second, with 2%-3%, yet Government offering 90% risk-share and 0.1% interest rate, whether SMEs' expectation for lower market interest rates are reasonable?

And third, some SMEs have said the banks' requirements for SMEs to provide personal guarantees are too demanding and not commensurate with the banks' risk exposure; so, whether the Minister thinks these requirements are reasonable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few points. First, the cost of fund is just one component of an interest rate. Beyond that, there is a credit spread depending on the risk profile of the borrower, and in this case, the Government going to bear 90% of the loan losses, that will bring down the credit spread. Then, there is also another component which is the bank's own cost, their administration costs. So, if you add up, it would be above 0.1%, which is just the cost of funds.

In April, most of the interest rates charged for ESG loans were between 2% and 4.5%. So, it has come down from before, which was 6% or more. So, I think, it is largely Government measures stepping in to lower cost of funds plus credit spread that have led to this outcome.

Whether the volume is according to our expectation, it is hard to say. It all depends on how deep the economic troubles will be. We certainly do not wish for the volume to be too huge. It means that the economic disruption is bigger, but I think the situation is still fluid. I think our measures are in place to answer to the needs of SMEs.

The Member had a last question.

Personal guarantee.

Personal guarantee. So, the purpose of these ESG loans is to address an unexpected event – a black swan event – that is devastating to the economy and to many industries and firms. We want to make sure that firms do not just collapse as a result of this event. They are firms that otherwise would have been viable, which is why the Government put in a massive Job Support Scheme (JSS) and at the same time, provide these loans to help companies tide over. And I think to be able to pledge your personal assets, is an indication of the confidence of the business owner, that this is actually a viable business and that is worthwhile supporting it to tide through this difficult period.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just two questions for the Minister to follow up on that. One is in terms of processing times. So, there is still anecdotal feedback that the processing times are still quite considerable and there are some SMEs that are in distress and they need the credit to come in quickly. So, has the Government been tracking whether those processing times for the ESG loans have come down, is it trending in the right direction?

The second question is really in terms of personal guarantees. I suppose just to clarify, would the extent to which banks deploying these ESG loans ask for personal guarantees, does that also – are you seeing that also being reduced because of the 90% Government risk-share?

On the second question, I am afraid I do not have the data. But, as I explained to Ms Foo Mee Har, the personal guarantee is an indication of the confidence of the business owner on how viable the business is. And I think it is a necessary prudential measure. Since the Global Financial Crisis, I think all around the world banks have become stronger – stronger balance sheets, more capital. And I think it is fortunate that we went through this period and we now have stronger banks to meet the challenge of COVID-19. We want to make sure that banks use this balance sheet to be able to help economies, sectors, industries tide through, while maintaining their strength and resilience. That balance needs to be recognised and that balance needs to be struck.

As to the processing time, I do have some data. It ranges from one to eight days with the majority hovering around five days, four to five days. So, we will continue to track the schemes and make sure that it is processed efficiently and expeditiously.

Mr Patrick Tay.

This is a supplementary question for the bridging loan, specifically. I have encountered companies which hire quite a number of Singaporean workers because they are unable to obtain the bridging loan from ESG, in particular, in this instance where the local shareholding and ownership of company is less than 30%. So, they were not granted. But unfortunately, they hire quite a number of Singapore workers and want to keep above the water. So, is there any way we can assist such companies, which are in Singapore.

I would think they should be eligible. Why not give us the details and certainly, MAS and ESG can look into it.

31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education whether the graduation ceremonies for ITE, Polytechnics and Universities will still be organised at a later date for the current batch of graduands should the COVID-19 situation improve and permit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, each Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) typically holds over 10 graduation ceremonies, with the larger ones holding over 20 ceremonies, and some sessions can involve more than 1,000 people.

Realistically, in the light of COVID-19 and the need for safe distancing measures, our IHLs will not be able to hold traditional graduation ceremonies this year. It will also not be practical to postpone these large-scale ceremonies later this year, even if it is safe to do so by then. Because by then, graduands would have dispersed and gone their separate ways after completing their course.

Nonetheless, when the COVID-19 situation improves and stabilises, the IHLs will explore other ways, not involving big ceremonies, to help our students celebrate and commemorate the occasion, should they wish to.

We understand the disappointment of many students and parents. However, having explained the decisions, many have also expressed their understanding of the priority to safeguard health and lives, and that they would take this in their stride. Some graduands have also found their own creative ways to mark the occasion, such as a group of Temasek Polytechnic students who recently held a virtual ceremony on Minecraft.

We want to reassure our students that even though we are unable to hold the physical ceremonies, our students' achievements in their education journey and graduation are no less significant.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, indeed, the 2020 batch of graduates are an extraordinary cohort, they face challenging and trying circumstances and we should do our very best to help them if we can. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary again, should the COVID-19 situation improves and permits, say one year down the road, and graduates and their families are still keen to have a graduation ceremony, would MOE be prepared to support and importantly, to keep the option open for them?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary questions. In MOE, we understand the students' disappointment of not being able to mark the graduation with their family and their friends in one ceremony like before. It is hard, but unfortunately, given how easily infectious COVID-19 is, the need for safe distancing measures will continue to remain even after the circuit breaker measures are lifted.

Despite these unfortunate circumstances due to COVID-19, the IHLs have come up with many ways, not involving big physical ceremonies, to support and help the students to celebrate and commemorate this important occasion of their graduation and achievements. For the Polytechnics and the ITEs, traditionally, they hold their annual graduation ceremonies in the month of May, this month. Each of our Polytechnics and the ITEs have already set up a graduation website where congratulatory messages can be posted, in addition to the list of graduates and also the award winners. On top of that, additional commemorative materials such as graduation videos, e-handbooks or even graduation sticker packs, that were creatively done by the Faculty, were developed by the institutions.

Having said that, the Polytechnics and the ITEs are considering to allow gown rentals for photo-taking and eventually the opening of campuses for photo-taking, as and when safe distancing measures are scaled back. So, they are considering all that. That is for the Polytechnics and the ITEs.

As for our Autonomous Universities (AUs), as of now, SMU has decided that they will hold a virtual ceremony in place of the July ceremony. For the rest of the AUs, given that the graduation ceremonies are at least two to six months away, the other five AUs are deliberating the approaches and will certainly keep the graduands informed.

I would like to add that, beyond the commemoration of our students' graduation, all our IHLs are looking at ways to support our graduates given the uncertain economic outlook. For example, all the graduates graduating from ITEs, Polytechnics and AUs, will be offered complimentary access to pursue at least two CET modules and all our Education and Career Guidance (ECG) counsellors are available to support them in terms of career guidance and also career preparation.

32 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education with regard to the implementation of home-based learning during the circuit breaker period (a) what is the total number of students returning to their schools during this period; (b) how do schools assess whether students have the necessary support at home to do home-based learning and, if not, will need to return to school; and (c) whether there have been requests from parents for students to attend school during this period which could not be acceded to and, if so, what are the reasons.

Mr Speaker, the vast majority of our students have been able to participate in full home-based learning (HBL) during the circuit breaker. Participation in full HBL was high, averaging 96% across the levels. The few who did not participate were largely on medical leave, and those who did not participate persistently were encouraged to return to school.

Notwithstanding, schools have also identified a proportion of students who would benefit from returning to school during this period, based on their understanding of the student and his/her family circumstances, parents' requests, and referrals from social workers. These would generally come under the following categories.

First, students whose parents are in essential services and do not have alternative care-giving arrangements. These students can also access the limited services offered by school-based Student Care Centres, or SCCs, including students who were not previously enrolled in the SCCs.

Second, students who face significant challenges learning at home, require face-to-face support or, for whom, a school environment is in the best interest of the student. Schools proactively identified these students and encouraged them to return to school, by providing a welcoming environment and additional small-group activities such as non-contact sports and enrichment modules, while practising safe distancing. This has helped them to stay connected and engaged, and maintain a school-going routine.

Thirdly, students who do not have sufficient digital devices at home or needed Internet access to support home-based learning. To support this group, schools have loaned out more than 20,000 computing devices and 1,600 Internet-enabling devices to date, with some support from corporates. The numbers coming back to schools for this purpose has dropped significantly since, to a small group whose parents do not wish to loan for personal reasons. If Members come across families who need devices, please refer them to the school, as we have more than enough to loan out.

Over the full HBL period, about 3,300 Primary school students and 700 Secondary school students returned to school daily for one or more of the above reasons. Requests from parents for their children to return to school were met, as long as there were genuine needs. The challenge has in fact been the opposite, where schools invite the student to come back to school, but the parents were reluctant over various reasons. But schools will continue to try.

Beyond the loan of devices, MOE and schools have also provided support to students and their families to facilitate participation in full HBL. Teachers monitored their students’ learning and well-being through text messages, phone or video calls. Resource kits are provided so parents can help supervise their children and reinforce their learning.

Through these various measures, we have been able to maintain high participation in HBL while at the same time enabling those with genuine need to return to school subject to the enhanced safe distancing measures in force during this period.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. I just wanted to check a little bit more about the issues that some of the parents have been facing because we hear a lot of feedback that it is has been very challenging, even for the most savvy of parents to actually conduct HBL. I am just wondering whether schools and the Ministry have been receiving feedback about some of these challenges that parents are facing, and how are they supported in carrying out some of the HBL lessons at home.

The second thing I wanted to check on is the teachers. How are they coping with this because it is also not very easy for them managing. I think I heard feedback that some of them have challenges in ensuring the level of reception of the students, especially through online learning. So, how are teachers being supported in this? Especially since a recent article mentioned about how some of the students needed support beyond just their lessons but also in terms of the counselling they need because the challenges their parents may be facing. So, I am just wondering how are the teachers supported in all these, especially since some of them also are parents themselves and also have to handle HBL for their own kids.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question and for her very obvious concern for both parents as well as the teachers. Let me start by saying that home-based learning has been a learning process for all – the schools, the parents and the students. That said, it has gone on much better than we had hoped but not without challenges. So, what are some of the challenges?

Some of the challenges are obviously from the parents' view point: some had to get familiar with the resource kits, some had to learn how to use the software, others were okay with the resource kits and the software but they had to work from home or they had more than one child who was also doing home-based learning. There were some, and for them this is particularly challenging if they had a child with special needs and other children who are also doing home-based learning.

So, what the schools and the teachers have tried to do is to ensure that they maintained a contact with the parents, talked through the issues that the parents have and together tried to work at various solutions. And this is also bearing in mind that no two children are exactly alike. Some have taken to the home-based learning very well but some others need more offline learning; and the parents have had to adjust and cope with that as well.

So, I would say that the initial period – certainly, the first week – there was quite a lot of adjustments that had to take place and learning on both sides. But a couple of weeks on and now we are at the fourth week, things have more or less stabilised. But I rather suspect that the school holidays commencing tomorrow will be a welcome break for all.

With regard to teachers, here I really would like to salute the teachers for the tremendous effort that they made. Many of you do not see this behind the scenes but when HBL was first announced, the teachers had to come together very quickly to put together the packages and the resource kits. What was heartwarming from this that we have learnt from the feedback from the schools, is that those teachers who were familiar with technology started to help those who were less familiar. Some of the older ones who were very experienced teachers but not so familiar with technology were learning from some of the younger ones. So, altogether it was an experience where people shared their different knowledge; the teachers shared different resources; some of them were just putting together DIY kits, building on MOE resources that were available. But altogether moving in the same direction with the sole purpose of making sure that the children were adequately equipped, and also trying to ensure that the parents were supported in this task of home-based learning.

And for the students who need support beyond lessons, obviously, the teachers also have been trying to engage them in other ways. And for the ones who have other issues, the school counsellors and the social welfare officers have reached out to them, again, either by telephone calls, video calls, emails, but just trying to make sure that they stay in contact with the students so that they are supported.

I thank the Minister for her replies. And it is very heartening to know that the reply regarding students with special education needs as well. Thank you also for giving examples of some of the groups that are allowed to return to schools during this period. I expect, as the Minister Lawrence had mentioned, in time there will be more information on who will be allowed to return midway during circuit breaker period. But for now, can I ask the Minister to share MOE's experience with regard to perhaps students who are boarders or students who do not have strong family support at home and maybe might be in school hostels, for example. Are special concerns given to these students in terms of allowing them the support, bearing in mind that they might be in their room for a significant period of time without the family support that other children or other students may have in their home.

For the children who are without family support, the teachers in the schools are especially mindful to make an extra effort for these students. These students also have access to the limited services available. So, I would just like to reassure the Member that every effort to ensure that these students are supported.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive sharing. I do agree that HBL has given us all a very big learning curve during this period. I would like to ask if MOE would consider – because of the learning and the processes and challenges we have been going through in the education sector during this HBL period – an initiative to take stock of what is happening, what we have learnt, what are some of the best practices build a body of knowledge so we can learn more about who might be suitable to take home-based learning, what type of configurations some of these students will be more suited for and how we can ensure also that the teachers will be able to move from, say, a very instructor-dependent kind of e-learning, e-teaching to something that is better blended so that content, for example, which is repeatable, can be consolidated, put into packages that everybody can use.

In short, I would like to ask MOE to consider an initiative to take stock of all these learnings, so that indeed we will be able to progress to the next level of e-learning, blended learning and so forth.

Let me thank the Member for her suggestion. We will certainly take that on board. MOE is already beginning to look at some of the feedback and the learnings that we have derived from this.

One of the pieces of feedback that has come, for example, is that teachers have said that the preparation of the lesson plans for online learning or learning through virtual platforms, is very different from face-to-face learning. So, that is one example. And the way you prepare the resources that you use and how you package it together is different.

They are also looking at the right balance because after awhile, if it is only pure online learning, children get bored. They need stimulation of other kinds. So, you have got to make sure you have the right mix. You also want to make sure that you have a healthy mix.

So, there are actually many things that have come out of this and we should see this as an opportunity to learn, to derive new strategies and add that into the mix of things, as we continue to make sure that our education system remains the foremost one in the world.

33 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many incidents of fake news pertaining to COVID-19 have been identified and reported since January 2020; (b) what actions have been taken to tackle these fake news in the midst of a public health crisis; (c) who are some of the creators of these fake news; and (d) how are they held accountable for their misbehaviour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since late January 2020, Government agencies have clarified and debunked about 40 instances of speculation, rumours, scams and outright falsehoods pertaining to COVID-19.

Amidst this crisis, our agencies have spared no effort to swiftly put out the facts, to dispel confusion and calm anxieties fomented by such falsehoods. The clarifications have been conveyed through the media, on Government websites, social media and the Gov.sg channel on WhatsApp and Telegram. Our primary focus is on ensuring that Singaporeans receive reliable and accurate information in a timely manner.

We have also used the powers under POFMA – the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act – to require purveyors of falsehoods to place factual corrections alongside false claims. These actions have been against Singaporeans, here or abroad, as well as some foreign parties and websites.

We will not hesitate to use the full force of the law against those who deliberately or maliciously purvey falsehoods. As was elaborated earlier, recently, an individual was charged in Court under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for claiming on Facebook that he had Government “intel” about tighter measures coming up.

Purveyors of falsehoods must be held accountable, but we all have a role to play in stemming the spread of false information, especially as some may have carelessly shared misinformation. It is of utmost importance, especially at a time of crisis like this, that each and every one of us does the right thing by checking that the messages we receive come from reliable sources and make the effort to verify a claim or piece of information before sharing it.

I thank the Minister for the answer. First of all, I would like to ask whether the numbers or is there a downward trend of such fake news. Such creators of fake news I would like to think of them as social anarchies. Are we adequately equipped to really identify these creators and take very strong action against them especially in such a public health crisis? We should not let them get away with this.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. First, on the numbers and whether there is a clear trend, I would say that some of the actions that we took at the early stages of this crisis have had a salutary effect in injecting further restraint in the propensity to share such information or to purvey such false information. Having said that, I think they are also episodic; and we see sometimes, for want of a better word, a cluster pop-up because there is a new source of information and then others build on it. So, I would say in general, it has a leavening effect, a salutary effect in bringing the propensity down, but we still see some instances popping up from time to time.

Secondly, are we well-equipped to deal with this? On the part of the Government, we are not going out on the basis of trying to identify who are the purveyors on an ex ante basis. What we do do is, when the false information is brought to our attention then we take quick action. And the action that we take we have a range of responses, from clarifications to correction orders under the POFMA legislation, to even more serious actions that we can take, under POFMA, under the Miscellaneous Offences Act and even the Penal Code.

So, we have a range of tools at our disposal and depending on the circumstances of each case and the outcome of investigations, the Public Prosecutor will decide if more serious action is to be taken.

So, on the whole, I think we have a comprehensive toolkit to deal with this but ultimately, I want to emphasise again the important role that all of us play because, ultimately, such falsehoods will find no traction if we do not give them any traction.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Minister for Health.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 34-35, 37-39, 45-48 and 51 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 36, 40-44 and 49-50 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 5 May 2020.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to update Members again on the COVID-19 situation and address some of their questions.

When I spoke in March 2020, we were seeing the centre of the pandemic shift away from China, and a rapid increase in cases globally. Close to 80% of our cases then were imported, mainly from returning Singaporeans. We tightened our border controls and our import cases have drastically reduced. In the past week, we had no imported cases, down from around 16 a day on average in March.

At the same time, we have seen a rise in community cases from nine a day in March, to 31 a day on average in the week before circuit breaker, with an increasing proportion of unlinked cases, suggesting that there is underlying community transmission. We decided to do the hard thing – to impose circuit breaker measures from 7 April 2020, and introduced stricter measures following that on 21 April 2020. We also extended the circuit breaker measures to 1 June 2020.

There are signs that our circuit breaker measures are working. The average number of new community cases had fallen from 31 in the week before the circuit breaker, to 11 last week. The average number of new unlinked community cases a day had similarly reduced from 12, to five over the same period.

This suggests that our circuit breaker measures are effective. Let me take this chance to acknowledge the many sacrifices of our people, workers and businesses during these past few weeks of the circuit breaker. It has not been easy, but you have all played a part in bringing these numbers down and I want to express my heartfelt gratitude. But we are not out of the woods yet.

While the community cases are coming under control, we have seen a rise in migrant worker cases, particularly in the dormitories. We moved in quickly, set up medical posts in all the purpose-built dormitories and provided mobile medical support for the factory converted dormitories. MOH worked with the Inter-agency Task Force led by MOM to ensure the medical needs and welfare of the workers are taken care of. We are grateful for the assistance of the Task Force's members including the SAF and SPF and our healthcare workers from our public healthcare institutions as well as from the private sector. We are making progress and will continue to do our best to care for our migrant workers. Minister Teo will elaborate on this in her Statement.

Notwithstanding stringent precautions, there have also been cases at our Nursing Homes and at one Welfare Home. As these facilities serve the elderlies who are a vulnerable group, we take such cases very seriously. MOH has ramped up more aggressive testing for staff and residents at these Homes, working jointly with MSF. This is to protect our vulnerable seniors, by quickly picking up hidden cases if any, to isolate them and care for them and thus protect the rest of the Homes' residents and staff. We have started this, but it would take some time to complete.

Meanwhile, we may see cases picked up at these Homes as a result of the active screening. In addition, we are also arranging lodging for staff who interact with residents at designated accommodation facilities on-site or at hotels, to reduce their exposure to the community during this circuit breaker period. Both these steps complement existing safe distancing and infection control measures, so as to enhance protection to our seniors in these Homes.

Overall, despite our high case numbers, we have managed to keep death rates low so far. This is partly because most of our patients are younger and partly due to the tireless efforts of our healthcare workers in providing good and timely medical care for all our COVID-infected patients. We must continue to do all we can to save patients who become gravely ill and keep fatalities as low as possible.

In preparation for the expected increase in the number of cases, especially from the dormitories, we have rapidly expanded our healthcare capacity. This includes both medical facilities, and also healthcare manpower.

We have seen countries whose healthcare systems were overwhelmed and this quickly led to high numbers of death among patients. Ms Irene Quay has asked if we have an ethical framework to allocate use of healthcare resources. We are working hard to avoid getting to this point. We have planned ahead, created and ramped up many different types of healthcare facilities to support the specific needs of COVID-19 patients. In addition, our healthcare system has the flexibility to stretch our capacity to respond to increasing demand. Let me elaborate.

First, on hospital and ICU beds. To ensure that there is available hospital capacity to care for COVID-19 patients, public hospitals have postponed non-urgent elective procedures and discharged medically stable long-stayers to step-down care facilities. Public hospitals have also repurposed and converted existing wards into isolation rooms and progressively opened more wards for COVID-19 patients. Our number of isolation beds has increased from around 550 in January this year, to close to 1,500 as of 2 May 2020. NCID has also increased their capacity from about 100 to more than 500 negative pressure isolation beds in the same period.

Currently, 28 COVID-19 patients are in our ICU, as the majority of the cases are mild. We have about 150 vacant ICU beds and can quickly bring another 300 online. But we are not taking any chances as we must preserve our buffer capacity.

Mr Leon Perera had asked about our ability to further ramp up. The public hospitals have put in place plans to ensure that their infrastructure, equipment, medications and manpower are in place to add another 450 ICU beds by mid-May if needed. We have also ensured a sufficient supply of ventilators and other ICU accessories to support the care of ICU patients.

The majority of our COVID-19 cases have only mild symptoms. Hence, we have expanded our medical facilities to care for patients with mild symptoms and those who are on the recovery path and no longer need extensive medical support. These facilities allow the hospitals to focus resources on providing care to those who require emergency and intensive care. The Community Care Facility (CCF) is one such facility for patients with milder symptoms. At the CCFs, patients continue to be monitored and have access to appropriate medical care when needed.

Currently, we have more than 10,000 beds in our CCFs for our patients. These include places such as the D'Resort at Paris Ris, Singapore Expo Halls 1 to 6 and part of Changi Exhibition Centre. Another 10,000 are being set up. Building up our CCF capacity called for a multi-agency effort comprising Government agencies and the private sector. Many teams had worked round the clock to make this possible, and I want to extend my gratitude to all of them.

For example, for the first hall in Expo, this was made possible through the hard work of individuals from Temasek Holdings, Singapore Expo, Surbana Jurong, the Integrated Health Information Systems, Resorts World Sentosa as the managing agent, PSA, ST Engineering, Certis Cisco, Parkway Pantai and the Woodlands Health Campus as well as the SAF. The list is long, but this gives us a sense of the complexity of the operations and how closely everyone had to work together. Through the efforts of everyone involved, we managed to set up the first hall in a week. This is truly an exemplary example of a Whole-of-Society effort.

Next, let me talk about Community Recovery Facility (CRF). We have also set up these CRFs which is a step-down facility for recovering patients. Based on epidemiological evidence and research by local and international infectious disease experts, patients who remain well at day 14 of their illness are past the critical stage and are unlikely to need further medical care. However, they still have to be isolated to reduce the risk of transmission. Hence, patients past their day 14 of illness can be safely transferred to the CRFs before they are assessed for discharge.

We currently have around 2,000 CRF bed spaces, with some of them within our dormitories and others in selected SAF camps. We will be expanding CRF capacity to more than 10,000 beds by end June. As our CRF facilities increase, we can also free up space at the CCFs.

With this layered set of healthcare facilities customised to patient needs, we will be able to provide the most appropriate care for patients while also ensuring sufficient healthcare capacity to meet our needs. All these efforts require close coordination among multiple agencies, as the example of CCF @ Singapore Expo illustrates, to ensure operations are optimised, facilities are well-managed, patient flows are facilitated and tracked, while keeping watch on the capacity utilisation overall.

MOH has set up a Medical Operations Task Force (MOTF) with the support of the SAF to oversee and coordinate our efforts on the ground. I want to thank our partners and SAF in particular, for their support and efforts.

Looking ahead, while we take heart in the progress made, especially in the community cases, we should not be complacent. There are still unlinked cases and cases picked up from our surveillance programme, indicating the presence of hidden cases in the community. Globally, the number of cases also continue to increase. Even countries and regions with low daily numbers, such as China, Hong Kong, South Korea and New Zealand, are watching out anxiously for a second wave of infection that may result in another prolonged outbreak.

Hence, we must continue to do what we can to keep our cases low, to keep the lid tight even as we gradually roll back some of our circuit breaker measures. We are now at the end of the two weeks of tighter circuit breaker measures. Last Saturday, the Multi-Ministry Task Force announced the gradual resumption of selected activities and services in the coming weeks, subject to the necessary safe management measures being in place. The rest of the circuit breaker measures will continue to apply till 1 June.

If we work together, by 1 June, we hope our situation would have improved further, with community cases remaining low or coming down further. Migrant worker cases in the dormitories will hopefully by then be clearly under control. We can then consider further opening up. This is important to enable our people to start going back to work. It is also important for Singapore to protect our strategic position in the global supply chains as the global economy recovers from COVID-19.

We will still need to open up in a phased and calibrated manner, to avoid a second wave of outbreak. There will likely still be cases of infection in the community as the virus is difficult to eradicate. What is key is to keep the number of cases small and reduce the risk of big clusters, through various safeguards and enablers. It would take a while before the COVID-19 outbreak subsides globally or before a vaccine is available. Thus, we will have to adapt to a new way of life and social interactions.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked what indicators we will look at in considering lifting the circuit breaker measures. We will consider a variety of factors.

First, numbers are important but they are not the only thing. We need to be assured that community transmission locally is stemmed or very low. Community cases should ideally fall to zero or single digit daily, with very low numbers of unlinked cases and not just for one day but sustained over a period of time. We also need to see a decrease in migrant worker cases. These cases are high today partly due to proactive case-finding in some settings. While we have been able to keep local community cases low despite higher number of cases among migrant workers, it is equally important to reduce the migrant worker cases over time, though it will take a while longer. Otherwise, we will continue to be at risk of a spillover from the dormitories into the wider population.

Second, we need to make an assessment of the situation globally and for individual countries to inform the extent and approach on reopening our borders. We will review the rate of transmissions in other countries as well as what they have done to contain the spread. For any reopening of our borders, we are likely to start small and selectively, and to continue to impose a mix of isolation and test requirements to protect ourselves from new imported cases leading to community spread.

Third, we must put in place a system to allow us to open up safely. When we allow more business and social activities to resume, there will be more interactions and higher risks of virus transmission at the workplace and in the community. Therefore, we need to step up our capability and capacity to test and detect cases early, contact trace quickly, ringfence close contacts promptly and establish the original source of the infection to stop other undetected transmission chains, if any. These are the key enablers which will give us confidence to reopen.

Let me start with the testing as the first key enabler. To date, we have conducted over 140,000 tests for COVID-19, or 2,500 tests per 100,000 people in Singapore. This is among the highest testing rates in the world. But we plan to do more and will continue to expand our testing capacity and to strategically deploy them to yield the greatest impact.

Members have asked about different tests and their uses. Today, we use mainly the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR tests, to detect confirmed COVID-19 cases. The PCR works by detecting the virus RNA from a nose or throat swab and is the gold standard for detecting current infection. To the question by Ms Sylvia Lim, we use PCR testing for three key purposes: (a) to diagnose suspect cases to provide early treatment and isolate close contacts; (b) to do screening and active case finding of individuals at risk, such as migrant workers decanted from their dorms before they return to work; and (c) to do surveillance to monitor undetected cases in the community.

Currently, we have the capacity to conduct more than 8,000 PCR tests a day in total across our community and migrant workers in the dormitories, up from 2,900 a day in early April. We are working with various private and public sector partners to progressively increase our testing capacity further to up to 40,000 a day.

With this increase, we will widen the net that we cast for diagnostic testing for symptomatic cases, active case finding, screening and surveillance testing in our community and among workers, including migrant workers. We will also do more testing and monitoring to pick out asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases among priority groups such as nursing home residents and staff to prevent clusters from developing. Testing is crucial as risk of infection will increase when we allow more economic and social activities to resume.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Foo Mee Har had asked about another type of test called serology testing. This works by detecting antibodies produced by the body to fight against the virus from a blood sample. Based on our local studies, the effectiveness of such tests is very low in the first 10 days of illness as it takes time for the immune system to develop antibodies. Therefore, unlike the PCR testing, serology tests are useful to indicate past infection but it is not very useful for early diagnosis because of the time lag. Many such tests in the market are also still under review and validation.

Notwithstanding this, NCID has begun to use serology testing to study the level of infection among various groups, including healthcare workers, close contacts of COVID-19 patients and the general population. Their study was published last week and found that among close to 2,000 samples from our healthcare workers, volunteers and general population, none had antibodies pointing to a past infection. This shows that the infection rate among our healthcare workers and general population is low.

The study also showed that among close contacts, around 2.5% had antibodies despite not having had symptoms during their quarantine. That means they had been infected earlier but recovered, and remain well without any symptoms. This points to the need to continue our efforts to quickly isolate close contacts of confirmed cases. We will continue to do more of these studies to help us understand the extent of spread and immunity in the community. I should add that scientific evidence of protective immunity is still under intensive study currently.

There have been some suggestions to do asymptomatic testing for the entire population. We will study this. As there is no widespread community transmission here, the yield will be very low if asymptomatic testing is done indiscriminately for the whole population. To be effective, it may also need to be done repeatedly as it does not reflect immunity and those tested can be infected after the test. It might not be best way to use our testing resources.

Instead, we will and have started doing asymptomatic testing selectively for priority groups. For example, we currently test asymptomatic young children if they are in the same household as COVID-19 patients since they may not be able to articulate their symptoms well. In addition, a key priority is to protect vulnerable groups. This includes seniors, particularly nursing home residents. As mentioned, we have started to test staff and residents at MOH and MSF Homes with a high proportion of seniors such as nursing homes and welfare homes. Such tests complement existing precautionary measures, such as good infection control practices and close monitoring for symptoms in staff and residents. They will allow us to intervene early where needed to protect the elderly residents.

As more businesses reopen, we may also do more tests for essential service workers. At our borders, we can also deploy tests for arrivals to reduce the risk of local transmission from imported cases.

In all, as we build up our testing capacity, we will be able to test more and for more purposes. This will be important as we start to open up so that we can pre-emptively detect and break any potential transmission chains.

The second enabler is our contact tracing capacity. After we have confirmed a COVID-19 case, we will need to contact trace and isolate high-risk close contacts to limit the spread in the community. This needs to be done fast and has to be scalable and thorough for it to be effective. This will allow us to quickly ringfence and prevent further spread. We have set up 50 contact tracing teams, up from 20 since my last update in March. But we must scale up quickly if there are more cases or large clusters and to discover less obvious links. To do so manually will be very difficult.

Many countries have leveraged on technology to help them contact trace effectively and efficiently. We will also explore how we can tap on SafeEntry and TraceTogether as well as other technological solutions.

Even as we build our capability and capacity for testing, contact tracing and healthcare infrastructure, we need the support of our healthcare workers. They are at the centre of our fight against this COVID-19 outbreak. We deeply appreciate their sacrifices, long hours as well as personal and professional commitment to care for each patient. This will be a long campaign and we will need the support of our healthcare workers, and we need to support them and to take care of their needs.

Many Members of Parliament have asked about the well-being of our healthcare workers. I would like to reaffirm our commitment to take care of them in every way. Our key priority is in keeping them safe and healthy by ensuring adequate supply of personal protective equipment to protect our healthcare workers and provide them training on the proper usage.

I thank Dr Chia Shi-Lu for his concern on the infection rate among our healthcare workers. As of 26 April 2020, there were 66 cases of confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers. Forty six cases were from healthcare workers whose work involved direct contact with patients. Based on investigations thus far, there are no established epidemiological links of a healthcare worker being infected in the line of duty for caring for their patients, except for one case in a private healthcare institution where we are unable to rule out the possible link between the doctor and a COVID-19 patient.

Our healthcare workers have taken an extra level of care at their workplace to protect themselves and their families. The recent NCID study also did not detect any past infection among a sample of healthcare workers. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent. We have reminded our healthcare workers constantly that they should take adequate precautions during their work to protect themselves, the patients as well as their family members.

In the event that our healthcare workers fall sick, we will ensure that they are well taken care of and our healthcare institutions will provide them with the necessary support.

It is also important for us to take care of the mental well-being of our healthcare workers. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare clusters had measures in place, such as counselling clinics, helplines and peer support programmes. We have since stepped up our efforts. For example, our institutions have rostered breaks and staff rotations to ensure that healthcare workers have sufficient rest periods in between work days. The clusters have also been actively working with the NTUC and, in particular, the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) with initiatives such as the distribution of care packages, the launch of GrabCare to provide transport for our frontline workers and collaboration with MindFi, a mindfulness app.

The many gifts and words of encouragement from members of the public to our healthcare workers mean a lot to them and have helped to keep up their morale. Members of the public have been writing thank you messages and buying breakfast for our healthcare workers. As part of the SG United initiative, close to 9,000 messages for our healthcare workers were collected from appreciation zones across Singapore. On behalf of our healthcare workers, let me thank you for your continued support.

Compensation is another important area, which Miss Cheryl Chan asked about. We recognise the invaluable contributions of our workers and will ensure that they receive due recognition for stepping up during this challenging period. The Deputy Prime Minister had previously announced a special bonus for our public healthcare workers working on the frontline. Healthcare workers are also paid shift or overtime allowances if they take on longer or more shifts during this outbreak.

However, we recognise that no monetary compensation is ever enough. I want to again acknowledge and thank our healthcare workers for their hard work and dedication. One great example is Ms Tovelle Loh, an assistant nurse clinician from NCID. Ms Loh supports training of staff to ensure that they are updated on infection control policies and recommendations and also helps to review infection control workflows at NCID and other settings. Despite the heavy work load, she remains spirited and committed to do the best for her patients. And it helps that her husband has been very supportive.

Examples like Ms Loh abound, among our frontline workers, support staff and also researchers in our testing and research labs.

Another key part of our strategy is to augment the healthcare workforce, which Mr Murali Pillai had asked about. While our public healthcare sector currently has sufficient healthcare professionals, they are stretched, and there is a need to rotate and refresh staff periodically, as the fight against COVID-19 is likely to be a long one.

To address these sustainability concerns, MOH has given the public healthcare institutions some flexibility to deploy staff across institutions to meet pressing operational needs on the ground and to support one another as one public healthcare system, with strict infection control protocols in place.

MOH has also looked to external sources to augment our public healthcare workforce. This includes tapping on healthcare professionals in the private sector and encouraging retired and non-practicing staff to return to public practice through the newly launched SG Healthcare Corps. We have expanded the scope to include those without prior healthcare experience, for whom training will be provided to enable them to take on supporting roles, such as performing swab procedures and basic care roles. As of 3 May, we received more than 11,000 sign-ups altogether.

I am heartened by this overwhelming response from Singaporeans. So far, we have matched about 800 Corps members to various needs on the ground, and they are being progressively deployed and we will do more. Members of the SG Healthcare Corps will be remunerated for their time and contribution when they are deployed to work alongside our healthcare workers on the ground.

Third, we also use technology as a force multiplier, to deliver the same or enhanced outcomes, with less time and resources. For example, in the CCFs, round-the-clock care is made possible through the use of medical kiosks and teleconsultations. Devices such as pulse oximeters and health apps are also used to monitor patient well-being. Healthcare institutions have also started teleconsultation services for follow-ups on their patients.

Through all these initiatives, we aim to ensure that our public healthcare services remain available to those in need, and our healthcare workers are well taken care of during this challenging period. This enables us to have a sustainable healthcare workforce in this long-term fight. Even as we fight COVID-19, we need to continue to address long-term health issues. I am glad that Prof Lim Sun Sun asked about this, and let me share what we have been doing in this area.

We have temporarily deferred launching any new initiatives to allow staff to be re-deployed to more critical areas of COVID-19 work. But for selected programmes, such as measures on Sugar Sweetened Beverages, banning Partially-hydrogenated Oils, and standardised packaging for tobacco products, we will continue to push ahead.

To support our safe distancing measures, we have already suspended all on-ground activities such as general health screening, but we will continue to encourage Singapore residents to practice healthy habits and fight diabetes through less resource-intensive alternative platforms. For example, HPB continues to provide on HealthHub, bite-sized videos and articles on practising good personal hygiene, healthy eating, physical activity, and mental well-being.

We must also never let our guard down on dengue. The total number of dengue cases in 2020 has exceeded 6,000 – more than double that over the same period in 2019. With the traditional dengue peak season approaching, NEA officers are on the ground conducting dengue inspections at common areas and construction sites, where construction site operators continue to be responsible for vector control measures, even during the circuit breaker period. A worrying trend that NEA observed was a 50% increase in Aedes mosquito breeding in homes over the past three years, compared to the preceding three years. Minister Masagos has asked me to urge everyone at home to be vigilant, to do the Mozzie Wipeout to remove potential mosquito breeding habitats. NEA also brought forward the National Dengue Prevention campaign to 22 March to rally all members of the community. Our efforts on all these fronts continue even as we battle the COVID-19 outbreak, to keep Singaporeans healthy.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. In this fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, everyone can play a role, during and after the circuit breaker period.

We acknowledge that the circuit breaker measures are difficult, and we appreciate everyone's support and sacrifice to stay home and adhere to the measures. For our frontline officers, including those in healthcare, and dorm operations, we stand behind you, and want to express our enormous gratitude for your efforts. Our collective efforts are not in vain, and we have seen a decrease in our community numbers.

We are looking ahead, and making preparations for post 1 June. We must make calibrated moves to prevent a resurgence of cases and clusters. We must put in place key enablers and safeguards to allow us to contain the spread and care for future cases, even as we roll back our circuit breaker measures and re-open.

We must remain vigilant and not let our guards down. If we all do our part, we can overcome and emerge stronger. Let us work together and move forward together, as one SG United. [Applause.]

Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during our last update to Parliament, I said that the situation was uncertain and fluid, and that we would have to expect daily changes. Indeed, over the past month, our battle against COVID-19 has escalated sharply. Now, we have ramped up our resources significantly in response to the challenges, and today, we are continuing to fight the virus on two main fronts.

First, we are doing all we can to control the serious outbreak amongst migrant workers in the dormitories, and to take care of these workers. We have had a huge spike in cases at the dormitories. The infection is mostly concentrated amongst workers in the construction sector. We now know that the transmission amongst this group has been happening for some time, and occurred not just in the dormitories, but also in common worksites and in places that they went to with their friends after work and on their rest days. And that is why we had clusters outside of the dormitories too – amongst construction workers living in shophouses and private apartments.

To determine the extent of the spread, we have undertaken extensive testing amongst these workers. Many of the workers have very mild symptoms and they sometimes brush this aside as a very mild cold. So, we are testing not just the workers who report sick, but also those that are asymptomatic and well. This intensive testing explains the large numbers that we are still picking up amongst migrant workers in the dormitories, and we expect this to continue for a few more weeks.

To minimise the risks of spread to the wider community, we have stopped the movement of workers in and out of all dormitories, and put the construction workers living outside the dormitories on a stay-home requirement. At the same time, we have implemented a comprehensive set of support measures to look after the health, well-being and welfare of these workers, which Minister Josephine Teo will elaborate on later.

We are very mindful of our responsibility to these migrant workers who have contributed so much to Singapore, and we will continue to ensure that they get the care and support they need.

The second major front is in suppressing the spread of the virus in the community, through the circuit breaker. We implemented the circuit breaker on 7 April; two weeks later, on 21 April, we tightened the circuit breaker measures, and also extended it to 1 June. We know the restrictions have not been easy and have created considerable inconveniences. But Singaporeans have been resilient and have taken all these in your stride. For this, we want to thank everyone for doing their part.

Through our collective efforts, we are now seeing some results – daily infection numbers have started to come down, although they are not yet at single digits. That is why we extended the tightened measures for another week till 11 May. Thereafter, we will allow some gradual easing, as we had announced over the weekend, but the key circuit breaker measures will largely remain till 1 June.

I must strongly caution that the easing of some measures in the coming weeks cannot be taken as a signal that we can now take it easy and start to go out more. Remember, the fight is far from over. This battle against the virus is not a sprint; it is a marathon, and we are not even at the halfway mark! And if you have done a marathon, you will know that the second half is typically harder than the first. So, we must expect more challenges ahead. The virus can flare up again anytime. So, we cannot afford to slacken. But we must stay vigilant, maintain our discipline, continue to stay home and minimise our contacts with others.

As we continue this fight against the virus, we also learn more about how the virus is transmitted. So, we update our risk assessments and adjust our measures accordingly. And as I said just now, we must expect more challenges along this journey, which may require us to take further adjustments in our measures or to take additional precautions.

For members of the public, I can appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with all the changes. But I hope that everyone appreciates and understands that we are responding to a dynamic and fast changing situation. In every case, we will carefully consider the latest scientific evidence and medical advice and the impact on our people before making a change. Our overriding objective has always been and will continue to be the health and well-being of Singaporeans.

For example, at the start of the outbreak, we had to implement many new travel restrictions and adjust them quickly as we tracked how the virus was spreading from country to country. Later, in coming up with specific measures for our community, we too had to adapt and adjust as we learnt more about the virus. This has happened not just in Singapore, but everywhere around the world. We are dealing with a new virus, and scientists everywhere are discovering more about the virus, even today, and the disease it causes. As Prof Leo Yee Sin, Executive Director of NCID has said, "for us to be ahead of the virus... we [need to] know the enemy very well", and right now, "we're still on the learning curve". It is not just Singapore which is on the learning curve, the whole world is still on the learning curve.

And that is why we updated our guidance on masks as we learnt more about the virus, and then we made it a requirement for everyone to wear masks when they go out. We also explained then, that the wearing of mask is not the only, nor the most important protective measure. Remember that the virus can spread through surfaces as well. So, the wearing of masks must be complemented with other precautions that we have emphasised from the outset, including safe distancing and good personal hygiene.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked if we should make it compulsory to wear masks when you are out in all circumstances; even when ones engages in strenuous exercise outside. Actually, the issue here is not just about the wearing of masks. Requiring people to wear a mask when engaging in strenuous exercise is not advisable because it can pose a health risk. The more fundamental issue is whether we want to allow people to go outside to exercise in the first place.

So, we looked at this very carefully. Going out for exercise is beneficial for your immunity and health. There is a risk of transmission only if you are in close contact with another person for some time. But if you exercise alone in the open with safe distancing, as you are required to, this should not pose a problem. There is also no local evidence of transmission occurring among people exercising in the open. On the other hand, prohibiting outdoor exercise altogether and keeping people cooped up at home for a long time can be harmful.

So, on balance, we decided to allow outdoor exercise by yourself, in your own neighbourhood, so long as safe distancing is in place. This is a balance which other countries have struck too – take the example of the Czech Republic. I mentioned this because there was a video going around earlier on how they were amongst the first European countries to impose a requirement for people to wear masks. In the Czech Republic today, you can go out to exercise and you do not need to wear a mask, so long as you maintain a safe distance from others.

Some think we do not need to bother with these very careful calibrations and just go for a "full lockdown".

But if you look at the countries on lockdowns, the measures they implement are not the same, even if they use the same term. What is more important is to understand the specific measures that are needed in our own context and circumstance.

Of course, one of the most effective ways to slow down the spread of the virus is to restrict movement altogether, get everyone to just stay home. As Minister Ong Ye Kung puts it – he coined a very catchy phrases to explain this to the elderly in Mandarin: "如果你不出门, 你就不会见人; 如果你不见人, 病毒就不会进门". In translation, "If you don't go out, you won't meet people; if you don't meet people, you won't bring the virus home." It does not have the same ring in English but you get the point.

Staying home can be an effective measure but keeping everyone at home also has substantial social and economic costs. The impact is likely to be felt disproportionately by the lower income and the vulnerable groups. They are also less likely to be able to telecommute for work so staying home will clearly affect their incomes and livelihoods. Being isolated at home for long periods is also not good for their health and overall well-being.

And that is why we considered very carefully before we decided to implement the circuit breaker and then later to extend it for a month. It was a difficult decision to make because we knew businesses and workers are already hurting. But in the end, we decided we had to proceed with this move, so as to break the transmission chain and slow down the spread of the virus.

To mitigate the impact, we supported businesses, workers and Singaporeans at large with the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets – more than $60 billion in total, including drawing on our national reserves with the President's permission.

For all Singaporeans, we have the Solidarity payment of $600, with more support for those with children and other support, such as the COVID-19 Support Grant and the Temporary Relief Scheme.

Looking ahead, as we think about easing some of the circuit breaker measures, we will adopt this same evidence-based approach to assess the transmission risks, and then make careful and calibrated adjustments. Where possible, and where we assess the risks to be low, we will consider easing and allowing some flexibility on the ground.

So, to Mr Henry Kwek's question, we do allow one change of address during the circuit breaker period, for care-giving needs, such as for parents to move in with their children's grandparents through that circuit breaker period. So, no shuttling to and fro but you move one time and you stay there.

But there will also be many requests we have to reject. We are already getting appeals for more relaxation for more businesses to open, for my favourite shop to open. And you can guess which one is top on the list, going beyond what we have announced.

But we have to hold the line for now and I hope Singaporeans understand why we need to be firm and why everyone must do their part to cooperate and comply with these measures.

Several Members – Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong – had asked for a review and inquiry into the cause of the outbreak in the dormitories. We do want to review and learn. We do want to continue taking feedback and suggestions to improve. That is our basic attitude – to keep improving, learning and doing better.

But we are now still in the heat of battle. When all this is over, we will certainly look back and learn from the experience. We do that each time, after a crisis. For example, our lessons from SARS have helped us a lot in dealing with COVID-19. Likewise, at the right time, we will comprehensively review this pandemic and our responses – not just the outbreak in the dormitories, but the entire crisis from start to finish, and our overall response, and we will seek to learn and improve. And I have no doubt that we will find many things where we could have done better and many changes we should make to be better prepared the next time.

But for now, let us stay focused on the urgent priorities ahead of us – we have to bring the outbreak under control on the two fronts, in the community and in the migrant worker dormitories, so that we may then resume activities gradually.

And indeed, looking ahead, the key challenge for us and for countries everywhere, is to work out how we can exit from the circuit breaker and resume normal activities safely, without the virus flaring up again.

Easing on the measures prematurely and without proper safeguards can result in a second wave of transmission and then force a second round of tightening, which I am sure no one wants. This has happened in other countries and it reinforces the need for us to move cautiously.

As we take these steps to resume activities, there will be major challenges to tackle. Take the construction sector as one example. Over the years, we have made progress in construction productivity. We now have more pre-fabricated construction. But there are still 270,000 migrant workers in this sector alone.

A construction worksite will typically have hundreds of workers coming from multiple dormitories. One single infected worker – mild or asymptomatic – can spread the virus to their co-workers at the worksite. They in turn can bring the infection back to where they live and also to places they gather with their friends. When that happens, large clusters will quickly form, as has happened. How do we avoid this from happening again?

We will have to work with the industry to fundamentally change the way we go about construction activities. We will need a whole range of measures covering the worksites, the accommodation and transport of workers, as well as additional precautions taken by the workers themselves.

I have highlighted construction as an example. But this applies to all sectors of the economy. All firms will need to change their work culture and practices. Life after the circuit breaker will not be a return to status quo ante.

That is why MTI and MOM are engaging industry associations, business chambers and firms, to help them adapt to these new realities. For example, telecommuting will have to be a default option extended to all staff and for those who cannot telecommute, strict safe management practices will have to be implemented. There will need to be split team arrangements with no cross-deployment of staff, staggered working and lunch break hours, higher hygiene standards, amongst a whole range of different measures. Within the workplace, there should not be any gathering of staff in groups at any time, be it in the pantry or the staff canteen. Very simple measures, but every company has to take them seriously.

Wherever possible, we should make full use of technology to enable the implementation of these measures. And all of these safeguards must be in place before we can allow workplaces to re-open more and allow more people to resume going to work.

When we do so, we will start with industries that are critical to the economy and to local employment and that keep us connected to the world and global supply chains. Some sectors will have to wait for a bit more time, for example, entertainment outlets or activities that attract crowds or people in close contact with one another. I do not think we can restart these activities anytime soon.

Likewise, it may take some time for us to allow dining in at F&B outlets. I understand many people are looking forward to doing that with their family members and friends, but we will have to assess the risks and consider this very carefully, considering that this particular activity is a known vector for transmission.

Religious gatherings and services too may take a while to resume. In fact, all our communities have experienced or will be experiencing their religious observances and holidays under very different circumstances. From Qing Ming and Easter in April, and soon Vesak Day and Hari Raya in May. We know it has not been easy and we really appreciate everyone's understanding of the adjustments that have to be made to keep ourselves and our families safe during this period.

And to open up safely, we will need to do two other things which Minister Gan highlighted just now – to ramp up testing and to harness technology for faster contact tracing.

A nation-wide testing strategy is being developed, even as we scale up testing capacity, as shared by Minister Gan earlier. It will involve more extensive community surveillance, so that we are better able to detect any unlinked cases in the community.

We will also prioritise the testing of higher risk and more vulnerable groups, like the residents and staff of nursing homes and welfare homes as well as healthcare workers that have high touch-points with the community. And then, we will progressively expand testing to the rest of the essential workforce and the broader community, in line with the expansion of our testing capacity.

On the technology front, we have implemented two key tools. The first is SafeEntry, which is a digital check-in/check-out system to log the visits by individuals in all business premises and venues. The second is a TraceTogether app, which uses Bluetooth on your phones to quickly identify whom you have been near to, so that we can track your close contacts when the need arises. The team is now working with Apple and Google to enhance this app and to make it more effective, especially on iOS phones.

Now, we are also developing solutions for the elderly and young who may not have smartphones. So, that is also a group we are focusing on. And there is a whole series of work around the technology front. When the work is ready, we will announce more details.

Expanded testing and faster contact tracing are our two key strategies. But they are not a substitute for personal responsibility. All of us still have to play a part, by practising good personal hygiene habits, wearing a mask when we are outside and seeking medical attention immediately when we are unwell. These are basic fundamentals that we all have to uphold. But with these enablers and the safeguards in place, we can then plan for a safe and gradual resumption of activities in June – provided, as we said just now, we see a continued decline in our community numbers.

Mr Speaker, it has been more than three months since we started our fight against the virus. The entire team has been working flat out over this period. They include our healthcare workers; contact tracers and infectious disease experts; researchers, scientists and lab technicians; our communications team who help to put out accurate and timely information; our safe distancing ambassadors and enforcement officers deployed all over Singapore; our officers manning our checkpoints, isolation and quarantine facilities; the SAF, SPF, SCDF officers mobilised across different areas; and public officers from all Ministries working hard to support the overall effort – they are mobilising volunteers, securing more spaces for the different needs we have, helping with relief measures and mask distribution – a whole range of work.

As Co-Chair of the Task Force, I get a front row seat in seeing the best of Singapore at work during this crisis. And this has been truly a humbling and inspiring experience, because everywhere I go, I see people who are tired but they remain fully committed and focused on the mission and they are still going all out to get the job done.

Some have had to quickly adapt to the new requirements of working from home. Like our teachers who have been busy designing new curriculum and engaging students on home-based learning; and they are now getting ready for the first batch of students returning to schools in two weeks.

For others, it has been a complete change in their job scope. For example, Ms Jaime Lim, who is a Deputy Director at MOM said, and I quote, "My work went from being desk-bound to manning safe distancing measures ops command and now I am at a dormitory gazetted as an isolation area. Stationed at the dormitory, weekends and weekdays have merged into a blur. I am now used to foggy face shields, powdery palms from glove wear and facial marks made by masks".

Many others, like Jaime, have gone above and beyond the call of duty. So, a big "Thank You" goes out to everyone on the frontline. [Applause.]

They are working their guts out, taking care of fellow Singaporeans, fighting the virus and controlling the outbreak.

We also deeply appreciate all who are in essential services, who have kept Singapore going through this circuit breaker period. They include our cleaners, facilities managers, technicians, refuse collectors, workers in the power and water industries, public transport workers, social service professionals, security guards, delivery riders, taxi drivers and so many more.

It is also very heartening to see many ground-up initiatives from community groups. Our SGUnited portal saw a seven-fold increase in the total donations in this period compared to the previous year. Many social service organisations are helping the more vulnerable groups cope with the circuit breaker and providing additional support to our migrant workers. Thousands of volunteers have signed up for initiatives ranging from mask distribution, helping with applications for Temporary Relief Funds and appreciating our frontline workers.

So, to everyone out there working during the circuit breaker, to those working from home and to those supporting the fight in whatever way you can, we also want to say “Thank You” for your contributions and sacrifices. We are all on the frontline in this fight against the virus. Every contribution counts and helps in our overall efforts.

As we go about tackling this crisis, we see also many shining examples of SG United in action, like how we went about setting up very quickly Community Care Facilities at the Singapore Expo and the Changi Exhibition Centre – truly, a public-private partnership at work. These examples show us how much more effective we can all be when we stand together and combine our efforts across the public, private and people sectors.

Mr Speaker, at some point, this COVID-19 crisis will pass. It will leave in its wake a permanently changed world. Uncertainly and instability may rise in some countries. Societal divides and inequalities may sharpen in others. But a few will emerge from this stronger, more united and more resilient than before. Singapore will endeavour to be in this group. To do so, all of us must continue to work together and support each other. This is the time for us to stand as one nation – to beat the virus, overcome the crisis and emerge stronger together. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, around the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has threatened lives and livelihoods. Likewise, in Singapore.

MOM has been supporting the fight on the economic front and also on the public health front. Our priority is to protect the livelihoods of Singaporeans. That remains so even as a new battlefront emerged. Equally important now is to take care of our migrant workers' health. In my statement today, I will cover both aspects.

Last week, I updated the public on the labour market situation. COVID-19 hit us mainly from February onwards. In January, the economy was humming along. The circuit breaker started only in April. Therefore, in the first quarter of the year, the full impact of COVID-19 was not yet felt.

Even then, total employment contracted sharply. But the impact was not even; foreign employment fell significantly while local employment still managed some growth. Retrenchments have risen moderately.

There are signs that employers are trying hard to cut costs to save jobs. They, too, want businesses to restart quickly when conditions allow. They are being helped by the significant wage support through the Unity, Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, as well as the tripartite consensus on managing excess manpower.

In April, over $7 billion were paid out to employers through the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). This will help co-fund wages of over 1.9 million local employees. Later this month, more than $4 billion will be paid out additionally.

The Government provided levy waivers and rebates to help employers meet their obligations to their foreign employees during the circuit breaker. By May, over 62,000 employers would have received rebates totalling $675 million. Another $675 million is expected to be paid out by July.

Besides support for their employers, we are providing more direct support for our lower wage workers. Many of them are in essential services and are continuing to work. They will get enhanced Workfare payouts which took effect in January, of up to $4,000 annually. In addition, 400,000 workers will get extra $3,000 each in cash support through the Workfare Special Payment. This will be in two tranches – in July and October. Total Workfare payouts this year will be about $2.2 billion.

Inevitably, even with Government support, troubles with business can strain labour relations. In dealing with the disputes, the tripartite partners agree to uphold the principles of fairness and shared responsibility. Not all employers have been impacted to the same degree. Those in better shape financially should use all the Government support to provide their employees with a more generous baseline wage. Others who are financially stressed and face poor business prospects should be frank with their unions and employees. They should work out together how to use the Government support to help each other get through this period of difficulty.

One thing is clear: employers should not act unilaterally and put their employees on prolonged no-pay leave or reduced pay without the employees' consent. To Mr Dennis Tan’s question, employees who need help can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management for advisory and mediation services.

The National Wages Council also issued a helpful set of guidelines in March. For example, it encouraged companies to use any lull in their business to train their workers.

SkillsFuture Singapore has an Enhanced Training Support Package that covers up to 90% of course fees for employers in selected sectors. Many courses come with absentee payroll that give employers in all sectors extra wage support – 90% of the hourly basic salary, up to $10 an hour.

The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit of $10,000 further helps employers pay for up to 90% of out-of-pocket expenses that are not already subsidised by the Government.

This time round, the Government has made a special effort to also support freelancers and self-employed persons (SEPs). We expect the SEP Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) to pay out close to $1 billion of cash support to over 100,000 SEPs, with the first payment in end of May. The SIRS scheme was designed and implemented in record time. Those who qualify need not apply and are instead automatically included.

We know, as a result, that there may be deserving SEPs who should also be considered. We, therefore, appreciate NTUC for stepping forward to help with the appeals. More than that, NTUC is helping through the SEP Training Support Scheme (STSS) which now provides an hourly training allowance of $10. This comes to about $400 for a week-long course. While modest compared to the income SEPs may have earned in the past, it will still help defray their daily expenditure as they learn new skills during this downtime.

I am very encouraged that already, about 1,800 SEPs will benefit from the scheme. One of them is 34-year-old Jovan, who has been a freelance band director for MOE schools for the past 10 years. Since the suspension of CCA programmes, Jovan has made good use of time freed up and attended seven different courses. They include SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace, Setting up and Running a Business and How to Pitch Like a Pro, all of which he finds useful.

Whether for SEPs or regular employees, finding a job at such times will not be easy. This is why we launched the SGUnited Jobs initiative in March. By now, more than 16,000 immediate jobs vacancies have been made available. This is already higher than our initial target of 10,000 jobs. This initiative has helped jobseekers like Wendy who had a steady job as a flight attendant. When she was placed on furlough, her friends encouraged her to check out the SGUnited Jobs Virtual Career Fair. She now works as a part-time cashier at Prime Supermarket while waiting for the aviation industry to recover.

The public sector has taken the lead to partner NTUC's Job Security Council at e2i, unions and employers to place more than 3,000 individuals from affected sectors to take on jobs such as safe distancing ambassadors and care ambassadors, in various hospitals.

In sectors that are still hiring, for example, security, WSG will ramp up the capacity of Professional Conversion Programmes. Through the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support package, employers can also receive a hiring incentive which provides 20% salary support, capped at $6,000 over six months. This is for new hires aged 40 and above hired through an eligible reskilling programme.

I share the concerns of Mayor Denise Phua, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Rahayu Mahzam regarding fresh graduates from local and overseas institutions. This is why we launched the SGUnited Traineeships Programme to help them gain industry experience, build up their resumes and boost their chances of securing jobs in the future. The Government funds 80% of the monthly training allowance for up to 12 months.

Our young people are absolutely critical to our future. There are now more than 4,000 traineeship opportunities offered by 280 organisations. We hope more host companies can come forward to help build up the pool of traineeships and give our young graduates the much-needed opportunities to start their careers. Graduates can apply for these opportunities from 1 June onwards.

Mr Speaker, economic conditions will remain challenging for some time. Given the strong budgetary support provided by MOF, we are holding the line on the economic front. We recognise the many efforts by businesses and workers to adjust to the new situation as it evolves, and help one another weather the storm. As much as we can, MOM will continue to work with our sister agencies to support businesses and protect livelihoods.

Let me now turn to how we are supporting our healthcare colleagues in the fight against COVID-19.

This has been one of the most unusual periods for MOM. We work mainly in the economic and social spheres. Workplace safety and health have always been high on our agenda. Now, it has taken on new meaning.

Early in the outbreak, MOM was mobilised to help prevent imported cases. Progressively, we limited the return of work pass holders coming through mainland China, South Korea, Iran, Italy and then worldwide. In total, we processed about 80,000 applications to return but could only approve a minority. Our officers dealt with many appeals.

To keep the community safe, MOH introduced the requirement for returning persons to serve a 14-day Leave of Absence, which was later tightened to be a Stay-Home Notice (SHN). MOM was tasked to ensure strict compliance. With the help of GovTech, we developed in double-quick time a system of monitoring and enforcement. The system was later adapted for Singaporeans returning from abroad, to protect their families.

Singapore was largely able to curb imported cases due to the combined efforts of many agencies on this front.

Then, in mid-March, Malaysia announced that they would implement the Movement Control Order (MCO). This came as a surprise to businesses who had workers commuting daily across the border. They scrambled to find alternative accommodation. Overnight, MOM worked with MND, HDB, MTI, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) as well as community groups to source for suitable accommodation to help these businesses.

Most of the affected Malaysians have settled into new accommodation in Singapore. About one in 10 subsequently returned to Malaysia, especially when Singapore introduced the circuit breaker.

Throughout this period, migrant workers were also on our radar. A day after the first confirmed case in Singapore, MOM reached out to dormitory operators to be more vigilant and to step up hygiene. In fact, one of the earliest media conferences that Minister Lawrence Wong and I held was in Tuas View Dormitory, after we inspected their quarantine facilities.

We produced materials in the workers' native languages to encourage them to take steps to protect themselves. Subsequently, non-essential facilities in the dormitories like gyms and TV rooms were closed. Meal times and recreational hours were staggered. Intermixing between blocks was stopped. MOM officers also fanned out on weekends to advise migrant workers to observe safe distancing measures and disperse big groups that were gathering at popular hangouts.

The most prominent cluster of infected migrant workers was from Seletar Aerospace Heights, which was detected in February. It involved five workers, all staying at five different locations, only two of which were dormitories. Thereafter, there was no indication of higher prevalence of COVID-19 amongst the migrant workers, compared to the general community.

Like Mr Ang Wei Neng and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, we are very keen to understand how the virus later spread among migrant workers. The epidemiological studies provide some preliminary clues.

Within the dormitories that have clusters, not all blocks or rooms are equally affected. Across different dormitories, infected workers were linked through common work sites. At work sites, it was not uncommon for the infected workers to take breaks together, share food and utensils. Likewise, infected workers from different dormitories had gathered during their rest days to socialise and shop, for example, at Mustafa. Back in the dormitories, workers spent time with their friends, cooking, eating and relaxing together.

The virus may have spread through all of these activities, much like how it spread among family members, religious groups and even colleagues.

One recent finding is that most of the infected workers have mild symptoms, likely because they tend to be young. When asked if they are unwell, even after testing positive, some workers say they feel fine. Many were uncovered only because of active case-finding or swab exercises. This may explain why, up to the middle of March, the cases of workers at the dormitories testing positive were few and far between.

Once evidence emerged that the virus had spread in the dormitories, we decided to deal with it squarely and quickly and mobilised the whole-of-Government resources. An Inter-agency Task Force was set up, comprising officers from MOM, SAF, Home Team, MOH, MCI, MND – many agencies. Including the private sector recruits that supplement our efforts, nearly 3,000 staff are now deployed to look after the health and well-being of our migrant workers. Every day, we are joined by thousands of volunteers, especially those from the Migrant Workers' Centre.

Multiple channels of transmission among migrant workers, as appear to be the case, also means that we have to deploy a multi-faceted approach to dealing with the outbreak. A focus on rooming arrangements on their own may not prevent a recurrence. This consideration underpins the comprehensive approach of the Task Force.

About three weeks ago, I explained their three-pronged strategy. First, contain the spread of the virus in the dormitories where clusters have formed; second, prevent spread in those with no clusters; and third, move out and test all workers who are still needed for essential work.

I had also explained the three key enablers to implement these strategies effectively: (a) the Forward Assurance Support Teams (FAST); (b) a medical support plan that is holistic; and (c) roping in dormitory operators and employers to improve hygiene and provide necessities.

The task force has gone about its work professionally, with a clear focus on the workers' well-being.

In the first phase, it was about getting the basics right. This was already an enormous undertaking and there were certainly hiccups along the way. Nearly 200 FAST teams are now deployed and they have helped greatly.

Among the safe distancing measures introduced, we had to stop communal cooking. Officers then worked round the clock to ensure that meals suitable for the varied diets were delivered in a timely manner. More than 10 million catered meals have been served.

They coordinate schedules for workers to use toilets so as to prevent mixing, make sure the dormitories are kept clean and attend to workers' feedback and requests, such as getting paid and money remittances.

More than 10,000 workers in essential services were moved out and progressively tested so they can continue to work safely. Workers from dormitories that had been gazetted as isolation areas were not moved as they would pose a higher risk of infecting others. We then stopped further movements in and out of the dormitories to prevent cross-infections in both directions.

In addition, we provided WiFi access and distributed nearly 300,000 SIM cards so the workers can keep in touch with family and friends.

In the second phase, it was about getting the medical operations right.

The medical support plan was fully fleshed out, the infrastructure and personnel steadily built up. The Regional Healthcare Systems deployed teams of doctors, nurses and technicians to each of the 43 large dormitories. They tend to workers who are unwell, swab those who have shown acute respiratory symptoms, manage the cases that need to be sent to other facilities and assess if the workers are well enough to return to their rooms. They work with the FAST teams to set up on-site isolation facilities and organise safe conveyance from one location to another.

We have also set up four medical posts at the Tuas South, Kranji, Woodlands and Kaki Bukit migrant worker recreation centres to cover the larger factory-converted dormitories (FCDs) and construction temporary quarters (CTQs). For workers in the smaller FCDs and CTQs, we brought in the private healthcare groups as well as the nationwide network of Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) and Polyclinics.

If any worker was unwell, they got the same care as any Singaporean would. The worker from Bangladesh who was transferred to a general ward after spending two months in ICU shows the extent of care. Furthermore, the cost of all tests and treatment is borne by the Government.

Members of Parliament like Mr Liang Eng Hwa are naturally keen to know if these measures are working.

The situation within the 43 large dormitories is largely stable now. The picture among the thousand-plus factory-converted dormitories and construction temporary quarters is much more mixed and taking up much bandwidth. In many dormitories, there are active case-finding and swab exercises so that we can isolate and treat infected workers and break transmissions.

Most of the workers are well and those tested positive are on the path to recovery. The full results of these efforts will, however, take time to show.

Outside of the dormitories, we identified another concern. Infection among workers in the construction sector was noticeably higher than the general community and has not tapered off.

Supported by the health assessment of our MOH colleagues, MOM and BCA decided we needed to take further precaution and act quickly. We required all work permit holders and S Pass holders in the construction sector and their dependants to be placed on mandatory Stay-Home Notices.

Excluding the workers already in dormitories, this requirement put another 100,000 workers out of circulation. While they may not be infectious, it is safer to minimise their interactions with each other and the broader community. To decisively break the cycle of transmission, the SHN was extended from the initial two weeks to four weeks in total.

Mr Speaker, in spite of the current challenges, we must now get ready for the third phase where it is about getting the recovery right.

This involves building up community recovery facilities (CRFs) and housing recovered workers in suitable accommodation to minimise the risks of recurrent transmissions. We must work out a way to allow recovered and uninfected workers to go back to work safely. This will again be an enormous challenge and not just the logistics of it.

Many workers will be re-housed and have to get used to new friends and habits, as Mis Cheng Li Hui alludes to. Many employers will have to adjust to their workers being in different locations with new arrangements.

We will have to develop new strategies to monitor the health of the workers. For example, we plan to issue pulse oximeters and require the workers to take readings regularly. We will also have to plan for a more sustainable medical support operation. With telemedicine, we can still attend to unwell workers promptly.

The Task Force is focused on getting its job done. Altogether, they are looking after about 400,000 migrant workers, bigger than the size of two Ang Mo Kio GRCs. It is just mind-boggling when you think about it. For those on the ground, there are no ready-made solutions. Many officers simply roll up their sleeves, work with the stakeholders to improvise.

One such officer is Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim. A Factory-Converted Dormitory (FCD) operator spoke to Hafiz and said he urgently needed to add extra toilets in a dormitory in order to effectively segregate the usage. It was near impossible to get new ones built anytime soon. Hafiz thought to himself what could be done and promptly sourced for suppliers of portable toilets, bringing much relief to the dorm operator and residents.

The Task Force did not forget to bring some cheer to the dormitories when some of the workers marked their New Year. It worked with the Hindu Endowment Board and community groups to share sweet treats, for example. We are now in the middle of Ramadan. With the help of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), special arrangements were made for the Muslim workers to get their sahur, or pre-dawn meals, at 3 am, which means that the caterers also has to be preparing the food, well, around midnight and to get it delivered. Over 1.5 tonnes of dates had been distributed.

In every phase, the situation has demanded a scale and speed of response that is unprecedented. The task force is keenly aware of its mission. They know it is critical to get things right and to do it with heart. We will fulfil our commitment to the workers and pave the way for work and business to resume safely when conditions allow. Let us give the Task Force our full support.

Mr Speaker, some Members want to know MOM's plans to deal with the housing standards of our migrant workers. A bit of historical background is useful here. During the 1970s to early 1990s, most migrant workers in the construction industry came from Thailand and Malaysia. Most of them rented HDB flats or private residential properties. In the early 1990s, many more construction workers came from China, Bangladesh, Myanmar and India.

To support their housing needs, the Government allocated land for companies to build self-contained dormitories with recreational amenities for their workers. Building and Construction Authority (BCA), HDB and Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) tendered out these sites. One important consideration was, "what would a migrant worker want at the end of the work day, if he cannot be with his family?" Well, it is to be with his friends, cook a meal that he would liked, practise his religious belief.

These dormitories were therefore designed for communal living. To enable workers to live close to where they work and reduce the need to travel, the Government allowed some factories to convert part of their space for dormitory housing, subject to standards being met. Today, there are about 200,000 workers housed in the 43 large dormitories and about 95,000 housed in 1,200 FCDs. Most of these workers are from the Construction, Marine and Process sectors.

We have 20,000 workers housed in Construction Temporary Quarters (CTQs). Another 85,000 Work Permit and S Pass holders from the Construction sector live in HDB flats, private residential properties and other premises. Landlords must meet requirements and can be investigated for breaches.

The Government also set aside land to build recreation centres for migrant workers, where they can access supermarkets, remittance services and sports fields. Today, there are eight recreation centres located in areas where there are more dormitories.

Over the years, we have taken steps to raise the housing standards of our migrant workers. A key milestone was the enactment of the Foreign Employee Dormitory Act (FEDA) in 2015. The FEDA imposes higher standards on dormitories that accommodate 1,000 or more workers. For example, licensed operators were required to provide common recreational facilities like TV rooms, gyms as well as provide access to amenities like mini-marts and WIFI in common areas. They are also required to have health facilities like sickbays or isolation rooms and draw up contingency plans for quarantine arrangements. MOM officers regularly inspect licensed dormitories to ensure compliance.

In fact, the Government reviewed these plans with the dormitory operators at the end of last year and conducted a table top exercise – what do you do if you have an outbreak? But no one was quite thinking of something of the scale of COVID-19. In early February, MOM asked all FEDA-licensed dormitories to each put aside at least 10 quarantine rooms. Those were the rooms that Minister Lawrence Wong and I went to inspect. Today, in dormitories with few infected workers, this provision has helped us to quickly isolate the close contacts. Those who are infected, of course, are removed as soon as we can. But the close contacts, you can isolate them and keep them for a while.

Ms Anthea Ong asked about smaller accommodation types. Though not covered by the FEDA, they must still comply with a whole range of regulations. These include BCA's standards for building structural safety, SCDF's Fire Safety Code and NEA's rules on sanitary facilities.

To questions by Mr Png Eng Huat and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, regulatory agencies all conduct inspections. MOM alone has about 100 dormitory inspectors, full-time, who work under the supervision of the Commissioner for Foreign Employee Dormitories, two Deputy Commissioners and eight Assistant Commissioners. Last year, these officers conducted 1,200 inspections and 3,000 investigations across all housing types. There will be many more when other agencies are included.

Every year, MOM alone takes an average of 1,200 employers to task for unacceptable accommodation under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and about 20 operators for breach of FEDA licence conditions. Where lapses are found, dormitory operators must rectify them immediately. For offences under FEDA, dormitory operators can be fined up to $50,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers can also be fined up to $10,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months.

Other than enforcement, MOM proactively engages workers, employers and dorm operators. We conduct roadshows at the dormitories to hear from the workers themselves on improvements they would like to see. We survey the workers. About nine in 10 say they are satisfied working in Singapore and would recommend their friends or family to come here.

Still, we educate the workers on what is acceptable accommodation and encourage them to alert MOM if they see something is not right. We also involve the community. For example, MOM started a "Colour my Dorm" programme about two years ago. A wall mural at Kian Teck dormitory was painted by youths as a gift to the residents.

Housing standards for our migrant workers have progressed over the years. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to show some photographs of what the newer dormitories look like.

Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

This is one of those that have been built since FEDA was passed into law. This is a slightly older one, but as Members can see, it resembles some of our earlier HDB housing estates. When I visited Westlite Toh Guan, it really felt very much like that. This one has got ensuite facilities, meaning that company takes a room, the room comes with sleeping areas but also their own kitchen, their own toilet facilities. Next one, this what some of them look like inside. It depends on the size of the room, how many can be allowed to be accommodated. The next one, this is S11 where we have the highest number of infected workers so far. This is what a typical room looks like. I would say the size of the room, if you consider a badminton court, halve it and add maybe about 20% of circulation space, that is what you get.

The next one, one of the dormitories has got a supermarket which the migrant workers can use to buy the food they wish to cook. The next slide shows – this is before safe distancing – what a gym might look like in the bigger dormitories. So, these are the newer ones. We will see how standards can be further raised. But, keep in mind that there are also older dormitories, which perhaps, have not quite reached these standards yet.

What changes will be effective in reducing the transmission risks? Will these changes require different space provisions and technical standards or stronger regulatory levers that Mr Louis Ng has asked about?

Inevitably, in any sort of environment where people gather in groups, there could be significant transmission. For example, the two places where there are substantial transmissions are homes and workplaces. Likewise, when you have a large number of people living together, in a communal setting, there is a very high likelihood of transmission.

There was a significant spread for example on the US aircraft carrier, the Theodore Roosevelt, with 950 sailors getting infected within a few weeks. They were 20% of the crew. The virus respects no housing type, no nationality, no occupation. We will therefore need to re-look how everyone interacts with one another at home and at our workplaces. Even the way we socialise will have to change. We will need a focus on public education. So, the same for our migrant workers.

But as Minister Lawrence Wong said earlier, we are still in the heat of battle. We must be focused on bringing the outbreak under control and work out how we can exit from the circuit breaker and resume normal activities safely. When this is over, we will reflect and thoroughly look into areas where we could have done better, so that we will be better prepared the next time.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the last few months have been nothing short of extraordinary for the MOM team. Whether on the economic or health frontlines, it has been a real privilege to work with so many dedicated colleagues to tackle what our Prime Minister describes as "the challenge of this generation".

Our tripartite partners have stepped up, and so have many employers and workers who are going out of their way to support one another. Many people take the time and trouble to send words of encouragement, including a hand-drawn card from a little girl, my resident in Bishan.

The MOM team has also been very moved by the many offers of support for our vulnerable workers, including our migrant workers. The Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) set up the “Care Line” that operates 24/7. The volunteers manning the line are migrant workers themselves. Temasek Cares has mobilised its networks to distribute re-usable masks and care packs to more than 650,000 migrant workers including domestic workers. The corporate community is also stepping forward, such as the contribution of 300,000 sets of toiletries by Procter & Gamble. Among grassroots supports, Mdm Magdalene Poh from Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng sourced for and donated 10,000 bottles of hand sanitizers. Ba'Alwie Mosque donated 450 boxes of dates to eight FCDs.

The Inter-agency Task Force (ITF) is especially thankful to a group of 10 NGOs and community groups. such as the Alliance of Guest Workers Outreach, COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition – which was introduction from Mr Louis Ng; we are very grateful for that – and also Crisis Relief Alliance. These NGOs and community groups deliver food, masks and care packs to migrant workers outside the 43 large dormitories who may not be getting enough support from their employers. HealthServe launched a free virtual counselling clinic. To support the migrant workers’ emotional well-being, the sessions are conducted in the vernacular languages by volunteer counsellors, psychiatrists, social workers and interpreters.

Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad now holds weekly engagements with these partners to coordinate efforts while protecting the health and safety of the volunteers.

Mr Speaker, in the past few weeks, there have been many views shared from all quarters. On such occasions, it is refreshing to hear what the migrant workers themselves say. Yes, there were initial problems with food. Yes, it is hard to be cooped up in the rooms. Yes, they miss their families and want to go home.

But listen also to the voices from their hearts, an example of which is captured by the Facebook post of a certain Mr Mirza, who lives in a dormitory. This is what he had to say, “I on behalf of all Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore, want to thank the entire Singapore Government, Police, MOM, MOH and every security, every cleaner, every food supplier. They provide us food, daily needs items, mask, sanitizer, free WiFi/SIM card for our time spent in the room. Medical camp in every dormitory. And I am here today promising here in public if I got a chance to do something for Singapore, I will do it at any cost because they are doing their best for me. I will also do my best for them.”

On behalf of all Singapore, I thank Mr Mirza for sharing his heartfelt acknowledgement and promise. His words are not fanciful but they remind us what this is about: doing our best for each other in times of hardship.

We have said right from the beginning that we have a responsibility to our migrant workers. Many of them made personal sacrifices to come to Singapore to work and they have made significant contributions which we appreciate deeply. We will do everything within our means to make sure that they too win the fight against COVID-19 and reunite with their families in time to come. [Applause.]

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. First of all, I would like to thank the Ministers for their very comprehensive updates. I have four supplementary questions. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To many Singaporeans, TCM is an important part of life. Many Singaporeans rely on TCM to regulate their body. Here, I would like to ask the Minister four questions.

First, we have both pharmacies and Chinese medical halls in Singapore. Why the pharmacies are considered essential services and can remain open, whereas Chinese medical halls are not allowed to operate?

Second, tomorrow is 5 May, Chinese medical halls with a resident TCM practitioner are allowed to operate again. Many Singaporeans are very happy to hear that and I would like to thank the Ministers. However, when Singaporeans found out that the TCM practitioners can only do acupuncture, not tuina and cupping, they are very disappointed. I would like to ask the Minister whether you have discussed with TCM practitioners before you reached that decision.

Third, authorities will allow shops selling ice cream, cakes and desserts to resume operation from 12 May, but other Chinese medical halls are still not allowed to open. I would like to ask why it is so. Is it because Chinese medicine is not as tasty as ice creams and cakes?

The last question, under what circumstances will Government allow all Chinese medical halls to resume operation? Many neighbourhood medical halls do not have a resident TCM practitioner. A lot of residents find it very inconvenient if the medical halls remain closed. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her questions, very important questions. But before I answer her questions, can I just make a correction. I mentioned in my earlier statement that we have 28 patients in ICU currently and the number is wrong. We currently have 22 patients in our ICU. That is just for the record.

For the Traditional Chinese Medicine, we have always allowed some operation of the Traditional Chinese Medicine clinics to attend to chronic diseases and to attend to urgent cases. But we have further relaxed some of these rules to allow acupuncture and to also allow medicine halls, which have resident Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners there, to allow the medicine hall to be open and able to sell retail products, particularly the Traditional Chinese Medicine products in these shops, for the convenience of residents in general.

As I mentioned in my Statement, we are beginning to allow some of the business activities to resume and for life to begin to return to normal, but we need to do so in a very careful way, in a very calibrated way, step by step, while in the meantime putting in precautionary measures. So, the overriding priority is still to encourage Singaporeans to stay at home as much as possible, go out only when necessary. And similarly even for business activities, including TCM practices, we would also want to make sure that we open it in a safe way to minimise the risk of further transmission and further infection. Particularly in medical practices, including TCM practices, there is a lot of close personal contact and interactions. So, we want to be particularly careful with this, and therefore, the answer is not totally "no", but we need to watch very carefully. And if we are able to continue to keep the infection numbers low and are able to put in place additional precautionary measures, we will progressively open many of these services and facilities.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one question for Minister Josephine and four questions for Minister Gan. The first question is to Minister Josephine Teo. This is with regard to MOM's efforts on the economic front, the first half of her statement. The key objective of the JSS was to encourage companies to retain workers. However, some employers are indicating that the COVID-19 circuit breaker measures have made their businesses are no longer viable and retrenchments for Singapore workers are inevitable. There has also been some evidence of residents coming up to us and saying employers have instituted wage cuts, no pay leave. This is even amongst established companies. Does the Ministry have any estimate of the retrenchment numbers it is anticipating. What is it working with? And is the Government planning additional support measures, particularly for the low- and middle income.

The next questions are for Minister Gan. The first pertains to COVID-19 testing for foreign workers, which number up to 1.1 million in Singapore as of December 2019, excluding foreign domestic workers. Does the Government have a roadmap to potentially test all the foreign workers progressively, starting with construction workers? And is there a timeline for this?

Secondly, how many foreign workers specifically have been tested so far out of the, I believe, 140,000 figure that Minister shared.

The third question pertains to the impediments to widespread testing early on in early April when the task force said that about 1,500 to 2,500 tests were conducted daily. This number is potentially to be scaled up to 40,000, as the Minister just shared. Can the Minister share what were the impediments and how these impediments were overcome to reach this number? And by when can we expect 40,000 tests to be conducted on a daily basis?

Finally, there is the question I had of the SafeEntry app, which I believe was shared by Minister Wong. By when does the task force expect all commercial establishments to institute or to ensure that the SafeEntry app is used before Singaporeans can enter the those premises?

Mr Speaker, it is not possible for us to tell at this point in time what the retrenchments and the job losses are going to be like during this period. We are watching very carefully. For the time being, we have an added challenge which is that data collection during this period is not as easy as it was. Surveys that are sent to companies may not be picked up in time, because some companies work from home. So, if we have their emails, we will send it to them. Some companies expressed their difficulties to us, for example, in accessing their own databases in order to provide information to MOM. So, we have some of these challenges to overcome.

Nonetheless, I think there is not much point and value in us speculating what the retrenchment and unemployment numbers will be like. I think the key is working with the tripartite partners to plan for recovery of economic activities. Earlier in the Ministerial Statement that Minister Lawrence Wong made, he talked about very important changes that we need to make at workplaces. One thing he said – I am not not sure if Members picked up – was the idea of safe management. Meaning, depending on the workplace situation, how do you ensure that workers can continue to come to work and remain safe. So, we are focusing all of our efforts on that front.

In the meantime, of course, we are in discussion with economic agencies – MTI and, very importantly with MOF – to see if additional support is needed. I think Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat has made the Government's position very clear; and that is, where more help is needed, it will be provided.

Sir, I mentioned earlier that we have tested a total of 21,000 foreign workers sometime last week. By now, the number would have grown to close to 30,000 foreign workers.

Do we have a plan to test all foreign workers? Currently, we do not plan to test all foreign workers. Our testing is still very targeted for specific purposes. We do testing on dormitories generally to establish the baseline level of infection in each dormitory so that we are able to strategise how we respond to the dormitories. And we also do baseline testing of workers in general to have a sense of where we are in terms of the infection rates. But for those who are infected in selected dormitories, we also do aggressive testing in order to allow us to identify infected workers so that we can isolate them and to protect those who are not infected. So, these are strategies that we have put in place for the management of a dormitory and the testing will be aligned with the strategy in managing these dormitories.

At the same time, we are also looking at testing more of the essential workers that are going to continue to work in the community. These would include the foreign workers as well as Singaporean workers. For the foreign workers who are continuing to work in the essential industries, we will have to test them, not just once but repeatedly because they would continue to be exposed in the community and at the workplaces. Therefore, there may be a need to repeat the test on them. These essential workers, the number will grow as we begin to restore more of the business activities. And therefore, it is important for us to do so in a safe way. Testing, as I mentioned, is an important part of the strategy to ensure the safe opening and the safe restoration of some of the business activities.

How do we get to 40,000? There are several constraints. One is the availability of test kits. We will need to look at how we can source for more test kits, both manufacturing locally as well as through procuring internationally to allow us to have more capacity to do testing.

At the same time, we are also looking at materials because each test will also require materials for the testing, such as the reagents that will be needed for the extraction of the RNA materials. It is not enough to just ensure that we have the test kit, but we also need to have the RNA extracted and therefore, we have to make sure that we have sufficient supplies of these materials. And thirdly, there are manpower requirements because we can do the swabs but having swabbed the individuals, we still need to process the swabs, document them, test them and have the results properly recorded. This requires laboratory capacity.

So, there are infrastructure and manpower requirements at every stage of the test. We are progressively raising the capacity and we hope to reach 40,000 as soon as possible. I would not be able to promise you when but we are doing our best to ramp it up. Today, we are able to do about 8,000 per day and we hope that in a short period of time, we will be able to reach 40,000 soon.

At the same time, we also have to be mindful that, in fact, there is a global shortage of some of these test kits and the reagents. And therefore, we have to ensure that we have a continued supply and stock of these materials to allow us to continue and sustain this high level of testing.

Mr Speaker, on the last question on the SafeEntry system, we are mandating that for all business premises and venues from 12 May.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, two questions. One is related to the personal protective equipment (PPE) that our medical staff use. Can I ask if we still have sufficient supply in Singapore and stockpile? And related to that, we spoke at the last Sitting on upping local production capabilities for some of this equipment, could the Minister update the House on the progress on this?

Secondly, for home-based businesses (HBBs). I note that for F&B related HBBs, they will be allowed to restart on 12 May. Some other HBB residents have written in to me asking if there was a reason why they, who do not run F&B HBBs but take similar precautions in dealing with delivery men, are not similarly allowed to continue, if the risk for both groups are the same.

Sir, on the PPE, we are monitoring this very closely. Currently, we have sufficient supplies, but we should not take this for granted. We should always try to preserve our PPE because this is going to be a long fight and whatever stockpile that we have, we will continue to need to require the supply chain to be preserved so that we are able to continue to import more of the equipment. And it is not just the PPE. We also need medication. We continue to need masks and so on. So, I think we will have to continue to remain vigilant to conserve our supplies and the key strategy is really to keep the number of cases low. Once we have a lower number of cases, then we will consume less of our medical supplies.

Mr Speaker, for home-based businesses (HBBs), our key consideration is to draw the line for essential services where food is concerned. So, in providing food for Singaporeans, whether it is a physical outlet or it is a home-based provision, then you can do so, and delivery and take-out is permitted. But beyond that, other kinds of retail, whether it is a physical retail outlet or a home-based retail, we are still at this stage not allowing but as we said, we continue to monitor the situation closely and we will see whether the conditions permit for further easing of the measures.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. Two questions. The first if for the Health Minister. In the United States, there has been development on the potential COVID-19 treatment known as the remdesivir. And it has been approved by the US FDA and the company has announced it will donate the first 140,000 doses in May to hospitals in the United States and around the world. Can I ask the Minister what is MOH's position on this new treatment and if MOH is reviewing this as a potential treatment for our patients?

My second question is for the Manpower Minister. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is not the only country that has migrant workers. Many countries have a large number of migrant workers to complement their manpower. I would like to ask the Minister, why is it that other countries do not seem to have large scale infection among migrant workers, yet it happened in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, on remdesivir, Singapore is part of the consortium of multi-centre clinical trials for remdesivir. As part of the trial, we get certain allocation of this drug for testing and treatment of our patients. We are also concurrently discussing with pharmaceutical companies to see whether we are able to have access to additional allocation over and above what is allocated for the trial. So, the discussion and negotiation are on-going.

Mr Speaker, I will also answer the Member, Mr Liang's question in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There are about 10 million migrant workers who leave their hometown and come to Southeast Asia to work. Only a small portion of them come to Singapore. There are a lot more of them working in Malaysia and Thailand.

Countries have their own ways of dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak, including how they want to handle the health issue of their migrant workers and other migrant worker related matters. We need not to speculate whether the infection rate among migrant workers in other countries is higher or lower than Singapore. What we can say is that, each country will have its own considerations and constraints, especially when it comes to testing and treatment which may not be the same as Singapore.

Our stance is to tackle this issue comprehensively, including setting out clear strategies and providing sufficient resources, and very importantly, ensuring a tight organisation. If a migrant worker is infected, we will make sure that he receives the same good care as a Singaporean until full recovery.

Of course, with the COVID-19 situation, migrant workers not only worry about health, but also their livelihood. We see cases reported in other countries. Quite often, their hometown was also under lockdown or affected by different measures, therefore their family’s livelihood is also under threat.

So, when we deal with the migrant workers related issues, besides ensuring that their meals are taken care of, we also look after their other needs, such as getting wages and remitting money back to their hometown. Our comprehensive approach ensures their health as well as their needs in daily life are being taken care of.

If we continue to go in this direction, even if some migrant workers are infected, the symptoms are very mild. We should focus all our energy on helping them recover.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a question for the Minister for Health and then two questions for the other Ministers.

To Minister Gan, I understand that there is a lot of concern regarding the mental well-being and mental health of the migrant workers. And I also understand that for all the 43 purpose-built dorms (PBDs), there is already an on-site medical team in place. So, is the Minister planning to mandate that within this medical team, that there would be at least a mental health professional in the form of a counsellor or a psychologist with the medical team?

With regard to the factory-converted dormitories, which clearly are more dispersed, teleconsultation is being used to support the physical health needs of the migrant workers. Is the Minister looking to also include psychological services through these teleconsultation support?

The other two questions, the first which I actually highlighted in my Parliamentary Question. I agree with Minister Lawrence Wong that this is clearly a colossal task at hand, so it is not the time to look into a review. Anyway, the crisis is still on-going. But would the Ministers assure Singapore and our migrant workers that a Commission of Inquiry would be appointed when we are out of the eye of the storm and when that would be likely, so that we can be committed to making the structural changes needed and be better prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic. We know that the experts are saying it is not a "if", it is a "when". I think this is especially so given that the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA) provides very explicitly for quarantine preparation and testing. So, we have learned that that legislative provision may or may not be enough.

The third is to all the Ministers and also, since the Prime Minister is here, is will the Government consider issuing an apology to the migrant workers, given the dismal conditions that they are currently in, because of the conditions of dormitories and all the other conditions, and especially now that they are in complete lockdown for the sake and safety of Singaporeans?

Allow me to address the issue on mental health and then I will leave the other two Ministers to address the other two questions.

Indeed, mental health is a part of a very important consideration in our healthcare system and particularly on the ground, with regard to dealing with our foreign workers who are in the dormitories.

Our medical teams on the ground are linked back to the various Regional Healthcare Systems. Within these Regional Healthcare Systems, they have support from the entire healthcare system, including mental health as well as other healthcare services. They have a full range of services available to them and they will assess the situation on the ground and decide in what form the mental health support is needed. They will also be dealing with the individual cases, assessing each individual patient. Even those who are non-patients, those who are not infected with COVID-19, could also have mental health issues and we are quite mindful of their mental health needs. The medical team on the ground is paying attention to the mental health conditions of the workers in the dormitories, as well as those outside the dormitories, where these medical teams are involved in.

Beyond the medical teams, we also have a FAST team, as Minister Josephine Teo highlighted. Within this team, they are also very mindful of paying attention to the well-being of the foreign workers in the dormitories. These include not just their meals, their hygiene and their daily activities, but also their mental well-being. The inter-agency task force looking after these dormitory operations is very mindful of the mental health needs, is paying attention to this and is working with the medical team on the ground with strong support from the various Regional Healthcare Systems to provide mental health services to those workers who may need them.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Anthea Ong for her question. I am somewhat puzzled by it because the question almost presupposes that we do not want to do a review despite me saying explicitly in my speech just now that we want to.

I think if you heard my speech just now, I said that we are committed to doing a comprehensive review after the crisis. It is more than just a review on dormitories. It is a review on the whole pandemic from start to finish and our response, and we are committed to learning and improving from this experience. That is what I said, so let there be no doubt that we are not wanting to do this because after the crisis is over, we will do a full review.

The actual nature of it, the form of it, the timing of it – clearly, it is not possible to say it today when we are still fighting a battle for which we do not know when it will end. But after that, we are committed to doing a review, and we will announce it as and when we are ready.

Mr Speaker, Ms Anthea Ong asked about an apology. We interact very closely with the workers themselves on a very regular basis at the dormitories and even outside the dormitories, whenever our FAST teams follow up on their requests and feedback. I think that what they are focused on is how we can help them to handle this present situation – not fall sick and if they fall sick, how to take care of them, how to ensure their wages are being paid, how to ensure that they can send money home.

These are the things that they have asked of us. I have not come across one single migrant worker himself who has demanded an apology.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. Let me start by thanking MOM and all the agencies and NGOs on the ground for helping the migrant workers and for all their hard work. I think they are doing a lot to help with the food, the sanitation, the healthcare, but I hope that Minister Josephine can also look into the gross floor area that I raised in my Parliamentary Question.

At the current 4.5 sqm – which, if you break it down, is about 2.1 by 2.1 metres and that includes the kitchen, the dining and the toilet areas. It is very hard for some of the workers to practise safe distancing. And that is my worry. If we have a second wave of infections and the workers go back to this 4.5 sqm, then I think that we will get large clusters in our dormitories again. Could I ask Minister Josephine if we can review this urgently?

Mr Speaker, the short answer to Mr Louis Ng's question is that we will consider all aspects that are necessary in order for us to move into a safe recovery mode. So, everything is being considered.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got two supplementary questions. The first one is for Minister Gan. Some individuals who are in the Community Isolation Facilities (CIFs), they are clinically well but they continue to be tested positive in repeated tests. And some of them have been in the CIFs for more than a month. Understandably, they themselves or even their family members are anxious. What more can be done medically to assist their discharge, especially those who are asymptomatic?

The second supplementary question is for Minister Josephine Teo. How does MOM keep track of the residential locations of all the work permit holders or the S Pass holders? Will contact tracing still be required in future on the group of foreign workers who are in the essential services due to their proximity at their workplace and also their social culture? How can we better implement the tracing of these workers and ringfence any possible issues that may arise from the workers who are living outside the dormitories?

Mr Speaker, this is a very interesting and important question. Indeed, we do find many patients in our CCFs as well as in our hospitals and in our isolation centres who continue to test positive. The theory is that many of these tests may be picking up fragments of the virus and some of these viruses may no longer be viable. But nonetheless, the test will be able to pick them up. The test is not able to determine conclusively whether these are fragments or viable viruses, but when the scientists try to culture this virus, they find it very difficult to culture them after a certain number of days – usually after 14 days. After 21 days, it is even more difficult to culture these viruses. So, in effect, many of the scientists have come to the conclusion that probably, the RNA that has been detected are fragments of the virus and they are no longer viable.

So far, we have been keeping them in the Community Care Facilities (CCFs). The Member is right that to keep them in the CCF is also not very good for them because they are not able to move around freely. We are exploring with our infectious disease experts to see what else can we do beyond just testing them. For some of them, you may still test positive after months because they just continue to have these fragments which may not be viable anymore. So, we may need to think about what we can do to help them so that they can be discharged, go home and go back to normal life if they are no longer infectious.

So, I think these are some things that we are looking and discussing with the infectious disease experts' community to see how we can come to some way to helping these patients so that they can be discharged and go home.

Mr Speaker, sorry, can I respond quickly to Miss Cheryl Chan's question?

We keep track of the workers' whereabouts or where they live through the Online Foreign Worker Address Service (OFWAS). Sometimes, the workers move from one place to another at the request of their employers or if they have found new accommodation. So, I must say that this updating is not as prompt as we would like it to be. We will have to look into better ways of encouraging the workers and their employers to update this database. If necessary, we may have to put in place stronger measures to make this happen. Because, as this episode shows, it is quite important for us to be able to know their exact whereabouts. As Miss Chan says, in future, for contact tracing purposes, it is not just their residential addresses, it may have to be some other means as well.

Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for Minister Gan Kim Yong. It is reported in many countries, including the US and the UK, that due to fear of the virus, even people with serious health emergencies such as heart attacks or strokes are not going to the hospitals. I would like to ask MOH if we are seeing the same thing happening here and if MOH can educate the public about the symptoms of heart attacks, strokes and other serious conditions which require immediate medical attention and to urge them to go to the hospitals if they have these symptoms.

Thank you. Indeed, it is important for Singaporeans to understand that if you have a serious medical condition, do go and see a doctor or do call the ambulance so that they can send you to an emergency department to be attended to. I think it is important for us to encourage Singaporeans to seek medical attention whenever necessary.

From the hospitals' point of view, even though we have deferred some of the more stable patients' appointments, we do continue to keep in touch with them, including through teleconsult, to make sure that they remain all right and stable. For these patients, we are keeping a close watch and if it is necessary, the hospital will call them back for treatment and for surgery, if necessary. We need to continue to monitor these patients. We want to encourage Singaporeans to continue to seek medical care when the situation arises, when they need to do so.

So far, we have not seen signs of patients who are staying away despite having a heart attack or stroke. We will continue to educate them on the signs of critical illness and when they ought to seek medical attention.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister Gan. I am very glad to note that MOH is providing mental well-being support for our frontline workers, especially doctors and nurses who face patients. But how about healthcare support workers? Like frontliners, they also face heavy workloads, physical and mental stress. That is the first question. The second one is, if mental well-being support is provided, what is the type of support that is being done for them?

I actually mentioned that in my statement. Maybe I have not been that explicit. The support that we provide goes beyond just medical professionals, but also the support staff. And much of this support includes counselling sessions, supervisors talking to them as well as ways for them to seek help, including support groups within the work spaces. All these are part and parcel of the mental health support that we are giving to our healthcare workers, both on the professional side as well as the support staff. So, we do for all staff who are on the frontline.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, just four questions for Minister Gan and one for the Minister for National Development. To Minister Gan, firstly, in terms of testing, is the Ministry looking at testing sewage? Apparently, this is something that is being looked at in Switzerland and Australia and is a way to determine where there could possibly be clusters of infection in a particular building or particular locality. Is that something that we will be looking at going forward?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned that testing load is being ramped up from 8,000 moving towards a 40,000 target per day. As far as I understand, currently people with acute respiratory symptoms, not all of them currently are being tested for COVID-19. I am not sure if my understanding is correct. Is that something that the Ministry is looking to review?

Thirdly, right now, when you have close contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 case in the community, some are given Stay-at-Home Notices. Is there going to be a commitment to test all of the people who are close contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 case going forward since our capacity is being ramped up?

Fourthly, this is on vaccines. I think Minister Gan talked about vaccines in his speech. The developments in this space seem to be moving very rapidly and there is news coming from different teams around the world. What is MOH's thinking right now about when we might see a vaccine available? Are plans being made to push that out, roll that out to the population and prioritisation being given to seniors and so on?

My last question is for Minister Lawrence Wong and it is on HDB commercial leases. There is feedback from some micro businesses and SMEs about the rules for re-assignment of HDB commercial leases. There is a logic to those rules, not to allow re-assignment. But would HDB consider allowing a micro business – rather than having to break the lease, give notice, vacate and reinstate the premises, which is time-consuming and costly – to re-assign to another business that might want to take it up, just as a short-term measure during this crisis period?

Thank you. First, let me talk about sewage testing. In fact, we are doing trials to see whether we can pick up fragments of the virus from the sewage to allow us to have an assessment whether a particular vicinity, whether it is a dormitory, nursing home or hospital – in a hospital, probably you find a lot, because there are a lot of patients there who are infected with the COVID-19 – or housing estates if they have outbreaks. But there are challenges because sewage, by nature, would have been significantly diluted because it is a collection of quite a large population. So, we will need to test the sensitivity and see whether we are able to pick up sufficient fragments to be able to determine whether there is significant infection in the particular target areas. It is something that we are studying but it has its inherent challenges and we may not be able to deploy it for all kinds of settings. But in the high concentration settings, that may be possible. But, then, if there is a high concentration of infected cases, you probably would have detected these cases in any case. So, it is something that we are continuing to study and see whether we could deploy them in a meaningful way.

Testing capacity, yes, we are ramping up and we are hoping to, first, test all prolonged ARI cases, those with prolonged acute respiratory symptoms so that we are able to detect more cases. We are also looking at whether we can expand beyond just PARI to see whether we can enhance or increase the number of tests that we do on the ARIs, that is, those with acute respiratory illnesses. But we also have to bear in mind that we have to assess whether it is productive and going to be effective because the number of cases that would turn positive from the ARIs may be quite low and, therefore, you may end up testing a lot, but not being able to pick up a very meaningful number of cases.

But having said that, we do have, as I have mentioned earlier, a surveillance system where we sample ARI patients and those with flu-like symptoms to have a sense of what is the prevalence level in the population, in the community, to assess whether there is widespread community transmission. As I have mentioned earlier, it does not seem to be so at this moment. But we will continue to monitor. But to be effective in case finding, we may need to be quite targeted in our testing strategy. So, we are planning to expand it to cover all PARI and, hopefully, we are able to ramp up somewhat for the ARI cases in a more targeted way.

For the confirmed cases and those who are in quarantine, whether we will test all of them, so far, our testing for the persons under quarantine is on a very selective basis. As I have mentioned in my speech as well, we do a risk assessment for those who have very close contacts and including the children who are not able to explain whether they feel ill or not. So, those we will quite aggressively test them to make sure that they are not infected. And for the rest of those quarantined, it will also depend on the risk assessment. And as we have more capacity, we hope to be able to test more of them to minimise the risk of transmission.

Mr Pereira also asked about vaccines. It is still very early days. I think there are a lot of news media reports about the progress made. In fact, there is progress made. But from here to testing, to eventually being approved for use by the population, I think there is still some way off. I think we cannot count on the vaccine to solve our immediate challenges of infection cases in the community. We need to do what we need to do. But we hope that the vaccine will come soonest possible and we are involved in some of the collaborative research work internationally. So, we are tapped into the progress and we hope that the vaccines will come out soon. But I think it will still take some time. It is better for us to now focus on the immediate tasks that we need to address.

Mr Speaker, on the assignment of HDB commercial units, I think Members might recall that, some years back, HDB had actually put in place some restrictions on such transfers or re-assignment practices because there was speculative behaviour, property play and then these things led to high assignment fees which led on to these costs being passed down to residents. So, restrictions were put in place for a good reason.

We will consider whether some flexibility might be extended during this time. But I think we should not lose sight of the underlying objectives and rationale for why some of these measures were put in place to begin with. I think, again, we should look at it in a broader context. There are many measures that have been put in place to help businesses, including rental rebates and measures that MOF has announced through three successive Budgets. So, let us look at this holistically to see what is the best way to help our businesses.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for Minister Gan on the testing of migrant workers. Reports suggest that due to resource constraints, we are prioritising testing of and isolation of older migrant workers because of the higher health risks as well as essential services workers. The Minister has explained that earlier in the statement, I think. So, my first question is, how are we managing then the risk resulting from the fact that some of the younger workers may not be tested, detected and isolated for now while we still have these resource constraints. And I am referring here to the risk within dormitories, not so much the wider community.

Second, have we been communicating the reasons for these testing strategies to migrant workers and Singaporeans sufficiently? Again, the migrant workers may not be aware of why some of these strategies are being carried out.

Lastly, are the strategies for testing aligned between the different dormitories? Then we have been hearing some reports that the strategies may differ, depending on who is in charge on the ground and various other operational considerations.

Thank you for the questions. For the foreign workers in the dormitories, whenever they have symptoms, we assess them and the key priority is to make sure that all the workers in the dormitories receive appropriate medical care to make sure that they are taken care of, their illnesses are treated and, if they are at risk of serious or deteriorating conditions, particularly for the older workers, we take them out. Whether or not they are COVID-19, we will take them out so that we pay particular attention in attending to their medical needs. Most of these workers who are older or who have more serious conditions, will be sent to hospitals and when they arrive in hospitals, they will be tested and they will be given appropriate treatment based on their test outcomes. But for the foreign workers who remain in the dormitories, the priority is to make sure that their well-being is taken care of, provide them with the medical attention without having to wait for the test results. And within the dormitories, there are isolation facilities. Where possible, we put them in the isolation facilities where some of them may be cohorted together because they all have similar illnesses.

For the different dormitories, we align them in terms of our strategy or approach. This is coordinated again by the inter-agency task force that is managing the dormitories and they have a comprehensive framework of how to manage each dormitory. Each dormitory is different. It varies. There are some bigger ones and there are some smaller ones, and there are dormitories which have a higher level of infection and there dormitories which have relatively low level of infection. The approach would have to be quite different, depending on the nature of the infection within these dormitories. But the key priority is to make sure that all infected patients, all ill patients are taken care of.

There are also patients who report sick which are not related to COVID-19 and not related to infection, and we continue to take care of them and to treat them where necessary and appropriate. And there are cases where they need hospital attention which are not related to COVID-19, we also will have to send them to hospital for medical attention. So, the key is to ensure that each worker in the dormitory is taken care of. When they have medical needs, we must respond to their medical requirements to make sure that they are taken care of and, at the same time, do what we can to minimise fatalities among our COVID-19 patients.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. My supplementary question is on the issue of leveraging technology for aggressive tracing – a topic that the hon Ministers, Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Lawrence Wong touched on in their Ministerial Statements.

I understand that the take-up rate for the TraceTogether app is about 17%, which is relatively low. As I understand, the efficacy level is 75%. Since we are about four weeks away to the end of the circuit breaker measures, I wonder whether there is any step to mandate or at least offer this on an opt-out basis so that there will be a higher take-up rate and we will be able to leverage on technology to conduct aggressive tracing.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Murali Pillai for the question. We are, indeed, looking at this matter. As I have mentioned just now, our first priority now is to enhance the TraceTogether app, particularly in use with the iOS phone. In fact, Apple and Google themselves have come out to talk about putting out a protocol that will be more effective when such apps are in place on their phones.

So, the technical teams are working very closely with Apple and Google to enhance the effectiveness of the app. When that is done, we will certainly look at the next step, which is to see how the take-up rate of the app can be a lot more than what it is today.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Minister for Health and one for the Minister for Manpower.

For the Minister for Health, regarding his answer to what metrics the Government is using to decide whether to loosen the circuit breaker measures, he gave quite a comprehensive answer. But he did not mention this recognised indicator used by other countries called the effective reproduction number (or RE) of the virus in Singapore. For instance, the New Zealand Prime Minister told her country that they were able to ease their lockdown measures because the RE of the virus in New Zealand had gone from 2 to 0.48, meaning that a person is likely to infect less than one other person at that particular time. So, I would like to ask the Minister for Health whether our Government is actually tracking the RE of the virus in Singapore and if he could make that known and, if it is not, then why is the Government not using that indicator.

For the Minister for Manpower, she touched earlier on the viral outbreak in the dormitories and how it might have been spread through contact, such as within dormitories and also at the construction sites. I would like to ask her whether the Government has also tried to ascertain the origin of the virus in the dormitories. For example, could it be linked to the workers returning from China?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question on the reproductive number. We are, indeed, tracking the number very closely. But as I have said, the numbers are important, but they are not everything. In fact, the reproductive number will be affected by the safe distancing and the circuit breaker measures that we have put in place. The stricter the measures we put in place, in fact, we are suppressing the reproductive number. So, the risk, of course, is that once you remove the circuit breaker measures, the reproductive number may go up again because this basically measures how many persons you are likely to infect for a particular infected person.

So, if you have very tight safe distancing and circuit breaker measures, even if you are infected, you do not have a chance to interact with other people and, therefore, you are not likely to infect more people. But once you remove these circuit breaker measures, you have more interaction and the risk of you transmitting the infection to other people will go up and, therefore, the reproductive number will go up. It is something that we watch and monitor. Of course, if you still have very high reproductive numbers, it is very difficult for you to liberalise your circuit breaker measures because it will just go up even further. But even if you have very low reproductive numbers, you have to be very careful in opening up because, as you open up, the reproductive number may go up as well.

So, it is something that we monitor and watch very carefully. At the moment, I think the reproductive number in the community is significantly lower. It is also reflected in the total number of cases that you see. But in cases like the Safra outbreak, for example, you would expect the reproductive number to be significantly higher during that period of time. If you look at the current infection in the dormitories, the reproductive numbers in the domitories are also likely to be higher. So, therefore, you need to look at the number quite carefully. It means different things in different contexts.

Therefore, I would prefer not to produce one single number and try to peg our metrics on that number. I think we need to take into account all the factors in order for us to be able to restore some of the activities safely.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her question. I think the short answer to her question is, no, we do not exactly know how the transmission in the dormitories got started. We also do not want to speculate about its exact origins because it is not helpful to risk any group within the dormitories being targeted for blame. The important thing right now is that it has happened. We have to try and bring it under control and then we have to focus on getting ourselves onto the recovery path. Very importantly, we also want to set our sights on how a recurrence can be prevented.

Now, granted, in order to prevent a recurrence, we have to study and understand more deeply how it occurred in the first place. But we may not have that luxury of a full understanding and still have to make adjustments in the best possible way based on whatever scientific knowledge and understanding we can muster at this point in time and applying the best of the technology and resources that we have available to us. That is the focus right now.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Thank you, Sir. My questions are for the Minister for Manpower. In her Facebook post, the Minister said that each time the MOM attempts to raise the standard of living in these dormitories, it would face objections from employers due to the added costs that come with the move. My first question is: under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act, the licenced operator and dormitory owner should be the parties to be held accountable to raise the standard of living in the dormitories in the interest of public health and safety. So, what did MOM involve the employer in the application of the provisions of this Act in this instance? Any intention of the dormitory operator and owner to pass down the cost should be a separate matter for the parties to resolve later as the attempt by MOM to raise the living standard in the dormitories is done in the interest of public health and safety.

My second question is: under the Act, operators must develop a quarantine plan in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. Since the onset of the outbreak, taxpayers have been footing the bill for the quarantine exercise at these affected dormitories. As this is a pandemic, would these dormitory operators and owners be held accountable for a share of the containment and quarantine costs?

Mr Speaker, if I may respond to Mr Png's question this way. Every month, the employers pay a certain sum to the dormitory operators to accommodate their workers. Usually, the rooms are rented by one single employer. So, in any particular dormitory, you may have 400 or 500 rooms, whatever the number may be, and one employer takes one room. Within that room, depending on the size of that room, size of that unit, a certain number can be accommodated. So, if as a result of a change in standards where we say that instead of accommodating X persons in one unit, eventually, they can only accommodate X-2 or X-3 persons per unit, then the cost per employee accommodated naturally goes up. Certainly, to the employer, this is something that they have to bear. And whatever the business the employer is in, this goes into his cost considerations and, ultimately, he will pass it on to whoever buys his products and services. So, that is something that we must always keep in mind. It is not so difficult for MOM, by the stroke of a pen, to change some numbers here and there. But we have to consider the overall implications and whether it is bearable for the employers. So, that is on the first part.

On the Member's second question on whether the costs eventually have to be apportioned, I think, the scale of COVID-19's impact on businesses and, certainly, even in the dormitories, it is just unprecedented. At this point in time, if we were to start calculating the costs, I think it is very hard to move things; it is impossible to get things done. Right now, the priority must be to keep the situation under control, bring it under control, and then, at the appropriate time, we can look at what are the right considerations in terms of handling the issue of costs.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just now, the Minister did not answer any of my four questions when I asked them in Chinese. Now, I would like to ask them again in English.

Perhaps, there is no need to repeat them. Does the Minister need the questions to be repeated?

Does the Minister need me to ask in English or he will answer them?

I will answer them. Let me see whether I can remember.

First, let me just state that the TCMs play an important part in our healthcare system. It is complementary to our western medicine and we do want to allow them to continue to operate in a safe and managed way. Therefore, we have always been allowing these TCM practices to continue, particularly through teleconsult, and for helping to look after the chronic patients. For chronic patients, we have always allowed them to purchase medicine from the medical halls when they consult the TCM practitioners. We have now actually liberalised it and we allow medical halls which have resident TCM practitioners to open, to be able to serve other customers. But we will continue to look at whether we can liberalise it further. But as I have said, as soon as the task force announced lifting some of the circuit breaker measures, we have a list of appeals from quite a lot of people all wanting to be part of the liberalisation. I can understand the anxiety of everybody because we have been on this circuit breaker for about a month, and tighter circuit breaker measures for about two weeks and I think everyone wants to see whether we can go back to normal. I must share with you that we have very heated debates within the task force to decide what to liberalise and what not to liberalise. But the top of our concerns is to make sure that infection remains under control, the reproductive number remains low. Therefore, it is important for us to do it in a calibrated way, in a managed way.

I know there is still a lot of interest to open it up and we will continue to do so and we will be happy to get the task force to look at where else we could do so in a safe way. For the TCM practitioners, we consult them, we get their views and we also want to share with them our plans going forward. But I would assure Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we will continue to engage them. At the appropriate time, when we are more confident, and having done this first step of opening, if all goes well, we hope to be able to liberalise further.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sorry, one last request, Minister.

Is it the same question from before or is it a new one?