Hansard, Monday, 4 November 2019

1 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what percentage of Singapore's carbon emissions is currently contributed by air-conditioning, vehicle transport and waste incineration; and (b) how can Singapore become more efficient in these activities.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the carbon footprint generated by the waste incineration process in Singapore; and (b) whether measures such as carbon capture and sequestration or carbonation of bottom ash are in place or being considered to reduce this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2017. The buildings and household sectors contributed around 19% of our total GHG emissions, of which a sizeable portion would have been for air-conditioning. The land transport sector contributed around 14%, and the incineration of municipal solid waste at waste-to-energy plants contributed around 3% of our total GHG emissions.

Singapore is fully committed to reducing our emissions under our Paris Agreement pledge. We have put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce our emissions across all sectors. These measures are complemented by the economy-wide carbon tax which came into effect this year.

Under the Building Control Regulations, all new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofitting are required to achieve a minimum sustainability standard. BCA’s Green Mark Scheme also encourages building owners and developers to achieve higher energy efficiency, such as by reducing a building's cooling demand and adopting more efficient cooling systems. NEA has also put in place the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) to encourage consumers to purchase more energy-efficient household air-conditioners, and introduced the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) to phase out the less efficient appliances from the market.

In the transport sector, we aim to make public transport the preferred mode of travel in Singapore and to encourage active mobility such as walking and cycling. By 2040, we target for nine in 10 peak period journeys to be taken using public, active and shared modes of transport, and for these journeys to be completed within 45 minutes. We have already capped the vehicle population in Singapore at zero growth, except for commercial vehicles. We also encourage the adoption of cleaner vehicles including electric vehicles, and are working with the industry to develop infrastructure for our public, shared and private transport vehicles.

We are diverting waste away from incineration by focusing on efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. Under the Zero Waste Masterplan launched in August, we outlined how Singapore is adopting a circular economy approach to waste management, where resources are kept in use for as long as possible. The Resource Sustainability Act that was recently enacted gives legislative effect to the regulatory framework that we will put in place to better manage the three priority waste streams of electrical and electronic waste, or e-waste, packaging waste including plastics, and food waste. These measures will contribute not only to reducing carbon emissions and closing the resource loop for these key waste streams, but will also extend the lifespan of our only landfill at Semakau.

We are closely monitoring global developments in carbon capture and sequestration. There are no plans to incorporate these technologies into our current waste management infrastructure at this moment. However, we will continue to study the feasibility of such technology, taking into consideration factors such as the maturity of the technology, and the costs and benefits of applying it to the Singapore context.

Tackling climate change requires a whole-of-nation approach. Individuals also play a key role in our climate mitigation efforts. We can all choose to make climate-friendly choices and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, such as setting the air-conditioner temperature at 25 degrees Celsius, practising the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, and taking public transport.

Mr Speaker, may I first declare that I work in the utilities industry. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I have three supplementary questions.

The first question is on air-conditioning. Given that air-conditioning that is provided by large-scale district cooling has shown to reduce electricity consumption by more than 30%, are there any plans by the Government to encourage more of such district cooling in Singapore?

The second question relates to electric vehicles. Given that it is always a chicken-and-egg problem between having charging points and buying and using electric vehicles, does the Government have any plans to open more public parking spaces for public charging? Not private charging for the customers of a particular company, but public charging, so as to incentivise more car owners to switch electric vehicles.

My third question relates to waste incineration. There are presently technologies such as gasification that does not have harmful emissions and that are compact enough and modular enough to be deployed locally at our HDB estates. Gasification technology can treat food waste and general waste, and has shown to be very clean. Does the Government have any plans to introduce such gasification technology in our HDB estates?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, with regards to the use of district cooling, indeed, we support the use of district cooling to reduce energy consumption for buildings at the systems level. In fact, there are already district cooling projects at One Raffles Quay as well as the Marina Bay area. We have found that for the Marina Bay area scheme, there was about a 40% reduction in energy consumption. We are have plans to introduce district cooling in the new Jurong Lake District. These are all greenfield sites and it is easier to implement such a technology there. For brownfield sites, there will be challenges because there are already existing buildings there that have put in place their systems. But we are studying this further.

With regards to electric vehicles, indeed, we encourage the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles, whether it is electric or hybrid, through the Vehicles Emissions Scheme, where we incentivise the purchase of cleaner energy vehicles. As regards the Member's request for public charging at parking spaces, we will bring his suggestion to MOT and LTA to consider.

Regarding gasification technology, as the Member knows, all household waste is currently incinerated at our four waste-to-energy incineration plants, it is mass incineration technology either at Woodlands or Tuas. We are studying the feasibility of small-scale waste treatment including utilising gasification technology. But in studying this, we will have to take into account factors such as the overall efficiency of waste treatment at the national level, carbon footprint savings from reduced refuse truck traffic using smaller scale gasification plants, for instance, safety to residents as well as nuisance buffer required for such facilities especially if we are talking about siting these within HDB estates, and also, any off-take or by-products at the local level.

Just to share that under NEA regulatory sandbox, the SP Group is conducting a gasification pilot at Gardens by the Bay (GBB). There, the waste collected from GBB is converted to heat as well as a solid by-product that has got carbon in it. We will monitor the outcome of this pilot and assess the feasibility of using such technology for smaller scale waste treatment facilities.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her detailed answer. Just one supplementary question. Is the Government looking into battery swapping, as opposed to battery charging for electric vehicles? Swapping could potentially be an efficient alternative, given that space is at a premium and so on and so forth? So, is that being looked into?

We are studying the infrastructure as well as various measures to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles, including electric vehicles. This is something that we can look into.

The Senior Minister of State mentioned that we are only monitoring the technology of carbon capture. Could I ask whether MEWR is doing a feasibility study of carbon capture as part of our efforts to mitigate climate change?

When we talk about Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage or CCUS, it is really about capturing the carbon which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, converting it into something useful or storing it safely. So, indeed, National Climate Change Secretariat has commissioned a study on CCUS technologies, including carbonisation that Mr Leon Perera asked about, to determine the challenges as well as the opportunities of such technology and also to recommend the next steps.

One of the issues, for instance, that we would have to consider is not just economic viability and feasibility, but also whether they meet certain technical requirements, such as environmental standards that have to be met, especially when two-thirds of Singapore is a water catchment area.

These are some areas that we will study. We will continue to monitor developments in these technologies. We are working with the industry as well as with the R&D sector to look further into the technology.

3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower what can be done to reduce the amount of unclaimed CPF monies going forward.

4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower whether CPF Board will consider changing the CPF nomination process to facilitate more seamless distribution of deceased CPF members' funds to their loved ones and rightful owners promptly.

5 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Manpower regarding unclaimed CPF monies (a) what are the profiles of these members by age, ethnic group, marital status and education level; (b) what measures does the Ministry have to increase the awareness of nominations such as that of contacting and engaging those above a certain age who have yet to make nominations; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing higher withdrawal amounts for those who have no kin to nominate.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 3 to 5 together, please.

Yes, please.

I thank the Members who have raised important questions. There are several key issues I hope to address in this reply.

The first question is whether most CPF monies go unclaimed? The answer is no. In fact, about 98% of all unused CPF monies belonging to deceased members were distributed by CPF Board or the Public Trustee’s Office (PTO) over the last five years. Around 2% are unclaimed.

The vast majority of deceased members had made nominations as to who they wish to receive their unused CPF monies. Their monies were distributed to beneficiaries according to these nominations. This is typically done within a month of CPF Board being notified of the member's passing by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and where the nominees’ bank details have been submitted.

Mr Chong asked about the profile of those who nominated, compared to those who did not. The clearest difference is that members below the age of 45 who pass away are much less likely to have made a nomination. But even if a member did not make a nomination for anyone to receive his unused CPF monies, it may still be distributed to his next-of-kin according to the intestacy and Muslim inheritance laws.

How does this happen? CPF Board will pass the monies to the PTO typically within three weeks of notification of the member’s passing. The PTO will then trace and search for the next-of-kin. The Ministry of Law will be answering a separate question on the efforts taken to return the un-nominated CPF monies to members’ next-of-kin.

The second question is whether unclaimed CPF monies are then forfeited? The answer is again no. As MinLaw will explain in greater detail, next-of-kin can approach the PTO at any time to submit their claims. There is no time limit for them to do so.

The third question is whether CPF Board makes an effort to reduce incidence of unclaimed monies. The answer is yes, absolutely. The CPF Board adopts a three-pronged approach. First, educating members; second, reminding members regularly; and third, making it easy for members to nominate.

Firstly, education. The CPF Board raises awareness on the importance of making a CPF nomination through annual island-wide CPF roadshows. It also works with other industry stakeholders, such as lawyers and insurance agents, to advise their clients on making a CPF nomination.

Secondly, to remind members regularly, the Yearly Statement of Account given to all CPF members highlights in text whether or not the member has made a nomination. If one has been made, the CPF Board also lets the member know when the nomination was made, in case the member wants to change his mind.

Members may be aware that CPF Board runs a CPF Retirement Planning Service for members before they reach age 55 and a second time before they reach age 65. At these planning sessions, if a member has not already made a nomination, the CPF Board officer will remind the member.

Thirdly, as Ms Foo Mee Har alluded to in her question, the CPF Board strives to make it easy for members to nominate. At the CPF Retirement Planning Service, if a member decides to make a nomination, it can be done on the spot. Today, a nomination can be made in-person at any of the CPF Service Centres, or via post. The CPF Board is also exploring providing a new electronic nomination system in the first quarter of next year. In 2018, CPF Board processed about 120,000 nomination applications, more than double the 50,000 nominations made in 2013.

To Mr Chong’s question, what if a member has no next-of-kin? For members on the Retirement Sum Scheme, the payouts are computed taking into consideration life expectancy, which is unrelated to whether a person has next-of-kin. Therefore, such members may wish to join the CPF LIFE scheme and choose the Standard Plan which generally offers higher payouts for life. After all, they have no next-of-kin to fall back on if they outlive their savings. At the same time, we focus on helping every member get their nominations done well in advance.

I thank Minister for her answers. I am quite sure, in terms of CPF going out to encourage everyone to make nominations, this has been on-going. The fact is that there is still 2% of CPF members who have yet to make nominations. From your earlier answers, it appears that it is the younger ones who have not made nominations. I wonder and I would like to ask the Minister whether 2% – it does not appear as a big number – but when you aggregate it across, it could be 30,000, 40,000 members who have not made nominations.

Would Minister consider, making it such that nominations are almost automatic? For those who are not married, perhaps, it could automatically go to their parents? Just to make it even easier, if they choose to make new nominations, that could be done at the time that the member chooses to do so. As against now – notwithstanding all the reminders, statements to inform the CPF members that they have not made a nomination – it goes unnoticed and it remains a case where they have not made a nomination. Would the Minister consider such a suggestion?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Seah Kian Peng for his suggestion. I think if we break down what the problem really is, as long as the person has a next-of-kin, even if the person did not make a nomination, the Public Trustee's Office will try and search for the next-of-kin and trace the person's whereabouts and make an effort to return the unused CPF monies. So, where there is actually someone, that you can give the money to, even if the person did not make the nomination, that is not the most difficult thing. The most difficult thing is where, there is a next-of-kin but we have difficulty tracing them. The correct thing to do, is therefore, to make sure that the monies are never forfeited. The person could be overseas, the next-of-kin may have lost touch with the deceased member and may not even be aware that the person has passed away and that there is unused CPF monies to be distributed.

There is a very small group, where even with the best efforts, the Public Trustee's Office will have difficulty tracing. The question of how to deal with this group, really is not so much a matter of nomination, is whether we can find more effective ways to do the trace and search. There is also another question, that has been posed to MinLaw and I would like to suggest that perhaps, we can let MinLaw answer that question and then we can follow up.

Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, Minister mentioned about the roadshow to inform people about the nomination. I would like to ask whether MOM could have a specific outreach to members who have not made nominations, rather than roadshows which a lot of people would ignore unless it is very specific to them. The second supplementary question is, my colleague, Ms Foo Mee Har, had also in October this year, raised the question on whether MOM could increase payout under the Retirement Sum Scheme. I would like to check whether the Minister has any updates on this.

Mr Speaker, to Mr Chong Kee Hiong's question on whether we can make personalised outreach, the answer is yes. We already do so, through the yearly Statement of Account. Can we make it more prominent, the answer is yes. However, at the end of the day, I am also mindful that people need to think a little bit about who they wish to nominate and the appropriate thing to do therefore, is that, when they are ready to do so and to enable them to so in a seamless manner.

I think from the statistics, it is quite clear that it is the younger individuals, who may not have thought so much about it and therefore, they have not made a nomination. What we intend to do, is to make this nomination process even more easy for younger persons who are very tech savvy, through a technology platform, perhaps they will find that maybe if they make a nomination today and tomorrow, they change their mind, it is not so difficult to do as well. This electronic means of doing so, we will be launching in the first quarter of next year, so I am hopeful that it will help to promote nominations.

To Mr Chong Kee Hiong's second question on the Retirement Sum Scheme payouts. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take it within my Second Reading speech later in the sitting, that deals with the CPF (Amendment) Act.

Okay, please do. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Minister for Manpower. That is about the trigger point for distribution of CPF monies, meaning the death of the member. We do understand of course, if the member died in Singapore, there is a death certificate issued and CPF Board is quite efficient actually in notifying the beneficiaries. But, is there any inter-governmental procedure if the person were to die overseas? Do governments frequently exchange information about deaths of nationals that have occurred overseas that may be relevant, say to Singaporeans dying, say in Cambodia or Thailand, for example?

Mr Speaker, it would not be unusual for foreign governments to inform us if someone were to have passed away. Sometimes, they may not inform relevant parties in Singapore, they may inform our missions overseas. And our missions overseas can then get in touch with the CPF Board. But, most likely, it is the next-of-kin who would trigger the payouts so the rest of the processes follow. As Ms Sylvia Lim explained, usually it is quite efficient, but if she is aware of any specific cases where these disbursements have not been done in a timely manner, I invite her to let me know about it and I would be happy to look into that.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Law (a) whether all efforts have been taken to return the over $200 million in unclaimed CPF monies with no nomination to family members; and (b) whether the paperwork can be made easier for family members to apply to claim the monies.

Mr Speaker, when CPF members do not make valid CPF nominations and pass away, the un-nominated CPF monies are transferred to the Public Trustee’s Office, or PTO, for disbursement to the legally entitled beneficiaries. PTO will contact individuals who are known to possibly have an interest in the deceased member's un-nominated CPF monies and also invite them to make an application claim these un-nominated funds.

These persons include: (a) persons who approach CPF Board to inform the CPF Board of the deceased's passing, (b) the death informant listed in ICA's records, and (c) the deceased's family members as reflected in ICA's records. PTO managed to distribute about 88% of the un-nominated CPF monies it received from CPF Board over the last five years.

As at end 2018, unclaimed un-nominated CPF monies make up $132 million of the $211 million in unclaimed monies held by PTO. PTO continues to make efforts to locate legally entitled beneficiaries of unclaimed monies and they do so by making phone calls, writing to them on several occasions and also, in some cases, making house visits.

We would like to encourage individuals who may be legally entitled to the monies to submit their application. There is no time limit for the application – individuals may come forward at any time to make their claim. To ensure that the monies are distributed to the rightful applicants, PTO requires that an applicant produce documentary proof to support his claim and also the eligibility entitlement. Where necessary, PTO will assist the applicant to obtain necessary documents from the relevant agencies, by making a request on behalf of an applicant, or supporting his request for information.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Regarding those who have been contacted through phone or through house visits in a very personalised way, we can see that there are some interactions between the officers and the possible claimants. What are the reasons why they did not eventually make the claim?

I think in most cases and I can check the information, but if you reach out to someone who is legally entitled to and is able to substantiate that position, in most cases, those persons will step forward to make to make the claim. The numbers that we see, unclaimed or the un-nominated sums, relate to persons we were not able to trace in the manner which you heard Minister for Manpower state earlier.

7 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the Ministry’s plans to improve footpath safety back to levels before PMDs were allowed on footpaths; and (b) what is the estimated time frame that the Ministry has set to achieve this objective.

8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport in light of continuing serious casualties caused by PMDs (a) whether the Government will review the viability of PMD use in Singapore under existing regulations; (b) whether the Government intends to introduce new measures to ensure safe use of PMDs; and (c) whether the Government will consider mandatory safe-riding certification courses with disqualification rights under the law like other classes of motorists.

9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many physical and online retailers have agreed to stop selling e-scooters or PMDs that are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard; (b) what are the measures that LTA has taken to detect physical and online retailers that continue to advertise or sell PMDs that are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard; and (c) what are the punitive measures that LTA can adopt to act against such errant retailers.

10 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will increase the number of enforcement teams to actively enforce the rules on the use of PMDs on shared footpaths.

11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked ask the Minister for Transport (a) what are the measures in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs in Singapore by online suppliers, whether local or overseas based; and (b) whether the Ministry has asked Singapore Customs to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by any supplier or individual.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 11 together?

Yes, please.

In February 2017, we debated at length in this House and passed the Active Mobility Bill to regulate the use of active mobility devices on public paths and to support active mobility. Prior to this, motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) were not allowed on footpaths. There are more than 5,500 km of footpaths islandwide, almost double the 3,500 km of roads. The convenience of being able to use these devices on footpaths for first-and-last-mile commutes, as well as for food delivery services, contributed to their popularity and a sharp increase in their population to close to 100,000 today.

Over the last two years, we have put in great efforts to promote the safe use of motorised PMDs. We legislated compliance standards for the devices and their proper usage. We mandated an e-scooter registration regime. Working closely with the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, we introduced a Safe Riding Programme and reduced speed limits on footpaths. We stepped up enforcement and through the MyTransport.SG mobile application, obtained regular public feedback on errant users and hotspots.

Despite significant efforts, we continue to encounter errant riders who use non-compliant devices and ride dangerously. We catch an average of about 370 offenders per month. The number of accidents involving motorised PMDs continues to rise. There have been more severe accidents and even a fatal one involving a cyclist in September. Many riders have themselves suffered severe injuries, including a few who lost their lives.

Singaporeans and several Members of Parliament have called for harsher measures against errant riders. Others have demanded that motorised PMDs be fitted with tamper-proof GPS trackers. Unfortunately, this will affect their circuitry, making them non-compliant to the UL2272 standard.

As more accidents occur, the calls for a total ban on PMD usage get louder.

We are not alone in having to revisit existing rules governing the use of motorised PMDs. Last week, France announced that it would no longer allow the riding of e-scooters on its pavements. This followed hundreds of e-scooter-related incidents, including several deaths.

Cities have allowed the use of such devices on footpaths as they are non-pollutive, inexpensive and, if properly used, convenient for short intra-town travels. We expected the co-sharing of footpaths to be challenging but were hopeful that with public education, PMD users would be gracious and responsible. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

Like France, Japan and many other countries, we have decided to prohibit the use of e-scooters from all footpaths. This will take effect from tomorrow. To allow time for users to adjust, we will provide an advisory period until 31 December 2019. From 1 January 2020, we will carry out strict enforcement and those caught riding an e-scooter on footpaths will be liable for a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail up to three months.

This ban from footpaths will not apply to those with mobility challenges who ride personal mobility aids like motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. The ban will also not apply to bicycles.

We are aware that the banning of e-scooter usage on footpaths will impact food delivery riders who rely on them for work. We understand from the major food delivery companies that their deliveries are largely done by motorcycles and delivery vehicles. Less than 30% of Deliveroo and FoodPanda's riders use e-scooters. LTA will work with the food delivery companies to allow as many of their delivery riders to switch to motorcycles or bicycles.

This move is not a complete ban of e-scooters in Singapore. We will continue to allow them on dedicated cycling paths. We are stepping up the construction of such cycling paths to provide clear separation between pedestrians and e-scooters, as in Ang Mo Kio and Tampines Town. LTA will be adding dedicated cycling paths in towns such as Woodlands, Toa Payoh and Choa Chu Kang. Overall, we will extend the network of dedicated cycling paths from about 440 km today to 750 km, latest by 2025.

As for the fire safety concerns, we have brought forward the deadline for compliance with the UL2272 standard to 1 July next year. We will also be introducing a regular inspection regime to ensure compliance. Out of the 100,000 registered e-scooters, at least 80,000 are non-UL2272 certified and cannot be used on public paths come 1 July 2020. Of the remaining 20%, those which fail our inspection regime will likewise not be allowed to be used on public paths. This will effectively reduce the population of e-scooters on public paths significantly. We are offering owners of non-compliant e-scooters an incentive of $100 if they dispose of their non-compliant devices early. Since the roll-out of the scheme on 23 September 2019 to 31 October 2019, more than 4,800 e-scooters have been disposed. We have decided to extend the early disposal incentive scheme from 30 November to 31 December 2019. We strongly urge the owners of non-compliant e-scooters to dispose their devices early to protect themselves and their neighbours from unnecessary fire risks.

Members asked about the sale of non-UL2272 certified devices. Since 1 July 2019, it has been an offence for retailers to display, advertise, or sell non-UL2272 certified PMDs for use on public paths in Singapore. Those convicted may be liable to a fine up to $5,000 and/or jail up to three months for the first offence. To date, 12 retailers have been caught and dealt with by the law. We are considering raising the penalties to root out such irresponsible acts. LTA is also studying upstream measures, including import controls, to stem the inflow of non-compliant PMDs into Singapore.

Finally, given the safety concerns of motorised PMD usage on footpaths, we have decided not to accept any new application for PMD-sharing licences. As for the existing applications, we will issue a safety directive and LTA will reject them.

Mr Speaker, this ban of e-scooters from footpaths is a difficult decision. But it is a necessary step for pedestrians to feel safe again on public paths, while still allowing e-scooters to grow in tandem with cycling path infrastructure. We hope to have Members’ understanding and support for this new policy.

Speaker, I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for making the announcement. I think many people will welcome that ban on shared footpaths. But the Senior Minister of State has not answered my question because an announcement that a ban will take place would still need to be enforced. So, may I ask whether the Ministry will consider increasing the number of enforcement teams, so that we can actively enforce the rules, especially now that the rules are that you are going to ban these PMDs on the shared footpaths? Will MOT do that and by how many? Because now that you are going to ban the use of PMDs on shared footpaths, I would expect that your enforcement should be stepped up.

I would like to thank Mr Lim for the clarification. Yes, indeed, we will be increasing the number of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs), up to 200 by the end of this year. In addition to the AMEOs, we are also forming more Active Mobility Patrol teams within the community. We will be working with the various constituencies to form as many Active Mobility Patrol teams as possible, so that they can also help in the public education of PMD users.

At the same time, we also have what we call "Blue-Rangers" who are LTA officers who volunteer to take up the added responsibility of going round to educate PMD users on the various rules and regulations, as well as to remind them that from tomorrow onwards, it will be illegal to ride PMDs on footpaths.

Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Senior Minister of State in respect of part (c) of my Question No 8, "whether the Government will consider mandatory safe-riding certification courses with disqualification rights"? Would the Government be still considering this?

In respect of the calls for age limit, both by the Active Mobility Panel as well as in my previous Parliamentary Question, will the Government consider an age limit for riders riding PMDs? I will also be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can answer Question No 11. Thank you.

I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for those supplementary questions. With regard to his question on whether there should be any mandatory safe-riding certification courses, I would like to share with the House that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has recently submitted their recommendations on certain aspects of active mobility and one of which includes a mandatory theory test, which is slightly different from the safe-riding certification. But I think that may be a good step forward because by having a mandatory theory test, this will remind them of some of the various new rules and regulations on PMD usage, as well as some of the safety measures that they should adopt when using PMDs. We do not think that a safe-riding certification course will be necessary at this point in time because riding a PMD is very different from operating a motorcycle or, for that matter, a motor vehicle. It is actually much easier to do so. The question is whether the PMD user will exercise their due diligence and responsibility in riding the device in a safe manner.

As to the age limit, similarly, AMAP has also recommended that the age limit be brought down to 16 years. LTA, together with MOT, will be studying some of these recommendations by AMAP and we will make the necessary announcement later on.

As to the last clarification on the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs, I have mentioned in my reply that from 1 July 2019, retailers are already not allowed to sell or even advertise non-compliant PMDs. At the same time, we are also moving upstream to look at how we can impose an import control of such non-compliant PMDs, so that we do not see such non-complaint PMDs being marketed in Singapore. We are working together with the necessary Government agencies to see how we can go about doing that.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions.

The first question is you have mentioned that 12 retailers were caught for flouting the rules. Of these 12 retailers, how many are physical retailers and how many are online retailers?

The second question is how does LTA or MOT detect those retailers that are flouting the rules? For the physical retailers, it will be easier, for the online retailers, it may be more difficult. Some of the online retailers may also be reselling their used PMDs, which are non-compliant with the UL2272 standard, on some of the platforms.

The third question is you mentioned that by end of the year, you will increase the enforcement team to 200 people. What is the current number now?

I would like to thank Mr Ang for those three supplementary questions. Out of those 12 retailers who were caught, all of them are physical retailers. I think Mr Ang will agree with me that it is very difficult to control or even prosecute online retailers because many of them are actually located outside Singapore.

But having said that, LTA works very closely with some of the major online retailers, for example, Lazada, to request that they put on the website some of the rules and regulations of PMD usage in Singapore, especially with respect to the device criteria allowed for sale in Singapore.

On the Member's third question on the number of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs), like I have mentioned, we will increase to 200. But offhand I do not have the exact numbers of AMEOs that we have right now, but I think it is in the region of 100-plus.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have five supplementary questions.

The first question is, I would like to ask whether there will be any upgrading of the path in Nee Soon Town because the cycling path and the footpath side by side, they are the same colour, so whatever that you ban, I do not see that it will make any difference in Nee Soon Town.

The second question is, despite the ban on the footpath, will the Ministry consider mandatory licencing for PMD riders as well as insurance? Because as you beef up the infrastructure as we go along, the number will increase again.

The third question is, the registration number on the PMD, as I had mentioned in my question last month, it is too small and it is not visible at all at night. Will this part be looked into and reviewed?

The fourth question is, will the Ministry consider making speed limit installation compulsory, moving forward, for new PMDs?

Last but not least, I think it is a good move but the next question that the residents will be afraid of is bicycle. We do not have any registration numbers on the bicycles, so when it comes to accidents, there is no way that they can identify the cyclist. So, is the Ministry looking into this?

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the five supplementary questions. The very first is on upgrading the paths in Nee Soon South. In fact, we will be upgrading the paths in all the different towns in Singapore. Of course, we will be focusing on those where the use of active mobility is the highest and then we will try to do so for the rest of the towns as soon as possible. If there are any particular paths or areas where Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is concerned about, we can always look at it and see how we can tap on the funding that I have announced during the Ministerial Statement on improving certain hotspot areas, so that the risk of conflict can be minimised in those areas.

As to mandatory licencing of PMD users as well as mandatory third party liability insurance, at this point in time, we do not have the intention to do so. But we already have various regimes in place such as the mandatory registration of PMD device itself. We are also currently actively studying some of the recommendations put up by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, one of which is the mandatory theory test. Like I have explained to Mr Dennis Tan, the intent is to inculcate safe riding habits amongst PMD users and at the same time, also to remind PMD users of some of the rules and regulations that are in place.

As to whether we should have mandatory third party liability insurance. We have been actively studying this issue. In fact, one of the recommendations that was put forth by AMAP is to have mandatory third party liability insurance for businesses, for example, food delivery companies. I am glad to say that we have engaged the three major food delivery companies and all of them have bought third party liability insurances for their PMD delivery personnel. We are also working with the insurance companies to see how we can bring down the price of the premium for such a product. At the same time, we also encourage all PMD users to consider purchasing third party liability insurance because it provides the necessary protection and peace of mind.

We also take back the Member's suggestion on the registration label for registered PMDs and we can work with LTA to see how we can make the font size more readable and easier to identify.

As to the Member's supplementary question on speed limiter installation for new PMDs, in fact, currently, all the new PMDs that are imported already have a speed limit of 25 km/h, which is the speed limit allowable on our cycling paths as well as our PCNs. With the implementation of the prohibition of e-scooter use on footpaths from tomorrow, there is no longer a need to limit these devices to 10 km/h. At the same time, if there are any illegal modifications of the speed limit of the PMDs, LTA will come down hard on these PMD users who illegally modify their devices.

As to bicycle registration, I think we have debated on this topic many years back in Parliament whether we should register cyclists. The decision then was not to because it will actually impede the take-up of active mobility, especially bicycles. At this point in time, many members of the public are supportive of the use of bicycles in their town as well as amongst the neighbourhood. The main concern now is that of PMD usage, especially those who are reckless and riding them dangerously. We will focus on the control of PMD use. The recent announcement on the ban on footpaths will be the right step forward.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask one supplementary question. Will the Senior Minister of State consider extending an incentive for the disposal of compliant PMDs? I am asking this because although this decision will greatly improve pedestrian safety, it will also harm the value of all PMDs, even compliant ones. And if you get people to turn them in if they have no longer a use for them, it will reduce the risks of one using it and address any harm suffered by responsible owners of these PMDs.

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for that supplementary question. I understand where the Member is coming from. The incentive scheme of $100 is meant for PMDs that are registered but non-compliant. The reason why we are doing so is because of the risk of fire and, therefore, we will not be extending this incentive to PMDs that are compliant because for PMDs that are compliant, they can still continue to use them on the cycling paths as well as the PCNs and we are not totally restricting its use altogether.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to applaud MOT's decision to ban the use of PMDs on footpaths. With the ban of using PMDs in void decks, this measure would largely address the safety concerns of residents. I also think that this represents an openness and willingness on the part of MOT to revisit issues when the circumstances warrant it and I think Members of this House should acknowledge that. It is also a matter of regret because the first decision to rely on the conduct of PMD users by self-regulating appears to be an experiment which somehow failed, but it is not a wrong decision in itself.

My supplementary question is in relation to enforcement in Pedestrian-only Zones (POZs). As I hear the hon Senior Minister of State, we have enforcement officers under the Active Mobility Act. The POZs are enforced by Town Councils and I wonder whether we could have enforcement officers appointed by the Town Councils to be also be given powers under the Active Mobility Act so that these officers can enforce seamlessly.

I would like to thank Mr Murali for those words of encouragement. It is a difficult decision to prohibit the use of PMDs on footpaths. When we first started debating on this topic in 2017, the collective decision then was to allow the use of PMDs on footpaths with the necessary mitigating measures in place, which we have done very thoroughly over the past two years. But at the same time, we understand that we should not push for connectivity at all costs. Public safety is still paramount and, looking at the current situation, it is not possible for the Government not to make a decisive decision. Therefore, the decision to prohibit the use of PMDs on footpaths.

As to the POZs, with this current announcement, we will be going back to the five pilot sites at the various Town Councils to work with the advisers to see whether they would like to proceed with the implementation of POZs. Because with the current ban of PMDs on footpaths, the danger posed by PMDs in such areas will be significantly reduced. Therefore, the question is whether we should continue with the POZs to prohibit the use of bicycles in these town centres. For those advisers who still want to continue with the implementation of POZs, LTA, together with MOT, will work very closely with the adviser to implement the POZs.

With regard to enforcement, I think we should adopt the attitude that we are in this together. The Town Council officers, together with the LTA enforcement officers, will try to make it as safe as possible for the pedestrians at the POZs.

Thank you for the indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am rising to follow up on a question I raised to the Senior Minister of State on enforcement of PMD bans at void decks with respect to Town Councils. AHTC took a position previously, but in light of the Minister's announcement, we will align our rules to the Government's stand on the matter. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.

Sir, while I support the Government's decision to ban PMDs on walkways, I am also a little concerned about how this will impact the food delivery businesses which do offer convenience to residents. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how he sees this decision affecting the food delivery businesses and, more importantly, the PMD riders who are dependent on the PMDs to earn a living and whether there will be existing measures to help them to continue to have a way to do their business.

I would like to thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for that supplementary question. I must say that we share the same concern when deliberating on this measure. We have been engaging the three major food delivery companies – Food Panda, Grab Food as well as Deliveroo. From our understanding, there are approximately about 7,000 food delivery riders using PMDs engaged by these three companies. We think that these 7,000 riders are probably the upper bound of the number of PMD users in this trade because many of them may register under the multiple companies.

We also understand from the food delivery companies that less than 30% of the deliveries are actually done using PMDs. Just to give Members rough statistics. For Food Panda, only about 12% of their food deliveries are done by PMDs, Deliveroo about 5%. We do not have the exact statistics from Grab Food. We are encouraging the food delivery companies and are working with them to see how we can convert as many of these PMD delivery personnel to either use motorcycles or bicycles because we do see that some of the companies do use bicycles for food delivery as well. For example, Food Panda has about 16% of their food deliveries done on bicycles.

For those workers who are unable to convert to either bicycles or motorcycles for whatever reasons, we will be working with the food delivery companies, together with Workforce Singapore, to assist them and see how we can look for alternative jobs for them.

Mr Speaker, this is pertaining to the enforcement of this new regulation. I understand from the Senior Minister of State that it will be challenging certainly to have an enforcement team to enforce this on the ground. Would the Government consider perhaps using technology and enhance technology in this area? For example, with a sufficient CCTV or camera network and perhaps more advanced recognition technology, would this be possible in the future to use such technology to identify those who break the law? Again, similar technology has been used in the enforcement of traffic regulations or even illegal parking along double yellow lines, for example.

I would like to thank Mr Darryl David for that supplementary question. The short answer is, yes, we will see how we can use technology to strengthen our enforcement capabilities. In fact, in previous parliamentary sittings, I had already shared that LTA is currently piloting the use of CCTVs for that purpose. At the same time, we have also implemented MyTransport.SG where the public can snap a picture of the errant rider and, if possible, try to identify the errant rider; if not, at least it will provide some information on where the possible hotspots are.

12 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the criteria used to determine whether Singaporean individuals, firms, or media organisations are at risk of being compromised by foreign influence for national security reasons; (b) whether a list of such individuals or organisations at risk, and the reasons for these risks, will be published; and (c) whether positions that involve media, communications, or outreach, that address issues of social or political concern should be staffed exclusively by Singaporeans due to the risks of foreign influence.

13 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the facts behind the concerns expressed at the recent Foreign Interference Tactics and Countermeasures Conference that certain activists and media persons are potential agents of foreign influence; and (b) how can Singaporeans protect themselves against foreign influence given that association with and receiving income from foreign sources is common amongst globalised Singapore firms and individuals.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to take Question Nos 12 and 13 from Ms Ong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira together.

Please do.

First on Ms Anthea Ong's questions, say you push a foreign country's or a specific party's agenda to subvert your own country, the position is clear. You are acting against Singapore's national interests. Often, this is done for money; sometimes, for other reasons. I am not sure you can do this, identify this by specific criteria. It really depends on what is actually done, what actually happens. The cases of Eastern Sun and Singapore Herald are illustrative.

On the second part of Ms Ong's question, as the Nominated Member knows, no such general lists have been published about organisations and individuals who may potentially be subject to foreign influence. In fact, I am a little perplexed by the question because how do you make a comprehensive list of all people who may potentially be recruited by foreign agencies or be subject to foreign influence? When I put it in those terms, you can see that the point is quite absurd.

In foreign countries, even Members of Parliament have been recruited by foreign agencies. So, it will be quite meaningless to publish such lists.

Whether we should identify specific areas which are more likely to be vectors for foreign influence and have some better way of managing those risks – given that the environment is changing – that is a different issue. Of course, there are specific jobs that already have requirements for security clearances for these and other reasons. If action is in fact taken against a particular individual or organisation, the case often becomes public. This will be so unless there are national security reasons not to reveal the details. The Nominated Member will be aware, for example, of the case involving Mr Huang Jing. There have been other examples as well.

The Nominated Member of Parliament has also asked about controlling employment of foreigners in organisations involving media, communications, outreach. I assume she is referring to my statement on 25 September at the Foreign Interference Tactics and Countermeasures Conference. I will say we have to look at the issue from a broader perspective, for example, the nature of the organisation, the confidence that we can have that the employees are likely to be immune to foreign influence, that there are controls, and also our own ability to identify any possible foreign influence.

I will next address Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Theseira's questions. He asked about the facts behind the concerns expressed at that Conference. The facts which led to me as well as others expressing concerns can be found in my speech as well as in the presentations made by some of the other speakers. A transcript of the speech is on my Home Ministry's website and I have asked my officers to send a link of it to the Nominated Member of Parliament. I have also asked my officers to send him the material that was presented at the Conference.

On the second part of his question, I think the Nominated Member of Parliament may have misunderstood what I have said. It is not all foreign influences that we seek to avoid. We seek to deal with, for example, foreign influences that seek to disrupt our society, weaken our country, affect our foreign policy. This cannot come as a surprise. Every country seeks to protect itself. Again, my speech sets that out. I will also refer as an example to some of the statements made at the congressional hearings held on 7 December, 2018, 24 July, 2019, and 26 September, 2019 in the United States. I have attached a short list of quotes made at that hearing that the Nominated Member of Parliament may find useful and with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute those handouts.

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

Thank you.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat. Oh, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I was not aware that the Minister has finished his statement. I share the Minister's concerns about foreign influence risk. I think my only supplementary question is that I wish to ask if the Minister would agree that in assessing these kinds of foreign influence risk, we should look more at the facts of what these persons are doing in terms of their actions, their writings, points of views expressed and so forth, at their actions and behaviours and perhaps less at whether they, for example, just received foreign funding or employ foreigners in sensitive positions. I am concerned because if we are too quick to judge on these matters, we may deter Singaporeans from engaging in foreign exchanges, international exchanges and so forth, and that is going to be very important for us as a globalised society.

I think what the Nominated Member of Parliament has said is one part of it. Let me try and put a perspective to that. First, the current law is that in certain categories, there is no foreign influence allowed whatsoever. For example, in order to be a Member of Parliament – obvious. Equally, Members of Parliament, political parties are not allowed to take donations from foreign agencies, other foreigners. So, the Nominated Member of Parliament's point does not quite deal with the issues. You have got to identify the risks. Certain types, certain categories of positions, organisations like political parties which seek to contest and represent the view points of Singaporeans must not accept money from foreign institutions, and it is no answer to say, "Oh, you should not prevent Singaporeans from engaging with international opinions." There is nothing to prevent politicians, political parties from engaging with foreign parties but you cannot take money from them. You need to identify what it is that we are speaking about.

Then, in certain other areas, for example, newspapers. We do not allow foreigners to control or fund newspapers. That is in the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA). Again, the reason is obvious. But if I were to put it in broader terms, we want to keep foreign influence out of our political environment, not allow foreigners to influence our own political processes and we have crafted a series of laws over the years. I think Singaporeans accept that and the quotes that I gave you would show to you that the Americans accept that as well. I do not think that is really arguable. How that should be applied in specific cases, we can always discuss.

Let me give you some specific examples. Let me talk about the Eastern Sun.

This was an English language daily. It was launched in July 1966. A local businessman, Aw Kow – he is son of one of the Tiger Balm brothers. He wanted to own a newspaper. He wanted money. He approached senior officials of a news agency from communist China – it was based on Hong Kong – for money. The news agency was a state-owned organisation. Aw was given loans totalling HK$6 million with very friendly interest rates and repayment terms. The Eastern Sun faced financial problems soon after it began operations. The communist officials injected another HK$1.2 million with an added condition that Aw appoint their representative as adviser to the newspaper and Aw agreed to that. The Eastern Sun was also known to undertake non-journalistic functions at the direction of the People's Republic of China government such as de facto diplomatic representation, support and cover for People's Republic of China intelligence officials and the senior officials whom Aw approached were, in fact, undercover intelligence agents of communist China.

The Government exposed this in May of 1971. The Eastern Sun's senior editorial staff resigned en masse. The newspaper ceased publication a few days later. The Eastern Sun was a case of black ops. It was an attempt by communist China to capture and manipulate the local media, ultimately to influence public opinion and create a political situation favourable to their own interests. Communists even allowed the newspaper to take an anti-communist line. As the former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, this reflected their long-term approach and patience so that ultimately they have an agent, they have an institution of influence.

So, you have to identify different aspects. Certain categories of jobs, certain categories of operations, media, are commonly used as vectors. You need to look at it very carefully and you cannot say, "Oh, we need to interact with the people from overseas and therefore, it is okay." It is not okay to go and take money to run a foreign country's agenda in Singapore.

Let me tell you about the Singapore Herald. English newspaper, started in July 1970, used as a tool for foreign interference in the 70s. Its editorials played up issues relating to, for example, National Service, that it should be done away with. It was making losses, this newspaper. The supposed shareholders were a former Chief Minister of Sabah, a Hong Kong businesswoman and a foreign bank. Then Prime Minister Lee and Foreign Minister Rajaratnam met with the Hong Kong businesswoman, Aw Sian, and Singapore Herald's managing director, Jimmy Hahn, as well as the editor, Ambrose Khaw. They met in City Hall. Mr Lee asked them about the finances of the paper. Aw Sian gave the initial financing of $500,000. She said she had no knowledge of the financial standing of the paper. She said that the $500,000 was her money. So, Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked her, if you know nothing about the newspaper and you do not know how it is doing, how come you are sending this money in, if it was your money? You are a veteran business person.

She apparently gave the money on the basis of three receipts and had no control over the Singapore Herald. There were considerable doubts on the part of our intelligence agencies and the local Chase Manhattan branch gave overdraft facilities to the Singapore Herald and that was contrary to Chase Manhattan's policy. Mr David Rockefeller, the chairman of Chase Manhattan, told Prime Minister Lee in May 1971 that the bank had a standing rule of not lending money to newspapers. Yet, here, they lent money. He claimed that Hendrik Kwant, the manager in Singapore, did not know of this standing rule and approved the overdraft to the Singapore Herald.

Our intelligence agencies concluded that American intelligence had a significant role in these operations and that this was a foreign influence operation and the motive was to create a weapon that would shape public opinion as a pressure point and also to create an outlet that would be anti-communist against the Soviets and against communist activities in this region.

So, you can see it is equal opportunity. It is not just one country or another. And, of course, the Nominated Member of Parliament would be aware of the Hendrickson affair. We all meet with foreign diplomats. There is nothing with it. But when a foreign diplomat engages Singaporeans and encourages them to form a political party and run, that crosses well beyond what diplomats are entitled to do.

If you look at the Political Donations Act, that sets out the restrictions. If you look at the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), that sets out a number of restrictions and I can name you other legislation. But the key point is politics and Singapore should be for Singaporeans. It can be maintained without saying, "Therefore, we cannot interact with people outside of Singapore". Of course, we must! Whether it is in business or in the academia or in politics, we must keep track, interact and understand what is going on and have deep relationships. But that is different from taking money from people or allowing people to influence operations. And we in this House should stand against that.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. I am sorry that I perplexed him and that he found my question absurd. It was actually —

I would not suggest that of your question.

I genuinely was concerned because at the Conference, certain Singaporean individuals were mentioned repeatedly and I wanted to know if there was a list that the Minister could share with us, so that we are aware who these individuals are who are actually under foreign influence that have security risks.

I think my speech was clear as to what I said. I will have them send a copy of my speech to the Member. And I had not suggested that the Member's question was absurd but I had said any suggestion would be absurd.

14 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of plans for a large number of coal-fired and gas-fired Independent Power Producers in the region (a) how many of these projects is Singapore involved in; and (b) how can Singapore play a leading role in renewable energy financing.

Investments into power projects in the region, as with other investments, are commercial decisions that businesses and financial institutions make to maximise their long-term risk-adjusted returns, amongst others. Nonetheless, as the financial sector increasingly incorporates Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations into their business decisions, we are witnessing a re-channelling of funds away from traditional projects to more sustainable ones such as those involving cleaner renewables. For example, in April this year, our three local banks announced their decisions to cease financing of new coal-fired power plants.

My Ministry supports the financial sector in making this transition and works with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to promote the broader green financing initiative in Singapore including increasing the financial sector’s awareness of environmental risks and opportunities.

MAS works closely with the industry to provide guidance on managing ESG risks and support climate-related disclosures. The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) issued the Guidelines on Responsible Financing in 2015 to support responsible lending by banks, particularly in industries with higher ESG risks, including the energy industry. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) introduced a “comply-or-explain” regime for sustainable reporting for all listed companies, beginning from the financial year ending on or after 31 December 2017.

To spur the use of capital markets instruments and promote the adoption of standards for green investment products, MAS introduced the Green Bond Grant Scheme in 2017. The grant helps to offset the cost of obtaining an external review to ensure that the green bonds are aligned with internationally accepted standards. To date, over S$6 billion of green bonds have been issued in Singapore. The grant scheme has been expanded in February this year to include social and sustainability bonds, and renamed the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme.

My Ministry will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to build on these efforts and develop Singapore’s competitive edge, not just in renewable energy financing, but across green financing.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Just a supplementary question following up from her answer. I laud the efforts by the Government to boost the Green Bond Grant Scheme and the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme, up to the amount of S$6 million. I feel that the biggest problem in ASEAN excluding Singapore is the plan to increase in the coal-fired, gas-fired Independent Power Producers (IPPs). They are going to spew a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and the biggest problem is that reneweables financing, in my view, is still slow in ASEAN.

Can the Senior Minister of State share if Singapore plans to enhance and relocate our investments into, for example, first loss funds in the region or renewable projects in ASEAN, together with other ASEAN countries possibly chipping later on, rather than possibly investing in negative yield type bonds in developed markets? That in some ways could help to massively boost renewable projects in ASEAN and potentially reduce the greenhouse gases in ASEAN going forward.

I thank the Member for his question. When we talk about financing of power projects, I think we must understand it in the context of the growing energy needs in the region, even as we move towards a low-carbon source of power generation. Investments into power projects, as with all other investments, are commercial decisions that the businesses and financial institutions will have to consider, taking into account, as I had said, maximising the long-term risk adjusted returns as well as other goals that they have.

The Government does not interfere or influence their individual investment decisions. I think it is an important governance principle that we adhere to. But as I had said, the industry is becoming increasingly exposed to the risks and opportunities of the low carbon future. So, financial institutions are also increasingly incorporating the ESG goals in their positions and I think that will lead to a shift of investment towards more sustainable activities. What we can do is for my Ministry to continue to support the financial sector in making this transition, working together with MAS to promote more green financing in Singapore.

As to regards to the specific question about investments, like into a first loss fund or renewable project, it is something the Member could discuss and bring up at various forums for the investors and the financial institutions to consider the feasibility, not just in Singapore but across the region.

Can I ask whether MEWR will be urging GIC to also stop funding coal-power projects?

I think we have said that, whether it is GIC or Temasek Holdings, they make their decisions on a commercial basis. But they have said that sustainability is one of the factors that they take into account in their decisions. As I have said earlier, the Government does not interfere or influence the decisions that they make on a commercial basis and this is an important principle of governance that we adhere to.

15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of some cities in the region conducting water rationing (a) whether Singapore will suffer the same fate; (b) what is the outlook on water adequacy in Singapore; and (c) what advice does the Ministry have for businesses and residents in Singapore.

As the Member rightly pointed out, some cities in the region have conducted water rationing in recent months. In Thailand, rice farmers were affected by the worst drought in a decade and were forced to queue up for water for irrigation. In the Philippines, residents of Metro Manila faced water supply interruption due to falling dam water levels. In Malaysia, water rationing was conducted in certain parts of Johor in September and October, as several dams were affected by critically low water levels due to dry weather.

Singapore has also been affected by the dry weather from July to September. The water level at Linggiu Reservoir fell below 50% in September 2019, as PUB had to discharge more water from the Linggiu Reservoir to supplement water flowing in the Johor River, in order to meet the total abstractions of both Malaysia and Singapore from the Johor River. If the Linggiu Reservoir fails, the Johor River may suffer low water levels, which will compromise Singapore's right to abstract our full entitlement of 250 million gallons of water per day under the 1962 Water Agreement. So, if the Linggiu Reservoir water levels fall, Johor River may suffer low water levels. We are following up with Malaysia on identifying appropriate and timely measures, including additional schemes, to increase the yield of the Johor River. In Singapore, Members may also recall photos on social media showing the falling water levels at the Botanic Gardens Eco Lake and Bedok Reservoir due to the dry spell.

That said, there has not been a need for nationwide water rationing in Singapore since 1964. This did not happen by chance. Over the years, Singapore has developed a robust and diversified supply of water, as a result of our early and consistent investments in water infrastructure and research and development. We have augmented our water supply with weather-resilient sources, namely NEWater and desalinated water. Along with water from local catchment and imported water, they make up Singapore's "Four National Taps". However, the production of NEWater and desalinated water is energy intensive and costly. While PUB continues to invest heavily in technology to reduce the energy consumption, we call on everyone to use water prudently and avoid wastage.

To drive home the water conservation message, PUB conducts water rationing exercises with schools and the community. Earlier this March, over 100 schools undertook water rationing exercises in support of the GoBlue4SG movement, as part of the Singapore World Water Day celebration. In addition, PUB has been encouraging homes and industries to use water more efficiently, including the use of more efficient fittings and appliances, implementing water recycling projects and adopting water conservation practices. PUB refreshed its "Make Every Drop Count" campaign to profile the hard work involved in water treatment and to remind Singaporeans that every drop of water must be used wisely. The sustainability of our water resources can only be assured if all of us treat water as a precious resource and are committed to save water as a way of life.

With climate change, Singapore has and will experience more extreme weather patterns, and prolonged dry spells will affect us. Even as the Government continues to invest in infrastructure and technologies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change, everyone must play their part to conserve water. Together, we can "Make Every Drop Count".

End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18-19, 21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-44, 46-50, 52-75, 77 and 79-81 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 16-17, 20, 22, 29, 32, 45, 51, 76, 78 and 82 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Banking Act (Chapter 19 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend certain Acts of the Republic of Singapore", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to provide for the regulation of healthcare services and other connected or incidental matters, to repeal the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (Chapter 248 of the 1999 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2019 covers five amendments. Two of them seek to refine the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on imported services, which was passed in the GST (Amendment) Bill 2018. The other three arise from periodic review of the GST regime to clarify technical rules, improve GST administration, and reduce business compliance costs.

MOF sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. We have evaluated the feedback received and incorporated them where they are relevant to the Bill.

Let me start by highlighting the first two amendments which relate to the implementation of GST on imported services, which will come into effect from 1 January 2020.

The first amendment provides technical clarifications and improvement to GST administration in relation to imported services. This includes refinements to the Overseas Vendor Registration regime, to allow GST group registration for overseas suppliers, as well as allow local electronic marketplace operators to account for GST on both B2B and B2C supplies of digital services, on behalf of their underlying suppliers. The amendment also seeks to clarify the scope of Reverse Charge, that it applies to all businesses that are GST-registered or liable for GST registration and are not allowed input tax claims in full. So, these changes ensure parity between local and overseas purchases and will help ease business compliance. The changes are found in clauses 4 to 9, 15 to 17, 19, and 20 in the Bill.

The second amendment introduces offences for misrepresentation of information. This measure is required for the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) to enforce GST on imported services effectively, as suppliers under the Overseas Vendor Registration regime operate overseas and will need to rely on information provided by customers to determine if GST is applicable. Clause 12 in the Bill provides for these changes.

As mentioned earlier, MOF regularly reviews the GST regime and so, I will highlight the last three amendments found in the Bill arising from this periodic review.

First, we will update our GST treatment of digital payment tokens, also commonly known as cryptocurrencies. Today, the exchange of fiat currency and the provision of loans in fiat currency are financial services which are exempt from GST. While digital payment tokens are not legal tender like fiat currency, they are known to serve as a medium of exchange in some transactions. So, we will exempt from GST the supply of digital payment tokens that are in exchange for fiat currency or other digital payment tokens. We will also exempt from GST the loan of digital payment tokens.

Likewise, the use of fiat currency as payment for goods and services today is not subject to GST. But increasingly, we are seeing the acceptance of digital payment tokens as a means of payment for goods and services, at local retailers. Accordingly, the amendment also seeks to not subject the supply of digital payment tokens to GST, when they are used as a means of payment for goods and services. This means that whether digital payment tokens or fiat currency are used to purchase goods and services, GST is chargeable only on the underlying supply of goods and services, not on the digital payment token itself.

This proposed treatment is similar to the GST rules for digital payment tokens in Australia, the European Union, Switzerland and Japan. The changes that are required to be made to the GST Act are found in clauses 3, 10, and 16 to 18 of the Bill.

Second, to align ourselves with international trends and to improve accountability and promote open justice, tax proceedings before the Courts will no longer be heard privately by default. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the change. Similar changes were passed in this House last month in relation to the Income Tax Act. The changes relating to Court proceedings, under the GST Act and the Income Tax Act, will take effect on 1 January 2020.

Finally, to safeguard the interests of taxpayers who lodge appeals to the GST Board of Review, we will introduce definitions of “accountant” and “advocate and solicitor”, to ensure that representatives handling taxpayers’ appeals to the Board meet certain professional qualifications. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the change. These definitions are consistent with those currently found in the Income Tax Act for the purposes of appeals heard before the Income Tax Board of Review. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Act was enacted in October 2001 to establish a superannuation scheme, known as the INVEST Plan. This Plan is for officers in the uniformed services under MHA.

These officers have an earlier retirement age of 55. They receive additional contributions under the INVEST Plan, on top of full CPF contributions, to help them with their career transition.

These additional contributions under the INVEST Plan are pooled to form an investment fund known as the INVEST Fund. The Fund invests in a diversified portfolio, managed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs.

The Board comprises senior members from the Home Team and members with relevant experience from the finance industry. Today, the Fund has approximately 14,000 members and S$1.5 billion of assets.

MHA has reviewed best practices in the investment management industry to achieve the Fund’s objectives of achieving appropriate risk-adjusted long-term returns and improving the management of the Fund.

The Bill proposes to make the necessary legislative amendments to align with industry best practices. The key provisions relate to two main areas.

First, the broadening of the range of permissible investments. Currently, the Board is empowered to invest in "stocks, funds, securities and investments". Clause 5 of the Bill will expand the definition of investments in the Act for more effective management of the Fund. One example is the use of derivatives to protect the value of the Fund and invest more cost-efficiently. This is consistent with industry practice. The use of derivatives will be guided by best practices, such as the Code on Collective Investment Schemes issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Second, the delegation of the Board’s powers and functions. Clause 6 of the Bill will clarify the scope of the Board’s powers and functions for efficient and effective governance and administration of the Fund. The amendments will allow the Board to appoint investment managers to construct and manage the portfolio with multiple fund managers. This approach can help to achieve lower investment management fees through economies of scale that the investment managers would have. The amendments for delegation are in line with industry practice for other large pension funds and are consistent with the powers of delegation found in other legislation.

The Board will maintain investment oversight of the Fund, and will have a clear governance framework and reporting structures in place. The Board remains fully accountable to the Minister for the management of the Fund.

In conclusion, the amendments to the Act will improve MHA’s management and governance of the Fund, for the benefit of our uniformed officers who are under the INVEST Plan. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will strengthen our ability to safeguard and prudently invest the retirement benefit funds for our Home Affairs Uniformed Officers. Due to the physical requirements of service, our Home Affairs Officers face an earlier retirement than Singaporeans in other professions. It is right that we reward them for their service and ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged compared to their peers.

I will discuss two issues. First, I will suggest that we separate the role that the INVEST Fund plays as a retirement benefit from that of a good-performance bond. Second, I will suggest that, based on behavioural finance, we consider shaping the investment choices made by INVEST members to improve their retirement benefits.

The INVEST Fund is essentially a deferred compensation scheme. Such schemes typically serve two purposes. They protect the employees against their own tendency to fail to set aside funds for their own future, and, they serve as a good-performance bond, because the benefits only vest when employees serve faithfully over time.

Like many private sector deferred compensation schemes, INVEST funds vest over time, so longer service is rewarded with greater benefits. However, under sections 6 and 9 of the Act, even vested benefits from the INVEST Fund may be reduced or terminated if Officers are dismissed with cause or convicted of any crime or offense.

The public expects a high standard of behaviour from Uniformed Officers. But the question is whether we should ensure this by putting up the entire value of an Officer’s INVEST account as a good-performance bond.

I would argue that the judicial system is the more appropriate means of punishing errant behaviour in Uniformed Services Officers. Officers are already held to higher standards in the judicial system because of the trust reposed in them and the considerable powers they have which could be abused. If this standard is not high enough today, Parliament may increase criminal sanctions for public servants who abuse their trust by amending the relevant laws.

In contrast, the reduction or termination of INVEST benefits for errant Officers is an administrative punishment and not a judicial one. It forms an additional punishment for errant Officers that may also harm the financial security of their dependants further. I would suggest that at least a portion of the vested benefits from INVEST be protected from reduction or termination. This would follow best practices for deferred compensation in the private sector, where a portion of benefits vest permanently in the employee over time.

Nothing in this suggestion precludes the Government from recovering financial assets or penalties, as directed by the Courts, from the errant Officer's INVEST benefits. The point is that the judicial process should take its course. The administrative penalty of reducing or terminating INVEST benefits could be revised in line with private sector practices.

I will now turn to the investment choices made by Officers. Traditionally, retirement fund administrators have focused on ensuring that the fund's investment strategies are as robust as possible. I have reviewed the INVEST annual reports and I believe that this task has been carried out responsibly by the Board over the years. But a factor that is equally important is the role the retirement fund plays in helping members make the best investment choices possible. This is not straightforward because behavioural biases, limited information, and poor financial literacy, all can contribute to poor financial decision making.

Since 2010 Officers have been able to choose from three investment plans offered by INVEST, with progressively higher risk and return, namely, the Stable, Balanced and Dynamic Plans. The Dynamic Plan takes on the greatest risk with 70% of the funds invested in equities while the Stable Plan invests entirely in safe bonds and cash. The Balanced Plan is 40% equities and 60% bonds and cash.

The funds are invested with reputable global investment managers and expenses are low due to economies of scale. So, because of that, the returns are driven largely by the asset allocation strategies of each of these plans. The Balanced Plan returns about 4.5% per annum and the Dynamic Plan about 5% per annum.

However, the Stable Plan has experienced lower returns than that of the CPF Ordinary Account. Since 2010, the average annual return for the Stable Plan has been about 2% per annum compared to 2.5% for the CPF Ordinary Account. Over 10 years, that is a difference of about $600 in returns per $10,000 invested in the Stable Plan, compared to CPF. This low return is a necessary consequence of the fact that the Stable Plan invests entirely in safe bonds and cash.

My concern is if an Officer is not aware of these low expected returns of the Stable Plan, or is very risk averse, they are likely to have a much lower retirement benefit. I would suggest the Ministry explore whether Officers who are very risk averse may be allowed to transfer their INVEST funds, as they vest, to their CPF accounts.

The broader point is that the Officer's retirement benefit will largely depend on their investment plan choice. If they choose the higher risk Dynamic Plan early in their career they will on average obtain a larger retirement benefit. As they approach retirement age, they may wish to reduce risk by reallocating their investment to the Stable Plan. This is the standard advice given by financial planning experts.

There is just one problem. The international evidence suggests most members of retirement plans do not make active choices about their investment portfolio. Instead, many members make choices based on the default provided by the retirement plan administrator.

In a paper titled "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behaviour", published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001, Madrian and Shea studied the investment choices of employees in a large US corporation that introduced automatic enrolment in retirement plans.

They found that six out of 10 automatically enrolled employees simply followed the default asset allocation assigned by the retirement fund administrator. The default was a money market fund, that is safe but provides very low returns. This is unlikely to be the optimal choice of employees in general. This is shown by the fact that among employees who made an active choice to join the retirement plan – instead of being automatically enrolled – only 1% of active choosers actually decided to allocate everything to the money market fund. So, the default choice matters.

In short, six in 10 automatically enrolled employees were losing thousands of dollars in retirement benefits from investment strategies that were too conservative, not out of their choice, but because of their inattention.

In general, the research in behavioural finance suggests that retirement plan choices are far from optimal. They are made on the basis of little financial advice or planning, and can be significantly shaped by irrelevant factors ranging from peer effects, to advertising, to the way the retirement fund administrator presents choices to the member.

What are the lessons for us? I would suggest that the INVEST Fund structure the default investment choices in such a way as to meet the needs of the broad majority of officers. I am sure that this is already done. But we must keep up the good work. That is why I urge the Ministry to periodically review not just the investment strategies employed by the INVEST Fund, but also, the investment plan choices made by the officers, and the ways in which these are shaped by the fund administrators.

For example, one common strategy in the private retirement fund industry is to recommend a life-cycle fund. These funds automatically adjust the level of risk as the investor approaches payout age, so that a higher level of risk is taken early on to build assets, and a low level of risk is adopted later to secure the value of those assets.

I would also suggest that the Ministry make more information about INVEST publicly available, such as details on investment strategies and performance, investment plan choices available to and made by the officers and so on. This may be attractive to potential recruits to the Home Team, and will also help existing officers make more informed decisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to improve the management and governance of the INVEST Fund, by following best practices in the investment management industry. However, I do have a few questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Singaporeans statistically have one of the longest life expectancies in the world, at 84.8 years old. However, on average, 10 of those years will be spent in poor health. With the combination of these two trends – increased life expectancies and extended periods of ill health – it is important that we ensure that our Home Team officers, many of whom have dedicated their lives to ensure law and order in Singapore, have sufficient retirement funds to see them through their silver years.

Today, Home Affairs uniformed officers are required to retire at 55 years old; and consequently, their contributions to their INVEST account will end. I understand that the Ministry is currently reviewing the retirement age of Home Affairs uniformed officers. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide an update on the review and will the age limit for officers’ contributions towards the INVEST Fund therefore increase in tandem with their retirement age?

In addition to aligning contributions to the INVEST Fund with any change to the retirement age, I would like to request the Ministry to review the mandatory closure of INVEST accounts for retired officers.

Mr Speaker, the INVEST Fund was created to help Home Affairs uniformed officers build up an adequate retirement fund, considering their earlier retirement age as compared to the normal retirement age in the Civil Service. With many officers opting to continue with a second career post-retirement, they may not have any immediate need to utilise their retirement funds. Could the Ministry therefore allow such officers with the flexibility to remain invested in the Fund and enjoy the returns from their sizeable accumulation of savings? Decoupling the closure of the INVEST account with an officer's employment in service will also allow the INVEST Fund managers to use the additional funds to grow its investments, thereby benefiting all its members.

I would also like to seek a clarification on what would happen to the INVEST Fund monies for ex-officers who have had their service terminated. Under current regulations, officers may have their INVEST Fund monies forfeited if they are dismissed from service following a disciplinary proceeding. While I understand that the Ministry treats such dismissals very seriously, since the INVEST Fund is principally meant to function as a retirement fund, perhaps we could afford to be more lenient towards such officers who have already been punished by having their service terminated. One suggestion is to consider pro-rating their returns and put it into the officer's CPF Special Account rather than a complete forfeiture.

Mr Speaker, uniformed officers retiring at 55 years of age will have many more productive years ahead of them, and we should do more to help them successfully transit to second careers. I would like to know the placement success rate for the Ministry's Home Team Career Resource and Transition Office. And on a yearly basis, how many retired officers fail to embark on their second career six months after retirement?

Home Affairs uniformed officers are equipped with a wide variety of skillsets, have ample experience in handling difficult situations and would be valuable assets to any organisation. I believe that with the right support in place, many would go on to find a fulfilling second career. While I note that the Ministry has a five-year career transition roadmap to support retiring officers in their career transition, I would like to know if the Ministry has targeted programmes to help officers enter high growth segments such as cybersecurity and fintech? Perhaps the Police co-operatives would like to consider working together with the NTUC to do more to assist retiring officers with job placements in these high growth segments.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Bill are timely as they serve to follow best practices in the investment management industry. But I believe that we can further improve the retirement adequacy of our Home Affairs uniformed officers by decoupling the closure of INVEST Fund accounts with their continued employment, to provide our retired officers with an option of benefiting from a longer investment period. We also need to provide better support to help them transit to a second career. With that, I support the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on this Bill and for their support for the Bill.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the progress of the review of Home Team uniformed officers' retirement age and whether the age limit for INVEST retirement contributions would be aligned with any change to the retirement age.

MHA is in the midst of the review which will be completed in the next few months. As part of this review, MHA is also studying related areas such as the age limit for INVEST retirement contributions and the INVEST vesting scale.

Mr Yong also asked whether MHA could decouple the closure of INVEST account from officers' employment so as to give officers the flexibility to remain invested.

The INVEST plan was established to help officers transit into their second career. As they have an earlier retirement age of 55 as compared to the rest of the Civil Service at 62 and also compared to the Civil Service's re-employment age of 67. This benefit ceases upon payment of the INVEST monies to officers at retirement. Keeping officers invested with the INVEST Fund when they are no longer in service would not be in line with this principle.

When INVEST monies are paid to officers, they can invest in other funds available in the market that best suit their needs at the point of retirement.

Mr Yong asked about the treatment of INVEST benefits of an officer who is dismissed from service. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked whether in such cases the officer's benefits could be protected from reduction or termination.

First, I think it is important to set out that the dismissal of an officer is not taken lightly and is usually based on serious misconduct, such as fraud, corruption or other egregious conduct. The dismissal process is a rigorous one provided for by law, such as the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations and the Police Force Act. It includes an inquiry to consider thoroughly, objectively and fairly the grounds for dismissal.

The superannuation scheme is a benefit awarded to officers. This is over and above the market competitive salaries and the full CPF contributions. The superannuation benefits are fully funded by MHA; so, no funds are actually deducted from the officers' salary.

The superannuation benefits do not vest in the officers while they are in service. The award of the full benefit is contingent on the officer’s satisfactory conduct and completion of the term of service.

INVEST benefits paid to officers on retirement are exempted from tax.

Therefore, if an errant officer has behaved in a manner that is unbefitting of an officer of the Home Team and is dismissed as a result of his misconduct, the superannuation benefits, in part or in whole, can and should be forfeited. The process is fair and transparent, and the forfeiture or reduction of the benefit requires the concurrence of the Public Service Commission.

Mr Yong asked whether there are programmes to help officers enter high-growth job sectors, such as cybersecurity and fintech and the percentage of retired officers who found a second career within six months of retirement.

MHA’s career transition programmes are broad-based as retiring officers have diverse career interests. The various initiatives to help retiring officers prepare for a second career include course subsidies and time-off to learn new skills to enhance employability.

MHA has also recently launched a career transition resource portal to provide officers with information on the different industries, job opportunities, career events and workshops. MHA offers one-on-one career coaching sessions to officers to guide them on their career transition journey.

We actively engage prospective employers to source for suitable opportunities for our retiring officers and organise regular job networking sessions.

We also facilitate officers' career transition by enabling them to take up a job attachment in a company prior to their retirement to try out the job. This will help both the officer and the prospective employer to assess the fit before formal employment.

Based on our survey of our retired officers, of those who had actively looked for jobs, more than 50% were able to find new employment within six months of their retirement. About 85% did so within a year. For retired officers who are looking for employment, they can continue to tap on our career transition resources.

Assoc Prof Theseira compared the Stable Plan returns with returns from the CPF Ordinary Account.

This is not a like-for-like comparison and, hence, it is not an appropriate comparison, as they are, in fact, separate schemes with different objectives.

In terms of returns, CPF Ordinary Account has a guaranteed floor of 2.5%, and this is a special arrangement guaranteed by the Singapore Government. All CPF accounts, including Special, Retirement Accounts, are subject to CPF rules on withdrawal and use of funds.

In contrast, INVEST offers several options and the returns of these options are subject to market conditions.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked whether officers who have low risk appetite may be allowed to transfer their INVEST Funds as they vest to their CPF accounts.

CPF and INVEST have different structures, rules and entitlement terms. In the case of CPF, members can use their CPF savings in their Ordinary Accounts for housing investments and education, subject to the terms and conditions. Usage of funds is not contingent on the change in employment or specific rules set by the employer.

In contrast, the INVEST monies are paid to the officer only upon satisfaction of conditions, such as satisfactory conduct and completion of service.

Officers can choose from three INVEST plans during service. Upon retirement, officers can top up their CPF accounts with INVEST monies subject to CPF limits and rules, or they can choose to invest in other financial products available in the market.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked the Ministry to periodically review the investment strategies and investment plan choices by officers and to structure the default investment choices in such a way as to meet the needs of the majority of the officers.

Under the INVEST Plan, there are three investment options, namely, the Stable, Balanced and Dynamic Plans and officers can choose from the three Plans to suit their personal circumstances, financial needs and appetites towards risk.

Each Plan has its own risk return objectives and the Plans' performance is communicated to officers. As their circumstances change, officers can change Plan over the course of their career.

MHA conducts reviews on investment choices as part of on-going studies on industry best practices. MHA has been reviewing a life-cycle plan and is considering whether to introduce it as a new investment plan option for officers. Advice is being sought from external consultants, the INVEST Board of Trustees and the Investment Committee of the Board, and they include members with relevant industry experience.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked the Ministry to make more information about INVEST publicly available as it may be attractive to potential recruits to the Home Team and to help existing officers make informed choices.

The current recruitment process informs all potential recruits about INVEST and the information is also available on Home Team departments' websites.

Officers are kept informed on the investment plans via several platforms, such as on-boarding briefings, semi-annual Statement of Accounts, e-newsletters and investment deck are published on MHA's Intranet which includes an investment choice guide and the historical performance of the plans.

Mr Speaker, I believe I have covered all the points raised by the Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Singapore, we regulate civil aviation safety and security through the Air Navigation Act or ANA. We need to update the Act from time to time to ensure that our regulatory framework keeps pace with developments in the aviation sector.

This Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill amends the ANA to enable Singapore to meet new international civil aviation obligations and to enhance penalties for a greater deterrent effect for offences involving unmanned aircraft. The Bill has three components:

The first protects recordings and transcripts of flight recorders in accordance with Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation or Chicago Convention. The second increases the penalties for offences pertaining to unauthorised unmanned aircraft operations. And the third enables the National Civil Aviation Security Authority (NCASA) to delegate its powers to any public officer who is not an aviation security inspector.

Let me explain each of these components in turn.

The first set of amendments set out in clause 2 of the Bill will empower the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to make regulations to protect flight recorder information or any similar information from use and disclosure in line with changes to Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as "the Chicago Convention".

Flight recorders contain critical information, including the pressure-altitude and airspeed of the aircraft during flight, information from other electronic systems on the aircraft, as well as the conversations between the pilots. Before the latest amendments to Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, there was no provision on the use and protection of flight recorder information outside the scope of an accident and incident investigation. These latest amendments were put in place to address the use of flight recorder information in other circumstances.

Specifically, recordings may now be used for safety management, such as carrying out safety trend analysis and training, or in carrying out inspections and maintenance of the flight recorder, and when appropriate, for criminal proceedings. These are the allowable uses in Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. For example, flight recorder information with appropriate safeguards can be used for analyses of trends as part of an airline's safety management system. The Bill will allow CAAS to legislate the circumstances for use of flight recorder information and the appropriate safeguards.

Any person with access to the information will be prohibited from disclosing or using the information except in prescribed circumstances. This will enhance confidence that the information, originally intended for accident investigation purposes and which is also useful for aviation safety, would not be misused. There will be no limitation on disclosure or use for purposes of accident investigation under the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau Act or for the purpose of reporting a known or suspected act of unlawful interference required by that Act.

The second and largest set of amendments concern the penalties for offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft. The CAAS and MHA had implemented a regulatory framework to regulate the operation of unmanned aircraft in Singapore in June 2015 following the passing of the Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill. This included a permit regime that adopted a risk-based approach to ensure that operators are responsible and operate unmanned aircraft safely. Since then, the use of unmanned aircraft has risen rapidly. In 2018, CAAS approved 522 Operator Permits and 2,322 Activity Permits. This is a year-on-year increase of 35% and 65% from 2017. For the first nine months of this year, CAAS has approved 480 Operator Permits and 2,195 Activity Permits.

CAAS is tightening this unmanned aircraft regulatory framework by introducing a mandatory registration regime for all unmanned aircraft above 250 g. The purpose of registration is accountability and traceability. We will design the registration process to achieve this objective while keeping it as simple and as convenient as possible for users. CAAS will be providing more information on the details of this regime.

Most operators fly their unmanned aircraft responsibly and in compliance with regulations. Many of these users operate unmanned aircraft for beneficial and innovative purposes, improving work processes and productivity in the areas of inspections, surveillance and aerial photography, amongst others. We are also facilitating trials for more complex uses, such as medical and ship to shore deliveries. Our schools and Institutions of Higher Learning also use unmanned aircraft to teach robotics, programming and other areas in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Unfortunately, there are reckless and irresponsible unmanned aircraft operators who operate in flagrant disregard of the law. When operated irresponsibly, an unmanned aircraft could endanger others and cause widespread disruption of lawful activities, resulting in significant economic loss. One such example would be when an unmanned aircraft disrupts airport operations. This has happened to major international airports – Gatwick Airport had about 1,000 flights disrupted in December 2018 while Frankfurt Airport had about 200 flights disrupted in May 2019. During the unmanned aircraft intrusions at Changi Airport in June 2019, about 60 flights were affected.

Today, the penalty for most of the offences involving unmanned aircraft is a maximum fine of $20,000. This has obviously not served as a deterrent. It is also manifestly inadequate when one takes into account the damage and disruption unmanned aircraft can cause when operated in an irresponsible way. In particular, we need to make sure that we have higher penalties for repeat offenders who fail to learn from their mistakes and offenders who knowingly or recklessly operate an unmanned aircraft in a manner that endangers lives or property.

The Bill therefore contains five clauses aimed at raising the penalties for offences involving unmanned aircraft. Clauses 3 to 7 of the Bill make the following amendments:

For the offence of conducting any aerial activity without the required aviation safety instruments, such as operating an unmanned aircraft without the required operator and/or activity permits, the Bill introduces a discretionary jail term – up to two years for first offenders, and up to five years for repeat offenders. The maximum fines will remain at $50,000 for first offenders, and $100,000 for repeat offenders.

For the offence of operating an unmanned aircraft to overfly or take photographs of a protected area, or discharging a substance, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, without authorisation when flying an unmanned aircraft, the Bill raises the maximum fine for first offenders from $20,000 to $50,000 and raises or introduces a jail term of up to two years. The Bill also introduces an enhanced penalty for repeat offenders – a maximum fine of $100,000 or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

For the offence of not complying with a direction given by an enforcement officer to end the flight of an unmanned aircraft, to land it safely or to fly the unmanned aircraft in the manner specified by the authorised person, the Bill increases the maximum jail term from 12 months to two years. The maximum fines will remain at $20,000.

For the offence of doing any act or causing or permitting an act involving an aircraft, knowing that or reckless as to whether life or property could be endangered, a higher custodial punishment is introduced where this sort of activity involves an unmanned aircraft. Where the unmanned aircraft is operated by a person who knows that, or is reckless as to whether the unmanned aircraft operation could endanger the life or property of another person, the person may face a fine not exceeding $100,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years or both.

The Bill contains examples of what sort of dangerous activity we are looking at.

The challenges of regulating the use of unmanned aircraft in an urban environment are not unique to Singapore and countries around the world are grappling with the same issues. The amendments in the Bill are to send a strong deterrent signal. Our Courts will be able to mete out appropriate punishments to errant unmanned aircraft users who endanger aviation and public safety. We will continue to proactively fine-tune the regulatory framework and invest in counter unmanned aircraft capabilities so as to keep our skies safe.

Finally, clause 8 of the Bill is an amendment of a housekeeping nature. It is to enable the National Civil Aviation Security Authority to delegate its powers to a public officer who is not an aviation security inspector. This will give greater flexibility to the NCASA to delegate his powers to bigger group of individuals where the enforcement powers of an aviation security inspector are not required.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in the Bill will contribute to enhancing safety and security of air transport and aviation in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Air Navigation (Amendment) seeks to amend section 3A to prohibit the disclosure of flight recorder information to any Court for criminal and civil proceedings except, I quote the Bill, "in prescribed circumstances". The Explanatory Note of the Bill states that this amendment is to put Singapore in line with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention.

Notwithstanding the prescribed circumstances which the Senior Minister of State has taken us through, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the prohibition against disclosure of flight recorder information, despite the exceptions, will, in any way, allow industry players, interested individuals or parties, or even authorities to rely on this prohibition unfairly and against public interest or safety to prevent disclosure of information whether for fear of prejudicing the respective party's interest or even fear of bad publicity affecting the relevant party. It brings to mind recent media reports of suppression of disclosure by Boeing staff of concerns relating to the Boeing 737 Max aircraft prior to the two crashes which led eventually to the grounding of the aircraft.

Next, the Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill also seeks to introduce, among other things, increased punishments for illegal use of unmanned aircraft or drones. The increase in punishments will hopefully deter recreational users from using their unmanned aircraft in prohibited areas and will make the users more aware of keeping their use to allowed areas. But changing the law per se and charging the odd person and hoping to make him an example may not be sufficient to ensure that all users know the laws. It is important that the Government must be effective in disseminating to the public especially the drone users the legal restrictions imposed by the law and the enhancements in punishments.

Sometime last year, I saw a foreigner using a drone at a beach in Sentosa and was later stopped by a security person. I was not even sure he was arrested or detained. The person did not seem to know that he was not supposed to use the drone in the vicinity. In some ways, this is like the problem we see with some people who still do not know that PMDs are not supposed to be used in certain areas.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Government intend to educate all unmanned aircraft or drone users as well as the public on the restrictions for drone use and punishments prescribed by law for illegal uses.

Like the man I saw in Sentosa, I have also seen other tourists or foreigners use such drones in the public. I would like to ask the Minister how does the Government ensure that visitors and foreigners are made aware of the restrictions for drone usage and ensuing punishments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen shared with this House last month how SAF is equipped to handle military grade drone attacks on Singapore. He gave assurances to the effect, as I understand, that SAF has the ability to defend against the kind of attacks which were levelled against the Saudi oil installations recently.

In an earlier press interview in June this year, Minister Ng also shared that CAAS had asked SAF for professional advice and that SAF has told CAAS, and I quote Mr Ng, "What is out there in the market that they can procure if they want it quickly. What kind of defences they need, and it's up to CAAS to know what they need." So, it seems that SAF has shared its know-how with MOT and CAAS and gave recommendations on the possible technology and equipment which CAAS can consider deploying.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State since then, what has CAAS done to beef up its anti-drone defences. Can he share with this House some details of the work done?

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how confident MOT or CAAS is in avoiding flight disruptions in future should there be similar drone intrusions or attacks, at least the non-weaponised types, if we are to assume that SAF is responsible for all weaponised drone attacks. Any such Ministerial assurances which can be given in this respect is welcome and is important for Singapore because, for a major air hub, like Changi, even if we were to exclude weaponised attacks, Changi airport cannot afford to have its flights randomly affected by drone intrusions.

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State since the drone incidents in June causing disruptions, has there been any other incidents of drone intrusions which led to flight disruptions or nearly lead to any flight disruptions?

Finally, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has identified the operators responsible for the flight disruptions in June 2019 or the person or persons behind the operator. If so, can he share the findings with this House? If not, is the Government confident of finding out who the culprits are?

Mr Speaker, Sir, less than two weeks ago, a passenger drone, also referred to as a flying taxi, went for a lightning spin in Marina Bay generating some publicity. Now, is this a one-off publicity spin, in which I wonder what is the point of it as we are nowhere near ready for this? Or is the Government even seriously contemplating use of flying taxi in the near future? The thought brings some quivers, not because I do not welcome modern technology. But after what we have seen with the introduction of other drones and PMDs and the inability of the law to prevent transgressions or accidents, how prepared are we, legally speaking, to handle passenger drones?

We must always try and embrace technological advancement or new applications, but the law must also keep abreast or even stay ahead to regulate technological application and help set the right culture from the onset, instead of playing catch up. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support this Bill.

Senior Minister of State.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his comments and support for the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan has raised a number of questions which I will address in turn.

On the prohibition of disclosure of flight recorder information, Mr Dennis Tan asked if there is any possibility of abuse by individuals, companies and even authorities, raising the example of Boeing in the United States. The legislative amendments are aimed at strengthening protection, by enabling CAAS to make regulations to prescribe the circumstances and appropriate safeguards under which flight recorder information can be used or disclosed, and this is in line with the latest amendments to Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention.

As I have alluded to in my opening speech, there will be no restriction on the disclosure or use of flight recorder information for accident investigation by the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau or for reporting a known or suspected act of unlawful interference. This is stated in the new paragraph (oa) under subsection 1 to section 3A of the Air Navigation Act.

Practices are in place today to guard against misuse or inappropriate disclosure of flight recorder information. For example, firstly, access controls to the recorders and the equipment are needed to download or playback the recordings; secondly, an individual who might be recorded in the recordings must be de-identified; thirdly, the information when provided has to be in aggregated format; and fourthly, the information has to be transferred by secure means. The Bill will allow CAAS to make regulations on appropriate safeguards for the use and disclosure of recorder information, in line with the provisions in Annex 6.

On the unauthorised use of unmanned aircraft, Mr Dennis Tan asked about the efforts being made in public education of the restrictions, offences and punishments. This is a valid concern. CAAS works with other Government agencies including MHA and MINDEF to educate the public on how to operate unmanned aircraft responsibly and in compliance with regulations. Apart from issuing advisory flyers that highlight the set of "do's and don’ts" on the safe and responsible operation of unmanned aircraft, CAAS' other outreach efforts include safety series and seminars to engage and educate different user groups on the unmanned aircraft regulatory framework. As we make enhancements to the unmanned aircraft regulatory framework, CAAS will continue to engage the public to ensure that they are clear about their responsibilities when operating unmanned aircraft and the penalties that they would be subject to for offences involving unmanned aircraft.

We will also be working with interest groups to raise awareness of this regulation as well as the stiffer punishments that come with it. And as for tourists, they will also need to register their drones as well if they want to use unmanned aircraft in Singapore and we will continue to work with CAAS and CAG on how to raise awareness on these regulations for tourists.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked for an update on the unmanned aircraft intrusions at Changi Airport in June 2019. Investigations are currently still ongoing and there are no further developments for me to report at this point in time. Since June 2019, there have been no intrusions that affect the operations of Changi Airport. We will continue to remain alert for any other unmanned aircraft intrusions.

With regard to the Member's question on the counter unmanned aircraft measures that we have, CAAS and CAG are investing in counter unmanned aircraft measures to safeguard the airport. Unmanned aircraft intrusions can be very difficult to detect and counter because unmanned aircrafts can be very small and do not show up well on sensors. In addition, some perpetrators can site their elusive operations anywhere within quite a large area around an airport because unmanned aircraft are controlled remotely. CAAS and CAG therefore conduct regular patrols to look out for errant unmanned aircraft operators. They are also investing in additional capabilities to better detect and disrupt unmanned aircraft activities and these include the customisation and calibration of commercial systems for Changi Airport with the help of our Defence Science Agencies as well as training of personnel to man the systems and respond effectively to minimise disruptions to runway operations. The enhanced penalty framework that I have mentioned just now will, hopefully, serve as a strong deterrent against irresponsible and illegal unmanned aircraft operations.

Mr Speaker, in summary, this Bill supports our vision for a more effective regulatory system by enhancing CAAS' enforcement and regulatory powers. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min]. (proc text)]

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

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

The Bill before us amends the provisions of the Women’s Charter dealing with offences against women and girls. These amendments strengthen our levers against syndicates that organise and facilitate prostitution, or "vice syndicates".

Vice syndicates have exploited technology to transform the way they operate, with apps and websites making it easier and more discreet than ever to: (a) advertise sexual services; (b) communicate with one another and with prospective clients; and (c) arrange payment.

What this means is that: syndicates can now remotely control their operations from anywhere in the world; they can introduce layers in their operations to evade detection, but retain command and control by using these e-communication and e-payment platforms; and they can easily move from one residential unit to another, by renting these units to be used as "pop-up brothels".

This has brought about disamenities in the neighbourhoods and has made it more challenging for law enforcement. Let me share two examples.

My first example is a typical experience faced by neighbours of units used for vice. "Mdm Jane" and her neighbours observed many unfamiliar male visitors going in and out of one of their neighbours’ unit. Imagine what "Mdm Jane" must have felt to see these men loitering near her home and the impact on her sense of safety for her teenage daughter. "Mdm Jane" made a Police report, and Police enforcement uncovered two females providing sexual services within the unit.

My second example highlights some of the challenges faced by law enforcement because of changes in syndicates’ modus operandi. Last year, the Singapore Police Force and China's Ministry of Public Security conducted simultaneous raids across multiple locations in Singapore and China. They arrested 36 syndicate members, including the key masterminds and agents based in China. This led to the disruption of a major vice website targeting clients in Singapore.

While the Police could previously focus their resources to dismantle vice syndicates operating within certain areas of Singapore, now, these syndicates are all over the world. It is increasingly difficult and complicated to dismantle these syndicates, and requires significant collaboration with foreign agencies. We need to do more to address the rise in online vice.

To give a sense of how much online vice has grown in recent years: in 2015, the proportion of females arrested for online vice, compared to all types of platform, was 16%. In 2018, this proportion had increased to 55%.

Another startling statistic: between 2015 and 2018, seven in 10 foreign females arrested for online vice, were providing sexual services in residential estates.

So, it is necessary to strengthen our levers against vice syndicates and individuals, especially those operating through online means. This will also ensure better protection for our neighbourhoods against vice activities.

I will now go through the key amendments of the Bill.

The first amendment targets syndicates that attempt to evade enforcement by moving parts of their operations overseas. Currently, it is an offence under section 146A if a person in Singapore, operates or maintains in Singapore a remote communication service to offer or facilitate the provision of sexual services in Singapore. But a webmaster in Singapore who relies on an overseas server to host his website to deliver sexual services in Singapore, would not run afoul of this section today.

Clause 10 amends section 146A so that it has extra-territorial application. The offence will be extended extra-territorially in two ways.

First, it will apply to persons based outside Singapore, and second, it will apply to persons who use platforms based overseas. For example, a person in Singapore using a website server based overseas.

In order for the extended offence to be made out, two conditions must be met.

First, the remote communication service has to be used to offer or facilitate the provision, by a woman or girl, of sexual services in Singapore.

Second, the remote communication service has to have a Singapore-link; namely, that a person physically present in Singapore is capable of having access to matters communicated using that service.

This extra-territorial application for section 146A will allow the Police to more effectively target trans-national vice syndicates.

Second, the Bill increases penalties for vice offences in Part XI of the Women's Charter so as to more appropriately reflect the seriousness of these offences, and to better deter vice activities.

There are three parts to this amendment.

First, higher maximum fines to match the profits derived from vice crimes. Today, a syndicate member can easily earn $100,000 in a year, and this far exceeds the current maximum fine of $10,000. The Bill therefore raises the maximum fines, to take into account the potential earnings of syndicates, and also inflation over the years.

Second, longer maximum jail terms to raise the sentencing benchmarks for vice offences.

Third, heavier penalties for second and subsequent conviction, for all vice-related offences in Part XI of the Women's Charter. Currently, only some offences carry heavier penalties for re-offending. But given the severity of vice offences, we need to take a stronger stand to better deter repeat offenders, regardless of their role in the conduct or delivery of the vice activities.

The revised penalty framework is as follows.

For the less serious offences, such as an offence committed by an owner whose place was used as a brothel under section 148, on first conviction, a maximum jail term of five years, or maximum fine of $100,000, or both. This is up from the current maximum jail term of three years, or maximum fine of $3,000, or both.

On second or subsequent conviction, a maximum jail term of seven years, or maximum fine of $150,000, or both. This is up from the current maximum jail term of five years, or maximum fine of $10,000, or both.

For the more serious offences, such as living off the earnings of prostitution under section 146, on first conviction, a mandatory jail term of up to seven years, and a discretionary maximum fine of $100,000. This is up from the current mandatory maximum jail term of five years, and a discretionary maximum fine of $10,000.

On second or subsequent conviction, a mandatory jail term of up to 10 years, and a discretionary maximum fine of $150,000. This is up from the current discretionary maximum fine of $10,000; there is no change to the current maximum jail term.

The third amendment relates to promoting the responsible lease of premises, to deter "pop-up brothels". "Pop-up brothels" are on the rise, especially in residential estates. The Police frequently receive complaints from the neighbours of such residential units. No one wants vice activities in their blocks or even on their streets.

Clause 12 makes it clearer in law, the responsibilities of owners, tenants and other parties involved in the lease of any premises. This is necessary because syndicates commonly exploit the lack of checks at the point of leasing by misusing identity documents, in order to secure premises for vice activities.

For example, there have been cases of syndicates using false identities, and even a deceased person’s identity documents to rent a property. Such misuse is problematic also because it makes it harder for Police to track down the offenders.

We want to deprive vice syndicates of operating space, and safeguard the tranquility and safety of our neighbourhoods. To do so, we need the vigilance of three key stakeholders: (a) owners who rent out their properties; (b) tenants who rent from the landlords and sub-let the premises to someone else; and (c) property agents who facilitate these lease and sub-lease transactions.

For property owners and tenants, clause 12 amends section 148 subsections (3) and (4) such that: an owner who rents out, or a tenant who sub-lets, a place which is used as a brothel, will be criminally liable unless he or she can show that, at the time of entering into the letting of that place, he or she had no knowledge and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the place was to be used as a brothel.

A similar amendment is made to subsection (2), for tenants, lessees, occupiers or persons in charge of a place.

Property owners and tenants should also start asking the right questions when they rent out their properties. For example, who are the people they are letting the place to? Will these people be staying there, or will they be allowing other parties to use the place? Responsible property owners and tenants would already be asking these questions today, when leasing out their premises. These amendments simply provide more clarity to all owners and tenants on what they should do.

To help property owners and tenants understand what constitutes "reasonable diligence", we have included two illustrations.

First, owners and tenants should conduct identity checks of a prospective tenant or sub-tenant and the purpose of the tenancy or sub-tenancy, through face-to-face interviews, before leasing the place. This can help ensure that the person they are transacting with is indeed who he or she claims to be and is not misusing another person’s identity document.

Second, if the owner is overseas, he should engage an agent or trusted person to conduct these face-to-face interviews on his behalf. The owner should verify that the agent or trusted person has indeed carried out these checks.

These illustrations serve as guides to property owners and tenants. However, whether "reasonable diligence" was exercised would eventually depend on the specific facts of the case. For example, if a property owner had already been warned by the Police that his flat could have been used as a brothel, the owner might be expected to do more to ensure that no brothel is operating at that flat.

We have consulted stakeholders extensively in developing this proposal, so that property owners and tenants are not overly burdened, while still ensuring that they exercise responsibility over their premises, and that they play their part in deterring syndicates from using their premises for vice.

Such checks are actually not new. There is already a statutory requirement under the Immigration Act, for property owners to conduct identity checks of foreign tenants to ensure that there is no harbouring of immigration offenders. This has been in place since 1993 and property owners have largely complied. These amendments are intended to get property owners to extend the identity checks to Singapore Citizen and Permanent Resident tenants and sub-tenants as well, so as to guard against premises being misused for vice activities.

The large majority of property owners and tenants who are law-abiding and acting in good faith will not have to worry. In each case, the Police will conduct investigations to establish the facts, and take enforcement actions only where warranted.

Property agents also have a critical role in keeping our neighbourhoods safe. They should discharge their professional duties responsibly, and these are aligned to the reasonable diligence that we expect of property owners who lease out their premises and tenants who sub-let.

Property agents should guide property owners and tenants on what should be done in exercising reasonable diligence. And, if property agents detect any suspicious transactions themselves, they should proactively document and report the matter to the Police.

We are working with the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) to provide guidelines to the industry. Last month, I met with representatives from the industry to have a dialogue on these upcoming changes, and they gave many useful suggestions on how we can partner the industry to keep vice out of neighbourhoods.

Where agents are found to have been negligent in carrying out their professional duties, they may be liable for regulatory action by CEA under the Estate Agents Act. For instance, if the property agent does not comply with his or her professional duties which will include conducting identity checks on the parties involved in the lease transactions, the property agent may be penalised monetarily, or have his or her registration suspended or revoked by CEA.

More critically, errant property agents who intentionally facilitate any lease transaction with the knowledge that it would lead to vice activities at the premises, are likely to face prosecution for abetting the commission of an offence under the Women's Charter, or other relevant laws.

Lastly, we are making some miscellaneous amendments to ensure that Police enforcement remains effective against the changing modus operandi of vice syndicates.

First, clause 2 broadens the definition of "brothel" to include any place that has been advertised or represented as being used for the purpose of prostitution and is likely to be used for the purpose of prostitution. Currently, a brothel is defined as a place that is used by at least two women or girls, whether at the same time or at different times, for the purposes of prostitution.

Syndicates have transformed the way they conduct their business, so that they circumvent the current definition of brothel, and avoid getting caught for vice offences.

Earlier, I mentioned that syndicates would rent various residential units and shift from one to another to evade detection, effectively functioning as a "pop-up". Each of these sex workers may also present herself as a lone operator. These new modus operandi make it harder to prove that the premises are being used as brothels, as currently defined, even though it is clear from advertisements online that they are being used for prostitution.

We are, therefore, amending the definition of a "brothel", to enable the Police to take effective and decisive enforcement action.

Clause 2 also simplifies the onus of proof on the part of the prosecution seeking to prove that a place is being used as a brothel. The clause makes clear an existing practice on the use of indirect evidence to prove that a place is being used as a brothel. For example, chat logs of appointments being made for prostitution services to be provided at the place would be allowed to be submitted as evidence that a place is being used as a brothel.

Second, clause 3 amends section 140 subsection (1)(d) to make it clear that it is an offence for a person to bring into Singapore, receive or harbour any woman or girl for prostitution. Currently, only agents who bring into Singapore, receive or harbour a woman or girl who has been procured are liable for the offence. The amendment will allow the Police to arrest a pimp or agent, even if the woman or girl is a free-lance sex worker and therefore cannot be said to have been "procured" by anyone.

Third, clause 10 amends section 146A to change the element of "operating or maintaining a remote communication service" for the provision of sexual service to that of "using" a remote communication service for that purpose. This is to make clear that our intent is to also target syndicates that use such a service, for example, vice agents who rely on messaging platforms provided by an internet intermediary, and not the company operating and maintaining the service, such as telcos and Internet Service Providers.

Lastly, clause 15 amends section 174 subsection (1) to extend the powers of arrest to the offence of using a remote communication service under section 146A. This will enable the Police to also exercise powers of arrest with respect to syndicate members who use a remote communication service for the provision of sexual services. Currently, this offence is not arrestable.

To conclude, this Bill is part of our larger vice management strategy, which includes working with our partners on upstream education and deterrence. Mr Speaker, I would just like to conclude in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: These amendments are necessary to strengthen our levers against vice activities, in particular, against increasingly widespread online vice activities that have caused disamenities in our neighbourhoods and disturbances to the residents.

While Government agencies actively investigate these cases to prevent vice activities from taking root in our neighbourhoods, all of us have a part to play.

As property owners, we must stay vigilant when renting out our premises and not wait until after leasing to find out that something is wrong, or turn a blind eye on suspicious activities. When renting out the premises, the property owners should know who the tenants are. Some people may misuse other people's identities to conduct illegal activities. Therefore, the property owner should conduct identity checks to verify that the person is who he claims to be.

Property agents must also go about their work professionally, and do due diligence by helping to check on the identities of the potential tenants. If they detect any suspicious transactions, they should inform property owners and report to the Police.

As a community, we can also do our part to stop vice activities from taking root in the heartlands. If we find any suspicious activities in the neighbourhood, do not hesitate to report to the Police immediately. If all of us can increase our vigilance and do our part, we will be able to keep our neighbourhoods safe and stop vice activities from spreading.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, we would have read of news reports about several prostitution syndicates rounded up by our Police. These syndicates were conducting their business on the internet and some are even based overseas, as what Senior Parliamentary Secretary has shared with us just now. Hence, the proposed regulations to bring harsher punishments to such syndicates are timely.

I note that the Police has arrested people in a Telegram group that was sharing obscene videos and photos of women. Some media reports also alleged that independent sex workers, or perhaps even their syndicates, were advertising sexual services in the group. How will the amendments help in such cases? Will they help us to round up those who are advertising sexual services from overseas? Do the anonymity clauses hinder investigations and if so, do we need stronger laws in this respect?

I support firm action against homeowners and tenants who knowingly let out their premises for vice activities. Certainly, they should be held responsible.

However, I disagree that conducting identity checks at the point of signing lease agreements could be helpful in determining the tenant’s motives. I note that the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), property agencies and agents will be brought in to assist homeowners and tenants to conduct due diligence checks. This is a commendable move that will help the less knowledgeable property owners. However, a respectable local or foreigner with all their paperwork in order could rent the place, and then lie low for the first few weeks of occupancy, before beginning their operations behind the backs of the property owners. Some landlords might also be overseas and not be able to conduct checks. Is it fair to hold landlords responsible for tenants' actions under such circumstances?

In my opinion, it would be more meaningful for homeowners and property agents to establish a communication channel with neighbours and managing agent, if any. These people are better positioned to blow the whistle if anything is amiss. May I suggest intermediate property inspections by the landlord or agent, of course, while respecting the tenant’s privacy and time. This is a common practice in places such as Australia. Tenancy contracts will have to evolve to reflect this.

I am pleased to note that penalties will be enhanced to deter vice syndicates who profit off their sex workers and those who bring in foreigners for sex work. With freelance sex workers on the rise, it would also be necessary to extend the new regulations to any person who serves as their intermediary, regardless whether the sex worker was procured to work as one.

However, penalties are still reactive measures. We should also examine the root of the issue. Have we noticed a rise in prostitution? Is this purely because of increased accessibility of online platforms or are there other reasons? What are the demographics of the people who use such services? Can we do anything to educate these people about illegal prostitution and the risks involved?

Sir, I support this Bill, and I believe the new amendments will help safeguard the peace of affected residents. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: This Bill proposes that if tenants conduct vice activities in the house, the landlord will also be held responsible. The Government and CEA will assist the landlords to check the tenant's background. However, even if the tenants have a clean record, they may still conduct vice activities in the premises afterwards. So, is it fair to hold the landlords responsible?

I think if something is not quite right in the house, the neighbours would be more likely to become aware of that. Therefore, for homeowners and property agents, having a communication channel with their neighbours and the managing agent can help deter vice activities more effectively.

The Bill will allow the Police to better deal with overseas vice websites targeting Singapore and syndicates that bring women to Singapore to become sex workers. Some chat apps, such as Telegram, have anonymous functions. Will this deter the Police in their investigation efforts?

Here, I would like to thank the Government for their increased efforts to fight vice activities, especially in residential areas. This will allow our residents to enjoy a peaceful environment once again. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am starting with a narrative. Names and addresses have been anonymised to maintain confidentiality.

A lady with a young family living in a condominium came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session. Seven months prior to this, she had noticed suspicious activities going on at a unit across from hers. Both men and women were coming in at regular intervals throughout the afternoon, night and into the early hours of the morning. They were not the same people as you and I would expect if they were members of the same family living in that unit. They were different ethnicities, different ages and some, as she described to me, would apparently seem to be under the influence of perhaps alcohol or drugs. She tried calling the authorities several times to assess. But each time, she would get responses such as and I quote, "The Police have more urgent crime to fight. We will come by later to check. And madam, we cannot arrest people unless you provide us with the hard evidence."

And thus, her family installed a CCTV camera to get that hard evidence. Indeed, she got it. The Police asked for photos, evidence and facts, and it was documented with very good timeline annotation. Different people, different ages, different ethnic groups coming into that unit. The pictures were very telling, very hard evidence, even better than the chat logs than was mentioned earlier. Different faces, different people coming in individually or in twos or threes at approximately two to three hourly intervals.

She then again approached the authorities. But then it was taking so long and in view of this, she came to see me. That was some half a year after all these had surfaced. Neither her managing agent nor her MCST (Management Corporation Strata Title) could assist her. Now for fear of her family's safety, she finally decided to come forward. After all, the definition of "vice" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is really "immoral or evil habit, a sinful or a criminal practice".

This mother, with young children, living in a residential area, had genuine concerns. I assisted her to sort out her issues, of course, and it is now settled. But the point I am trying to make, Sir, is that: does it have to be so challenging for one young family and a concerned mom to activate the authorities for issues like this. We want to enhance this Bill. We are doing an amendment. We want to enhance the penalties. We want to enhance the fines. We want to make it a stern point and a deterrence. But can the frontline agencies and officers not be more sympathetic, more understanding, more aligned and more collaborative in their responses in handling of such issues from the community and the public?

That unit in the narrative I shared amounted to being used as a brothel, aligning with all of its definitions in section 2 of this Bill, including the example on "circumstantial evidence".

The use of apartment units for vice is very challenging. The authorities alone cannot detect every breach and thus, I am calling for greater recognition and collaboration with the community partners and residents living in specific areas. They can provide the ears and eyes you so need. This is the best model to have for us to work to deprive the operating spaces in the heartlands and in the residential areas causing all the disamenities.

We have the policies, we have the framework, we have the guidelines, but there may be gaps in execution of these. Thus, good ground feedback is necessary and useful, and can be very, very powerful indeed to ensure that we can execute these policies effectively.

My further input on the Bill. Education alone will not get the results we desire. Those involved are too entrenched, the education target may work perhaps for younger people who are considering venturing into this. You may try to stop them using deterrent publicity, heighten awareness and education combined, but it has to be more persistent and more consistent. Otherwise, we will not get the results that we started off to get.

On the vice rates, for it to have impact, do more and make it regular, sustainable and consistent, for it to have the effect and the results that it is intended. Otherwise, it will be a cat and mouse game, you leave and they will come out and play.

Enforcement, as shared in this Bill too, has to have consistency, or else, it will lose the impact that is intended.

Now, the review of HDB and residential premises need even more surveillance, monitoring and proactive measures. You cannot imagine how challenging it is on the ground when feedback is given and it results in a cursory, standardised reply from the agencies or HDB. These gaps need to be addressed and requires absolute strengthening, can something more substantial be worked out with the Council of Estate Agents – as you are having a dialogue with them – HDB and indeed, we are looking forward perhaps even to have Members of the Parliament being engaged in your focus group discussions because we may have issues that may need to be addressed in some of these review.

There is a stark link between sex, prostitution, sex drugs, sex enhancing drugs, drug utilisation and sales, love scams, online vice and even cigarette cartel. The authorities may need to look at these more wholesomely and this whole interdependent cycle and ring we need to break.

In the heartlands, coffeeshops are one culprit area for these activities. We have noticed blatant breaches and overt activities related to vice at these coffeeshops seems to be on-going in broad daylight. This cannot be. What else can one conjecture when dubious characters or so called pimps, sit at the corner table of a coffeeshop the whole afternoon, into the night and the early hours of the morning and even after the coffeeshop closes. The same person with the same shirt, with the same characters around them. They make negotiation for girls and many other things. And it is very very blatant and obvious to the lay person. Is it not so obvious to the authorities? These coffeshops have got staircases leading to the upper units and these extremely conducive places for prostitution or even to be used as an illegal brothel. Transactions can even be done more overtly. Therefore, responses from the authorities such as "It is a public place and anyone can really sit there" are really not helping the situation.

For online vice, it is even more challenging. We are very connected as a society given the number of devices each person possesses. Vice syndicates leverage technology to expand and flourish their operations, crossing borders even. What is MHA's strategy for tackling this efficiently and effectively? How are we able to work with overseas agencies and countries on this?

In all, Sir, I support the enhanced penalties and the amendment Bill must execute what it is intended to do to maintain the morality, the rights and the status of women. I hope to see the enhanced collaborative efforts clean up our heartlands and beyond.

Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Women's Charter to better deal with the issue of prostitution in Singapore. Let me begin with regard to amendment to section 2 of the Charter, I welcome the changes to the definition of "brothel" to include has been expressly or implicitly advertised or represented as being used for the purposes of prostitution.

A cursory scan of some of our tabloids shows advertising for somewhat dubious outlets peddling health services and therapies. It does not take much to know that many health clubs and so-called massage parlours are but false fronts for vice activities. We see it in various parts of our island, especially in the heartlands. Darkened windows, heavy curtains, signages, instructions to go via the back entrance and somewhat under-dressed foreign ladies beckoning only to men to come in to relax.

They are not hidden away in some private corner of our island or back some alley-way. They exist right under the noses of authorities. Some of our older malls like Chinatown and else where have become centres of vice activities. To give an example, the basement of Katong Shopping Centre is a case in point – better known for chicken rice, banana pies and tailors – but also a warren of small stalls with ladies in heavy make-up cooing away at passers-by, with no regard for the sensitivities of those with younger children. Some leave little to the imagination of the services that they prefer to provide, besides the purported advertising of physical therapy or facials. These outlets are not new either. These have proliferated through the years. It is about time we take firmer action to weed them out from the heartlands and return decency to our living environments.

It is not just about commercial spaces, in the last few years, I have also received feedback on vice activities occurring in our estates – both private and public housing. I wish to ask the Ministry to work closely with MND to advise MCSTs as well as how to work with HDB to ensure that vice activities do not end up right at the door steps of families as pointed out by the two previous hon Members, sometimes, it is difficult, even for the MCSTs and Managing Agents to decide how to deal with feedback and complaints of such matters.

To give one specific example, a private condo in my constituency. Residents long suspected that one unit in the block was involved in illegal vice activities. However, there were very little levers available to them to try to obtain evidence despite reports to the police. It took some time before the issue was resolved. Some of the same frustration that the hon Member, Prof Fatimah Lateef's residents have gone through, are the same experiences, perhaps elsewhere in Singapore.

How does the Ministry then plan to identify and better prevent such premises from being used for prostitution. Many, as I had previously mentioned, operate with almost brazen impunity. How many does the Ministry estimate are currently operating and how will the enforcement be done? While the amendments to section 148(4) which places the burden of proof upon owners or agents of owners to prove that they could not ascertained that the place is used as a brothel, how will the Ministry prevent loopholes that may well allow the masterminds behind such enterprises to escape the arm of the law.

I will now touch upon section 146A. Mr Speaker, a simple search online will reveal the plethora of websites peddling vice. It does not take much effort to search for such advertising. The third incarnation of a well-known website from Hong Kong currently lists 399 women providing vice activities in Singapore. It is a sophisticated online advertising platform that was first founded in 2002, the site lists everything from detailed services, districts, statistics, even so called "field reports" from customers. When the Hong Kong police conducted a three-day raid on the vice ring in 2013, an estimated US$15 million in cash was seized.

That alone should give us pause for thought on the value of this horrendous industry. Back then, the Hong Kong Police declared a strategic victory over this biggest online vice site. Yet it has not gone away. Its servers are now based in the US and it has expanded its operations to advertise in 40 other countries besides Hong Kong, from Japan to even Bangladesh. Their Hong Kong operations alone, currently list 1,522 profiles across the Island, Peninsula and New Territories.

In this game of cat and mouse, it is the mouse that can squirrel away easily and proliferate in various ways and forms. I therefore wish to ask how effective does the Ministry think that the proposed amendments will be in rooting out the rats and clamping down on such nefarious forms of advertising.

This is because while section 146A(1) will raise the penalties, the experience of Hong Kong seem to indicate that the penalties in themselves are not sufficient deterrence against those who seek to gain from exploiting women. The global hosting of websites as well as the dark web has proven to make law enforcement more complex than before.

I wish to also ask the Ministry to clarify the penalties as amended in the Women's Charter, how do they compare to penalties in other related laws, such as in the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act. I urge that where stronger deterrents are found in our other laws that the Charter be further strengthened to match those and if the Charter provides for stronger penalties, then other related Acts be amended as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was involved for a number of years in street missions in the region. At this point, I wish to share three stories from interviews over the years that have left me with much sorrow.

The first is a girl named Pearl. Pearl is fair and of slight built, with almond shaped eyes, she has masqueraded as a Japanese girl in Taipei. She says she taught herself Japanese and watched YouTube to learn Japanese mannerisms and in her words "how to be more Kawaii". She said that in doing so, she can be a premium girl, fetching three times the price per customer than if she advertised herself as Chinese. She is what is referred to in the industry as an outcall girl, clients will call up her agent after reviewing her profile on Line or WeChat and fix a time and location which she will go to. She has been to Taiwan a few times and to Australia too. Each trip last two weeks and each time she makes US$3,000 to US$4,000, a princely sum back home. When I asked her why she does it, she grins and says it is a quick way to make money at her age and she earns much much more than her peers. Yet despite that smile, she has no joy in her eyes.

The second girl is Rainbow, she hails from Thailand. I met her at a shelter. She was a regular Honey Girl in Hong Kong until she met an agent that abused her and other girls. She used to make trips out to Hong Kong and as a Honey Girl will be booked into hotels in tourist districts and wait for calls to service men who will look her up via online adverts and make appointments through agents. She could never leave her hotel room during that time, eating just instant noodles and smoking cigarettes between customers. She claims that she saved the money she had for her parents back in the village and to pay for her younger brother's education. She claimed to be doing sales overseas to her family. The money she had left over she undertook plastic surgery to become more attractive.

Thinking she would benefit from a more aggressive agent who could bring in more well-paying clientele, she changed her pimp and was sent to a neighbouring resort island on the pretext of being an escort. Instead, she found herself enslaved and locked up, servicing clients who roughed her up and her own agent who raped and beat her repeatedly over the course of three months. Terrified and psychologically scarred, she has since been rescued, found it difficult to return to a normal life and also to return to her family. She fears for her life. She was all of 19 when she was freed. When I met her, she would finch at every sound, her eyes frenzied, darting back and forth as if frightened of shadows and of doors opening. Here was a girl, who might have had a future, someone's daughter, someone's sister, used, abused, left as an empty worn out shell, her future cruelly torn from her.

There are also many examples that I shared in 2014, when we debated the passing of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill. But the story of Mya bears repeating. I met Mya, a 21-year old girl from Mong La, Myanmar, in 2009. Despite her youth, she had at that time, the weight of the world on her and looked as if she was in her 40s. She was born blind, she was sold by her aunt to traffickers at the age of four. Hers is a heart-wrenching story of suffering. Held captive in a brothel far away in a neighbouring country, she serviced up to 15 clients a day. She was rescued at the age of 16 – remember this, she was sold at the age of four – but her instinct then was to try to run back to her brothel and captors because it was the only reality, the only "home" that she knew. By then, she had AIDS and passed away two months after I interviewed her.

Mr Speaker, this is not a life. This is a trade that we cannot and should never romanticise or glamourise. This is a cruel soulless industry. A developed nation like ours that takes pride in the progress that our women and the progress that they have made and honours our mothers, sisters and wives, cannot possibly be proud to have men treat women and their bodies as mere commodities for carnal gratification.

Mr Speaker, my wife and I and our three boys are expecting a daughter and a sister soon. Many of us in this House have daughters, too. Can we imagine a world where women are allowed to be exploited and abused as the same one that we hope our own daughters and sisters will grow up, thrive and succeed in? How will we lift our heads in the future and say to them that we stood by and closed one eye to what is nothing more than the commercialised rape of women? That this safe and secure society that we take pride in – one that educates our girls, raises them up as a generation of leaders to hopefully change the world for the better and, yet, still allow dens of subjugation to exist amongst us.

Yes, that is what the Charter is meant to do. But those who are in this so-called oldest of "professions", whether in Singapore or elsewhere, are but a reflection of inequality and servitude that plagues our world.

Mr Speaker, I was hoping that, today, we will not just be making amendments to stiffen penalties against vice. I would very much like to ask that the Charter be amended to abolish prostitution from Singapore. This is an abhorrent activity and it is never a necessary evil. It is nothing but a stain upon the hard-earned rights of our Singapore women. I support the Bill's intent to strengthen the authorities’ hand in clamping down but I urge for greater bravery and gumption in eradicating the exploitation of women from our shores. It is not about management but about eradication, hopefully, soon.

Mr Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility to our daughters and our sisters that a world free from exploitation is possible, if only we dare to take that step forward. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill and its intent to control vice in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for acknowledging the exploitation that women face in the sex industry with this Bill and stand in support of the Bill that introduces significantly enhanced punishments for persons who exploit women and girls, including those under 16 years old and/or with mental health conditions, for sex.

Sir, as much as I appreciate that we are protecting our vulnerable groups, I have to, once again, highlight the inappropriate description used. It was just last month when I brought to the attention of this House in the Second Reading of the Income Tax Act that we still use archaic and deeply derogatory terms like "lunatic", "idiot" or "insane" to describe our differently-abled Singaporeans in our legislature. And here we are, in section 144 of the Women's Charter and clause 7 of the amendments, we now call them "mentally defective"! Mr Speaker, unless our official narrative of a caring and inclusive Singapore is to still view our differently-abled Singaporeans in such derogatory terms and as lesser human beings, which I am sure it is not, then I urge all Government Ministries to ensure that all amendments to our laws brought to this House for readings must also be an opportunity to update all derogatory references to our vulnerable groups, even if the intent to protect them is well-meaning. I was not clear in my ask of the Minister for Finance with the Income Tax Bill but I would like to be direct with my clarification with the Minister on this Bill. Can the Minister please assure us that the term "mentally defective" will be replaced with a more appropriate and dignified description that does not perpetuate this persistent need to label them as inferior human beings?

Now, back to the amendments to this Bill, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I have two key clarifications to seek from the Minister.

First, will increasing the present penalty of $10,000 to $100,000 be enough to deter the offenders?

Second, given that the Ministry acknowledges the exploitation that happens in the sex industry with these amendments, would it be more efficient and effective for us to also engage sex workers as part of the solution by encouraging and protecting them to come forward to report on these offenders?

Sir, let me elaborate on my first clarification on the inadequacy of merely enhancing punishments and the impunity of exploitative agents.

A recent report recounts a man who facilitated Thai sex workers into Singapore and required the women to submit all their income for the first 20 customers. I also learnt about other examples of exploitation by agents from Project X, an NGO that was started 11 years ago by a social worker who saw how sex workers are amongst the most marginalised in our society and needed support; and The T Project, Singapore's first and only shelter for homeless transgender women, some of whom are also sex workers.

Let me share the real story of a mother of a two-year-old boy in her early 30s to illustrate how, even with the enhanced penalties, exploitative agents may still get away scot-free. I will just call her Jasmine.

Jasmine came to Singapore to work on a six-month visa that allows her to do "free work" at the behest of her friend. "Free work" was the agent's way of expertly insinuating that she could do sex work anywhere in Singapore, even though the visa she had was to work as a performing artiste in a bar. She was told it would cost her $15,000 in total which she must pay over the course of six months. Three months later, Jasmine was arrested on the street. At this point, she had already paid $6,900 to her agent.

Desperate, Jasmine went to Project X who helped her lodge reports with both the Police and MOM. The agent and the employer have ostensibly violated the Women's Charter Article 142 on "importation of woman or girl by false pretences" as well as Article 146 on "persons living on or trading in prostitution". Unfortunately, after multiple trips to the Police station, ICA and MOM, Jasmine was deported three weeks later on having committed the offence of not working at her designated workplace. Meanwhile, the agent was still actively recruiting women based on the WhatsApp posts that Jasmine shared with Project X after she left Singapore.

In yet another case, a single mother with a seven-year-old son in her late 20s was arrested after a tip-off. I will call her Rose. Rose assisted the Police in every way possible. However, the agent whom she never met in person, had covered up his tracks on WhatsApp with fake and inactive numbers. The investigation took three months, Rose had her passport taken away and given a Special Pass for the duration. Yet, the agent was not caught.

Project X alone supports about an average of eight of such exploitation cases every year for the last three years and none of these cases so far saw the agents nabbed. So, it begs the question: if simply raising penalties will be adequate in curbing such abuse, especially for agents who know how to circumvent the law, who have intimate knowledge of the women's families and who leverage technology to conceal their identities.

Could the Minister please share with the House what is the number of pimps and vice-abetters prosecuted in the last three years versus the number of sex workers arrested? Is increasing the present penalty of $10,000 to $100,000 sufficient in deterring these offences?

The National Institute of Justice, the research agency of the US Department of Justice, released a 2016 report that pointed out that the "certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment". They make a clear distinction between incapacitation and deterrence. Their evidence, which encompasses a large body of research on crime deterrence, suggests that higher penalties neither chasten already convicted criminals nor have the biggest effect on deterring potential crimes. Rather, certainty, or "the likelihood of being caught and punished", is the major deterrent.

This means that, in addition to raising penalties, we must also increase our precision in targeting and apprehending exploitative agents. To increase precision in targeting agents, the most intuitive and economic way is to enlist their victims. This makes the women under exploitative agents our most powerful ally.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second clarification. The majority of women who go to Project X for support after exploitation refused to make a Police report because they fear that they will face punishment, deportation and blacklisting. When our most efficient and effective access to exploitative agents is through the women they have abused, will the Minister work with the sex workers by concretising victim support as part of the solution?

Conditional immunity for sex workers specifically has been adopted in the American states of California and Utah. California's SB-233, which was passed just this year, echoes many concerns that we have in Singapore. According to the official Senate floor analysis of SB-233, sex workers are victims of violent crime at a disproportionately high rate. Because they fear criminal charges and mistreatment with the police, they rarely report crimes done to them. The analysis further offers that the Bill "simply prioritises...health and safety of people engaged in sex work, including human trafficking victims, over their criminalisation...for misdemeanor ...when this population comes forward as victims or witnesses of specified violent crimes."

Mr Speaker, I urge the Minister to consider offering these victimised women conditional immunity from charges like soliciting and conditional protection from blacklisting to join us in our fight against exploitative agents, similar in principle to the certificate of cooperation given to drug traffickers. This will not just increase the number of whistleblowers but also reinforce the Bill's intent to protect vulnerable women and bring the offenders to justice.

Criminal compensation will further improve our precision in targeting exploitation. Women who enter into arrangements with unlicensed agents are almost always in a very low socio-economic position and, therefore, desperate for work opportunities to survive and support their families. If we send them away with debt, we are implicitly pushing them to re-enter into risky business arrangements and fall prey to other dangerous agents. I seek the Minister's clarification if we could consider working closely with the Court to arrange for criminal compensation for the exploited women. The Court is obliged to actively consider whether or not to order compensation under section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I believe that the prosecution and investigation officer can invest greater effort in helping the victims understand their rights, produce evidence to guide compensation liabilities and collaborate with the Court to ensure the agents make these payments. This would increase the incentive for abused women to report their agents while also effectively protecting the interest of already-exploited victims.

Mr Speaker, my recommendations may make some wonder if protecting sex workers and recognising them as victims may merely encourage more women to join the sex industry. However, experts have demonstrated that a framework that recognises the safety and welfare of sex workers elevates the safety of all women and makes it easier for those who have been exploited to leave the sex industry. The alternative, however, is that exploitative agents and sexual predators continue to act with impunity and so more women are preyed on to join the industry. We need to see sex workers as part of the solution, including our transgender sex workers who are also sometimes victims to exploitative and abusive agents.

We still have a biased cultural attitude towards the sex industry, one that legitimises men’s persistent demand for sexual services but villianises the women who supply these services.

The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Singapore’s leading gender equality advocacy group notes that upholding women’s autonomy and agency, including that of sex workers, is crucial to respecting, protecting and fulfilling our commitment to gender equality as defined by UN Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). To this end, the CEDAW Committee has recognised sex workers as a group of women who are disproportionately affected by gendered violence, discrimination and marginalisation. CEDAW's approach to gender equality should inform any policy to protect sex workers from exploitation. We must involve and empower sex workers as equal partners and experts in determining the solutions that work for them.

The physical, emotional and sexual violence that are systematically perpetrated against sex workers undermine gender equality. Studies have found that sexual violence is likely to occur more commonly in cultures that foster beliefs of perceived male superiority and social and cultural inferiority of women. At a time when a group like SG Nasi Lemak exists, when peeping tom upskirting cases are on a steady rise, it is paramount that we treat all forms of gender-based violence with urgency and gravity. We should, therefore, be hyper-vigilant of the normalising effects of impunity for exploitative agents and employers and do all we can to prevent the disenfranchisement of sex workers.

I befriended a sex worker almost 15 years ago. Let us call her Lily. She shared with me that it was the sheer desperation of poverty back home that drove her to be a sex worker here so as to feed her son and two ailing parents back home. Lily eventually left the sex trade after having saved enough to take courses. She is now a world-travelling and well-respected professional in the hair and beauty trade. Sex workers may be looked down upon, but it is clear that many of them have much to contribute to society and also, like us, dream for a better life.

Not being heard as a sex worker is no reason for silence when it comes to being exploited. When we offer protection and give them a voice to be part of the solution to the problems of abuse and oppression that we are trying to solve in the sex industry, Mr Speaker, I am sure they will come forward to say, #MeToo.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I will resume the Sitting at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has generally taken a pragmatic approach to vice-related activities. Prostitution per se is not a crime in Singapore. The Government's approach has been to restrict prostitution to licensed brothels by outlawing activities like solicitation and pimping that are largely linked to unlicensed prostitution.

This model has generally worked in the past to limit such vice-related activities to certain areas of Singapore where licensed brothels operate.

This approach, however, is less likely to work in today's context where commercial sex can be procured easily online via Internet and social media platforms. Operators of online commercial sex platforms have increasingly offered sexual services out of residential units, such as private apartments, condominiums and even from HDB flats in the heartlands.

According to a news article published in The Straits Times in 2017, operators of these unlicensed brothels are attracted by the low rent of these residential units, as well as the discreet locations that these residential units have. A follow-up Straits Times article in May 2019 reported how more than 150 women and a man were arrested in May for vice-related activities that were operating out of residential units, some of which were in the heartlands.

Operating out of an unlicensed brothel compromises the safety and security of an environment in which young children and families live and I am heartened to know that the amendments in this Bill comprise active measures to ensure that landlords are now legally obliged to not turn a blind eye to such activities.

The amendments in clause 12 for section 148 has now clarified that landlords and/or their appointed agents need to perform reasonable diligence when leasing premises out to tenants. I am supportive of this amendment and its enhanced penalties as they would help to restrict the use of residential units as unlicensed brothels by putting the onus on property owners and their appointed agents to not turn a blind eye to illicit vice activities conducted on their premises.

At the same time, I am encouraged that the amendments also offer protection to owners and agents who have done their due diligence and are genuinely unaware of the happenings in their units. In short, those who have done their due diligence should not be unjustly punished.

The amendments in clause 10 for section 146A have given the authorities greater power to prosecute and undertake enforcement actions against overseas operators of vice services who use remote communications channels to facilitate the provision of commercial sexual services in Singapore.

Given that such services can be managed and organised by overseas vice syndicates, there are, indeed, merits in extending the enforcement power of the authorities beyond our shores. Yet, the challenge lies in actually being able to enforce the law. How would the authorities carry out cross-border enforcement actions against overseas-based vice-related operations, especially in contexts where Singapore does not have repatriation or reciprocal arrangements with the countries where the syndicates are operating out of? I hope the Government would shed some light on this area.

The amendments to clauses 3, 4 and 5 that increase the penalty of offence in trafficking women and girls and to import them under the false pretence with the intent that they be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution either within or outside Singapore will certainly serve as strong deterrence to would-be offenders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am supportive of these amendments as they come down strong on those who prey on vulnerable women and girls. While the law punishes the offenders, I believe more can be done to support unwitting victims who have been deceived by these vice syndicates.

Many of these women and girls were lured to come to Singapore by false promises of legitimate employment but only to be coerced and trapped into sex work. Many of them were desperate to leave the trade but were coerced to stay in the trade with threats. While the Government's position is not to prosecute potential victims of trafficking, I hear that we need to put in place a better support system to rescue these women from vice syndicates.

Can the Government and authorities work with local NGOs to put in support systems for these victims before we repatriate them? Can the Government also work with the respective agencies in the victims' home countries to ensure that their welfare is addressed before we send them back, as they might have to face possible recrimination from the vice syndicates in their home country?

Mr Speaker, I believe that all the Members in the Chamber here today would agree on what I feel are the two key points of this Bill. Firstly, that the places where young children and families live should be kept safe and secure from any vice-related activities and, secondly, that sex trafficking of women, especially girls, against their will is a heinous offence and that such traffickers should face the full force of the law. It is with these two aspects that I conclude my speech in firm support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate. I have three main points of concern.

Firstly, regarding online vice. I commend the Ministry's efforts to deal with this problem through the introduction of extra-territorial jurisdiction to the Charter. Doing so will equip our Police force more adequately as criminals are exploiting technology to boost their revenue and protect themselves by operating their illegal businesses remotely.

I would like to ask if it is possible to require the social media providers to monitor their websites round-the-clock for such vice transactions and either remove or report attempts to offer online services, both locally and from overseas, to potential customers in Singapore. What measures will the Ministry implement to enlist the cooperation of social media providers to help deter such offers and bring those involved to task?

Secondly, the irresponsible lease of premises. Certainly, owners and tenants who allow such activities to be conducted on their premises should be severely punished. The law requires owners to perform due diligence when leasing out their properties, such as but not limited to, conducting identity checks when signing the lease agreements. However, the tenants who had been cleared under such checks could still use the residences to conduct illegal activities without the owner's knowledge. What other mitigations are there for the unfortunate, innocent owners?

Lastly, the problem of "visitor-vice". These are prostitutes who enter Singapore as tourists or on visit passes. Some individuals operate on their own while others are flown in and controlled by crime syndicates overseas or even locally. How can we prevent these syndicates from engaging in such activities in our homeland? Most importantly, we need to protect those who are abused and trafficked here for such exploitation. Do we have a framework to enable victim-prostitutes to seek assistance and also act as witnesses? I would like to conclude with my full support for this Bill.

Sir, let me start by saying that I stand in support of the Bill. I do not doubt that there is a need to curb vice activities perpetuated through online platforms and I agree that this is a serious concern that must be addressed.

I also support MHA’s intent to deprive vice syndicates of operating space, especially in the heartlands. My residents and myself included all want a sense of safety and security where we live.

But while I support these amendments, I have concerns about their effectiveness. Are we addressing only the symptoms of the issue and not the root cause? Are we just chasing our tails? Is it time to rethink our strategy?

My first concern is about the amendment targeting the irresponsible lease of premises and whether it is feasible and practical. Sir, as I mentioned, I support the intent of the amendment. None of us wants our neighbourhoods to become hubs of vice activities. But my question is: how are homeowners and tenants supposed to enforce this? MHA has stated that if vice activities are detected at their premises, homeowners and tenants will have to show that they had no knowledge of and could not, with "reasonable diligence", have known that the place would be used for vice activities.

One way of satisfying themselves is to conduct identity checks at the point of signing their lease agreements, as part of due diligence when renting out or sub-letting their premises. This sounds good on paper. In practice, however, how does a homeowner or tenant perform "reasonable diligence" other than asking directly whether one is a sex worker?

If the homeowner or tenant drops by and find that the tenant or sub-tenant is having sex with another person, how do they determine whether or not that is a vice activity? I hope that the Minister can provide clarity on how we will be enforcing this.

My second concern is about whether our attempts to clamp down on sexual services work. Sir, this would not be the first time I am making this point. Two years ago, I stood in this house to support the Massage Establishments Bill. But in that speech, I said, "Worse still, we might drive these activities further underground." This was the fear of former Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng who said this in Parliament in 1999 in relation to a question about prostitution, "It is better that the Police know where these areas are and enforcement action can be taken, rather than to disperse these brothels to the whole of Singapore and we have a cat-and-mouse game chasing after them or, worse still, drive them underground, and they will be operating everywhere."

I fear that we are doing what Mr Wong advised us 20 years ago not to do and that the cat-and-mouse game has started. In 2010, Member of Parliament Mr Baey Yam Keng said that vice raids in Geylang led to pimps and prostitutes "spilling out" of the area.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament Kok Heng Leun raised the same concerns in his speech on the Massage Establishments Bill. He said, "In the past, there used to be these health centres where sexual services were provided alongside massage. Most of these health centres were not allowed to renew their licences. The shutdown of these health centres led to the proliferation of smaller parlours set up by the people who used to work at these health centres. From interviews with massage workers, the proliferation was also because smaller parlours were harder to apprehend for sexual services."

What is our end goal? As we wipe out one area, we only push the sex workers to another area which we then try to wipe out.

I appreciate that vice activities will always evolve, and enforcement needs to evolve as well. However, it seems that the vice activities are evolving at least partly because of our actions. This cat-and-mouse game means that we are wasting our precious resources and most importantly, we are always one step behind.

Sir, I believe a long-term solution can come from speaking with sex workers themselves about the issue. I met up with Singaporeans sex workers when I was researching the Massage Establishment Bill and I met up with Singaporeans sex workers again when researching this Bill. I sat there listening to their stories, their fears and their aspirations. These are fellow Singaporeans and many are victims of circumstance. Many feel that they have no choice but to be sex workers. We need to ask ourselves how many people would willingly sell sexual services?

I listened to one woman share about how she got kicked out of her house by her parents when she was young, became homeless, did not know where to go for help and ultimately entered the sex trade just to survive. She was beaming with pride when she informed everyone during the dialogue that she had just paid the deposit for a make-up course and everyone in the room cheered.

I listened to how another woman became a sex worker when she was only 19 years old and has been doing this for four years now. Her parents divorced when she was five years old and both parents did not want her. She was left with her grandmother who raised her. For her entire childhood, she was constantly reminded that she had no parents. I cannot imagine the impact that had on a young child.

She did not do well in her studies and could not get into a polytechnic. She tried to enrol in a private polytechnic but did not have enough money to pay the tuition fees. She then tried to get a bank loan but failed as she could not find a guarantor. Not knowing where else to go for help, she ultimately entered the sex trade for money to fund her education.

We can all take the moral high ground and tell the sex workers that they know the risk of sex work and that they can find another job, so why should we protect them and help them? But I hope we remember that these are fellow Singaporeans. Rather than judge them for their actions, I hope we can help them.

Sir, many of them also shared their fears with me and shared stories of how some sex workers get raped and robbed.

The Women’s Charter is all about protecting women and girls from exploitation and harm and this should include sex workers as well. The recent case where three youths hatched a plot to rob sex workers at knife-point highlights how sex workers are especially vulnerable. The trio agreed this plot as this would be the "safest" way to commit a crime as they would be preying on the sex workers’ "vulnerabilities and insecurities", given the illicit nature of their work.

The sex workers I spoke to feared that when they report a crime committed against them, they too will be arrested because of the illicit nature of their work. As such, many do not report the crime and my concerns are not just for the sex workers but also for society at large.

We have people committing crimes and getting away with it. They might continue with their crimes and start targeting others or, worse still, evolve to committing more serious crimes. Do we really want a rapist to get away scot-free just because his victim is a sex worker? Does our society become a safer place for all if this continues?

I can understand that what I am proposing is not a simple suggestion. However, can I ask if MHA is studying this problem and also studying what others are doing? I understand that in the US states of California, Utah and Washington, laws have been passed to allow sex workers to, without fear of arrest or prosecution, report crimes that they were victims of or witnesses to. Can MHA look into this holistically to assess the pros and cons of such laws and see what effects they have had on society?

Sir, I believe the long-term solution is to put more resources into helping sex workers transit out of their industry.

Indeed, many of the sex workers I spoke to said they wanted to leave the sex industry but needed help doing so.

Studies have showed that women who want to leave the sex work industry are trapped in their industry due to two key factors: one, society's prejudice against former sex workers; and two, the women’s lack of social support and low self-esteem.

The fortunate thing in Singapore is that in Singapore, we do have non-profit groups helping these women. Project X is one such group. It provides social, emotional, and legal support for sex workers in Singapore, and it hopes to launch The Next Step Programme, to which I hope the Government can provide some funding and support.

The programme aims to help sex workers who wish to leave the industry. Over six months, case workers work with the women to devise a customised plan. The plan aims to help the women in five important ways: financial planning, individual counselling, job skills training, family counselling, and social and communication skills. At the end of the six months, the women will have the option of continuing or exiting the programme.

Research shows that sex workers who have successfully left and abstained from sex work for at least two years have been able to do so only after about six attempts on average. It is not an easy transition, but the result, I believe, is worth the effort.

In 2017, Minister Josephine Teo said in relation to sex workers, "For those who wish to transit to other types of work, I appreciate it really may not be easy for them, but help is available and we are most willing to reach out to them". Sir, I hope that MHA will consider providing support and funding for The Next Step Programme.

Sir, let me end with what Mr Wong Kan Seng said in this House 20 years ago again, "Governments around the world and through the ages have tried to eradicate prostitution, but none had succeeded. Criminalising prostitution only drives such activities underground, resulting in crime syndicates taking control over such activities."

There is a need for us to rethink and relook our policies and remember what our former Minister told us.

I hope that rather than just prosecute sex workers, we can provide help. Rather than entrap them with our undercover officers, we can engage them holistically. Rather than lecture them on morals and the law, we can listen to them and understand why they became a sex worker what their concerns are and what their aspirations are.

I hope that MHA will consider holding discussions with the sex workers directly. I would be keen to help with this and facilitate it. Some sex workers may be concerned about meeting with MHA for fear of being identified, but we can start by meeting with sex workers who are transiting out of the industry.

Let us work together with them to find long-term solutions rather than against them. Sir, we can take the moral high ground and judge them, discriminate against them and even despise them. But let us remember that they are also someone’s child, someone's daughter, someone's loved one and more than anything, these are fellow Singaporeans who need help. Let us help them.

And by helping them transit out of the sex industry, we might actually reduce the number of Singaporean sex workers much faster than arresting them and playing this cat-and-mouse game.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Women’s Charter to increase the responsibilities for landlords. Over the past few years, illegal vice activities have been popping-up in HDB precincts, causing disamenities in the neighbourhoods. The landlords have a duty to verify the identities of potential tenants, their background and the purpose of renting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I support the amendments to the Women’s Charter, I have some concerns that many HDB flat owners are elderly residents, who leased out their whole flat to stay with their children to have another source of income. Some of these elderly residents may not be well educated and may not know what their legal obligations are as a landlord. As such, I have three questions for MHA.

First, will the landlords be held responsible if the original tenant subsequently allows others to stay in the premises without their knowledge?

Second, can the HDB flat owners rely on the advice of the property agents? Would they be deemed to have done their duty as long as they carry out the checks as advised by the property agents?

Third, for elderly residents who may have mobility issues, can they rely on the property agents to carry out the necessary checks?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is important that flat owners do the necessary checks before leasing out their premises, we have to be mindful that many elderly flat owners may not be well educated or may have mobility issues. As such, I hope the MHA can give clarifications on my questions.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to strengthen the laws against online vice activities and to enhance the Police’s levers against vice syndicates. However, I do have a few questions and suggestions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

The proposed amendments to the Women’s Charter are timely as the sex trade in Singapore has been evolving in tandem with new technologies. As a former Police commander, I have seen first-hand how illegal vice activities have moved from brothels masquerading under the guise of massage parlours, to online messaging applications like WeChat which utilises geo-targeting technologies to allow anyone to find sex workers in their vicinity.

The confluence of the popularity of such messaging platforms and the rise in short-term rentals, perpetuated by platforms like AirBnB, will increase the difficulty of enforcement against vice syndicates. Through short-term rental platforms, syndicates now have easy access to a large inventory of locations that they can hop around to offer prostitution services. As of last week, a simple search of such services on an infamous online forum easily yielded over 1,800 listings that offer massage and sexual services, mostly by foreign nationals here on social visit visas, in various "discreet apartments" across Singapore. My suspicion is that many are operating out of apartments rented on a short-term basis, to avoid detection.

Therefore, while I am supportive of the proposed amendments to tackle irresponsible leasing of premises for vice activities, this only deals with homeowners who legally rent out their premises. How will our police officers enforce against the syndicates that tap on illegal short-term rental platforms to offer vice activities?

Messaging platforms are also introducing new technologies that will make it harder for our anti-vice officers to catch vice syndicates. The recent furore over the SG Nasi Lemak chat group has exposed the use of Telegram as an encrypted messaging platform, used to disseminate both obscene and pornographic content, including the offer of sexual services. Telegram also has a "self-destruct" feature, which users can set their messages, photos and files to be deleted on both the sender and the recipients’ devices. With the constant evolution of such digital platforms, it is crucial that our enforcement officers be updated regularly on the latest technologies that are being used to circumvent the detection of vice syndicates in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the vice syndicates facilitating sexual services in Singapore are often based overseas. I am therefore happy to see that the proposed amendments to the Women’s Charter has introduced extra-territorial jurisdiction to section 146A. While this plugs a legal gap by allowing the Police to take decisive action against any overseas person using remote communication services to facilitate the provision of sexual services in Singapore, I would like to ask how will this be feasibly enforced? To deter people from committing such offences, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide a concrete example of when a person based overseas would be in breach of the new section 146A, and how would the Ministry act against such a person who is not physically in Singapore?

While we tackle the rise of vice activities perpetuated through new media, it is vital that we continue to take action against the business operations of unsavoury establishments that masquerade as public entertainment outlets in residential areas especially those with young children.

During my time with the Clementi Police Division, my officers regularly took enforcement actions against the massage parlours suspected to be offering illegal sex services in mixed-use developments such as Bukit Timah Shopping Centre. But despite our constant enforcement actions, seedy establishments continued to operate – many times out of the same shop unit – as syndicates were able to find locals to register themselves as new owners of the massage parlours and act as their fall-guy. In our colloquial terms, we term this as "finding a tua pek kong".

Now as a Member of Parliament, I receive regular complaints from residents about the seedy public entertainment and massage outlets located in mixed developments such as Orchard Towers. Members would agree with me that such seedy businesses should not be co-located in residential areas especially those with young children. How would the new definition of "brothel" and the amendments to section 148 tackle the "tua pek kong" phenomenon and eradicate such seedy public entertainment and massage outlets in mixed-use developments?

Can the Ministry also consider imposing a cap on the number of such outlets in a specified area, particularly in areas where there are many residences? This is a point that I have raised before here in Parliament. From my policing experience, I have often noticed that once an area has reached a certain threshold of such outlets, syndicates tend to gravitate towards the area as their next business opportunity, resulting in a quick surge of illegal vice activities.

Lastly, we must not forget about providing a safe reporting channel to the women who have been exploited and forced to work as sex workers. I read with concern about a report published by the US State Department earlier this year, which claimed that there were 16 trafficking cases in Singapore in 2018, of which 10 involved sex trafficking. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if this indeed is accurate, and what are the measures provided to women who may be in such circumstances and would need a safe reporting channel.

Mr Speaker, the proposed measures under the Bill is a step in the right direction as it will provide the Police with the legal tools necessary to combat vice activities and vice syndicates operating through online media. However, while we pit our wits against these syndicates, it is vital that our anti-vice officers recognise the shift in such trends, which are abetted by new encrypted messaging technologies and short-term rental platforms. I also urge more enforcement action to be done to ensure that such seedy businesses are not co-located in mixed-use residential developments, where there are many young children residing. With that, I support the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. I shall first address the broader questions on the Government’s policy on managing vice, before going into questions relating to specific amendments in the Bill.

First, regarding the Government's policy on vice and our vice management strategy.

Mr Louis Ng asked if these amendments will only drive vice elsewhere, further underground. Mr Alex Yam gave a passionate argument for the abolition of prostitution altogether in Singapore.

There are no easy answers to this. Mr Alex Yam shared that we should eradicate the exploitation of women, instead of management. He proposed abolishing prostitution. However, as Nominated Member Anthea Ong pointed out, the economic and social factors, such as poverty and a lack of realistic career options that push women into prostitution, will not go away by criminalising prostitution. She pointed out that sex workers and empowering these women can instead be part of the solution.

We studied the approaches adopted by various countries – some ban the purchase and selling of sex, others focus on criminalising demand and yet others have chosen to decriminalise or legalise the sex industry.

The experiences of these countries are mixed, but what Mr Wong Kan Seng said 20 years ago and which Mr Louis Ng quoted, still holds true: no country has successfully eradicated prostitution.

In Singapore, we take a pragmatic approach towards vice. We prioritise our efforts by: (a) ensuring organised crime groups and syndicates do not gain a foothold through vice activities; and (b) addressing public nuisance caused by vice-related activities, such as soliciting in public and vice in heartlands.

I acknowledge Mr Ng's concerns about syndicates which will continue to evolve alongside changes to our laws and our enforcement efforts. But we cannot do nothing either. Where that line is crossed, the Government must intervene to safeguard our neighbourhoods. This intervention is part of our larger vice management strategy, which Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Alex Yam and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about.

Upstream, we target platforms which may be used to facilitate vice activities by: (a) taking down and blocking vice websites as and when they are detected; (b) establishing a regulatory regime for public entertainment and massage establishment outlets, which may be fronts for vice activities; and (c) detecting and deterring foreigners seeking to enter Singapore for sex work.

We also remind residents to be vigilant against vice activities by working with partners such as HDB and the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) to promote awareness among residents and property agents; and raising deterrence against vice activities by publicising Police's enforcement efforts.