Hansard, Monday, 5 April 2021

1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health whether there can be a standby queue at COVID-19 vaccination centres to allow interested members of the public to take the place of those who do not turn up for their scheduled vaccination.

2 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will reconsider its stand and to allow Singaporeans who are required to travel for work and studies to opt in to receive early COVID-19 vaccination since more vaccine supplies have arrived.

3 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether there is a hotline number for members of the public who have had their COVID-19 vaccinations to call if they have queries regarding post-vaccination symptoms and for clarifications and assurance.

4 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health whether staff and volunteers working in mosques can be prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination in preparation for conducting terawih and qiyamullail during the holy month of Ramadan.

5 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what proportion of persons aged (i) over-70 years (ii) 60 to 70 years and (iii) under 60 years have taken the COVID-19 vaccine; and (b) what measures are in place to increase the voluntary take-up of the vaccine.

6 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the proportion of persons invited to make COVID-19 vaccination appointments who have been rejected due to them failing the pre-vaccination questionnaire; and (b) how is the Ministry adjusting its vaccination plans to minimise wastage of vaccines.

7 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the number of workers in the essential services sector who have gone through the COVID-19 vaccination; and (b) what are the criteria for the selection of workers.

8 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health whether volunteers and staff at congregational and worship services can be considered as frontline staff and prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide an update on the COVID-19 vaccination programme; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to measure the antibody levels of persons (either as a class or individually) over time after they have been vaccinated to assess whether these persons retain immunity against the COVID-19 virus.

Mr Speaker, may I address Question Nos 1 through 9 on the Order Paper, please?

Yes, please.

Sir, we would like to thank everyone for their support of our vaccination programme. We will continue our efforts to encourage the take-up of the vaccine. Vaccination is free for all Singaporeans and long-term residents. We have expanded the number of vaccination centres to 31 today and there will be a total of 40 vaccination centres islandwide by mid-April, so that individuals can be conveniently vaccinated near their home or place of work.

Our supply of vaccines remains limited by the ability of vaccine manufacturers to deliver, given the high levels of global demand. This has resulted in limited booking slots in recent days. I apologise for the inconvenience caused to those who have not been able to book earlier. As more supplies arrive, we will progressively open more slots.

We have had to prioritise our vaccinations, starting with our healthcare workers, vulnerable elderly and those involved in COVID-19 operations. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination had also recommended that we prioritise those personnel whose job roles are of critical importance to the functioning of Singapore and are at higher risk of exposure to and onward transmission of COVID-19. This is critical to ensure that key sectors would be able to continue functioning effectively even during a local outbreak, and further reduce risks to our vulnerable populations and the community at large. Such personnel include those involved in safeguarding our borders and maintaining law and order, those involved in the provision of utilities such as water, energy and telecommunications services, workers who ensure the supply of essential food items, and land transport workers involved in ensuring that our transport services are kept running.

Religious workers might also face potential risks as they may engage in regular and non-transient contact with worshipers and devotees, including the elderly and vulnerable. Older religious workers, aged 45 and above, are already eligible for vaccination. Religious workers are also required to comply with safe management measures in the conduct of religious services and in other engagements with worshippers or devotees.

We continue to make steady progress with our vaccination programme. As of 3 April 2021, around 1.52 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered. Around 1.05 million individuals have received at least one dose of the vaccine, of which more than 468,000 individuals have received their second dose and completed the full vaccination regimen.

To date, about 60% of eligible seniors aged 70 and above, and close to 70% of eligible seniors aged 60 to 69 have received the COVID-19 vaccination or booked their vaccination appointments.

We have recently invited citizens and residents aged 45 to 59 to begin to register for their vaccinations and close to 500,000, or about half, had done so. We are encouraged by the strong response. Those who have registered will progressively receive invitations through SMS to make appointments for their vaccination. This may take some time given the number of people who have registered. To date, about 17% of eligible individuals have received the vaccination or booked their appointments and we expect the rest should receive the SMS by the middle of May and they can expect a booking slot by early June.

We thank everybody for their patience.

People under the age of 45 have also been patiently waiting for their turn. Based on current schedule, we plan to begin inviting them in June to book their slots. If all goes well, we will complete the vaccination programme as scheduled by the end of the year.

Some members of the public may wish to receive their vaccination early for a variety of reasons. Since 16 March, we have opened up an appeals channel for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who need to travel overseas on compassionate grounds, for employment or study purposes. Applicants will need to meet certain criteria. These are listed on www.vaccine.gov.sg/appeal. They will need to submit sufficient documentation to support their appeal. We will prioritise appeals with earlier travel dates if they are able to complete the two-dose regimen prior to departure.

Close to 98% of those who booked appointments for COVID-19 vaccinations in the last 30 days have showed up for their appointments. We estimate that about 1% of those who turned up were rejected because of concerns about allergies and contra-indications. We encourage everyone to be vaccinated when your turn comes and to turn up at the vaccination appointments that you have made so that you do not deny another person the opportunity.

However, such cases do not result in vaccine wastage. We closely monitor the appointment bookings and historical take-up rate, and deliver the appropriate number of vaccine doses to the vaccination sites. Unopened vials can be stored at the vaccination sites for at least three days. Vaccination site providers will start a new vial only when they have checked that there are individuals awaiting vaccination, to avoid vaccine wastage. At the end of the day, to utilise any balance remaining in a multi-dose vial and further minimise wastage, there are pre-planned lists of individuals who will be invited to be vaccinated. These could be staff who are working at the vaccination sites or frontline volunteers who have an active role in engaging seniors on vaccinations.

As with other established vaccines, people who receive the COVID-19 vaccine may experience common side effects, such as pain at the injection site and fatigue. Should the side effects persist or get worse after a few days, they should see a doctor and seek medical attention.

In very rare cases, the COVID-19 vaccine can cause a severe allergic reaction, such as difficulty breathing, swelling of face, throat, eyes or lips, a fast heartbeat, dizziness and weakness or a bad rash all over the body. In the event of a severe allergic reaction, please call 995 or visit the nearest hospital immediately.

Members of the public can also visit www.vaccine.gov.sg or the MOH website to further understand the post-vaccination symptoms.

MOH will be conducting further studies to monitor and review the extent and duration of immunity provided by the COVID-19 vaccines. This includes collecting selected post-vaccination samples from groups such as healthcare workers, frontline staff and seniors, to monitor the persistence of antibodies up to 24 months. Currently, in line with international practices, there are no plans to test the serology of everyone who is vaccinated in Singapore. We will share more details about the studies once they are completed.

Vaccination is a key enabler to reduce the risk of community transmission and allow more economic and community activities to resume. As more vaccine stocks arrive, we will continue to expand our vaccination programme to more segments of the population, so that all Singaporeans and long-term residents in Singapore will have the chance to be vaccinated by end-2021.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for Health two supplementary questions. The first is, the Senior Minister of State did explain about the measures taken to minimise wastage but I would nevertheless like to ask whether a standby system can be arranged to allow those who are not yet eligible for vaccination but willing to wait on standby basis at vaccination centres, to take the place of those who did not turn up, assuming the frontline people and volunteers have already had their turn. So, whether a standby system can be arranged for those who are willing, as it will take to the end of the year for the rest of the population to get their jab.

The second question relates to prioritising vaccination candidates. Would mosque staff and volunteers involved in additional night prayers during the holy month of Ramadan be considered to be at increased risk of infection, given that they are expected to serve at least 250 congregants a day?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the suggestion for a standby system. We will continue to study how best to deal with the challenges of prioritising those most at risk, those who have some urgent need and having some equitable distribution across our population, even as we try to cover as many people as possible before the end of the year. But we will study her suggestion.

The point she makes about the prioritisation for workers in certain religious settings highlights the need for continued safe management measures and vigilance from everybody involved. But if there are specific individuals who might have particularly high risks, we will look at their situation and try our best to accommodate.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, I have two sets of clarification for the Senior Minister of State. First of all, could he confirm that there has actually been a change in the advice given to certain groups of people who initially were considered to be ineligible or asked to defer their vaccinations. By that, I mean in the initial stages of the online screening, people were asked whether they had allergies and whether they suffered from certain conditions, but I think there is now new advice given that these people who were originally considered not eligible, actually can take the vaccination. So, I would like him to confirm that there has been an update or a change in those instructions.

And in that light, first, has the online screening been modified so that we do not exclude people who can actually take the vaccination; and secondly, are we catching up on those who were deemed to have failed the online screening initially but now with further scientific evidence they are actually eligible to take the vaccination? How are we catching up with those people?

Ms Lim is correct; indeed, the advice has shifted. It is severe anaphylactic reactions that we are most concerned about. And as an increasing number of people has been vaccinated, we have confidence over the situations in which someone previously thought to be ineligible might now go forward and have the vaccine. Indeed, the online systems and our various guidance to people manning counters and hotlines has changed.

The way in which we are catching up is that the citizens involved remain as part of our patients, the patients of the healthcare providers, the vaccine system will continue to track this process. Most people are able to go forward and complete the vaccination. If there are individuals who have been deemed ineligible, I would reinforce that this is about deferring the appointment and the consultation to a time where they might subsequently become eligible. We will continue to pay close attention to this segment of the population.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his answer to my Parliamentary Question. I understand that he mentioned that the Government does not intend to measure the antibody levels of persons as it stands now. May I please ask the reasons for this, given that, at least amongst some quarters, the understanding is that the effectiveness of the vaccination may peter out after several months? Also, would there not be a need to guard against variants and, in particular, the effect of this vaccination against variants?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. As I have mentioned, we are studying the matter of antibody levels. I think before we make a decision about how we would look at what is happening in the population, let us, first, do those studies.

For most vaccinations previously, that has not been the approach to go with a population-wide antibody assay. It is also logistically very difficult and would place a burden on our population. So, we need to be sure that it is useful and necessary before we would do such a thing.

However, with the issue of variants, assaying a set of antibodies to a prior vaccination is not going to be necessarily useful to inform the clinical risk for a new variant that perhaps was not there when the vaccination was delivered.

So, I think there are two separate issues – the issue of virus variants is being closely studied by our experts as well as international experts; and the matter of if, when and whether we should be doing serology and antibody testing is also being studied. So, let us complete those studies before we make any decision on that basis.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two quick questions for the Senior Minister of State. Given the diversity of vaccines that will eventually be deployed, I am wondering if there has been any effort by the Government in persuading take-up based on specific types of vaccines. I am thinking, in particular, certain of my elderly residents may have a preference, for instance, for the Sinovac versus mRNA vaccines.

Related to this, the second question is whether the Ministry will actually have a threshold target for coverage associated with herd immunity and, if so, what would the next phase of relaxation of control measures look like were we to attain that threshold.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. The take-up rate is healthy across the vaccines that have been licensed and are being used in our various centres. But Sinovac has not been licensed yet. So, it is a bit premature to talk about that at this point in time.

The target is for as many of our eligible residents as possible to be vaccinated. Herd immunity, indeed, is useful. But you can also imagine that we would perhaps want to make sure that individuals who want to travel overseas would also continue to be protected and that requires them to be vaccinated because, once they are overseas, they will not benefit from herd immunity here in Singapore. So, let us get that number as high as possible and we hope to be able to offer the vaccinations to all eligible Singaporeans along with residents by the end of 2021.

It is a little bit premature to be then talking about the relaxation measures for the next phase when we have not reached it.

Mr Abdul Samad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the earlier explanation. I just want to check for the essential services workers. It was after I had submitted my Parliamentary Question that the announcement came for those who want to be vaccinated under a certain age group. But for workers in the essential services group, how do we then ensure that they are all vaccinated for the second dose in the appropriate time? The risk is because we tend to mix with migrant workers a lot and we also do a lot of engagements.

Earlier, as far as I am concerned, the first group of essential workers are those who were working during the circuit breaker period. After that, all are not being given priority to go for their vaccination. Hopefully, MOH can review this.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his concern. We are, indeed, tracking the completion of vaccinations among the essential workers closely and we do so through the employers as well as some of the regulatory bodies for the relevant domain. We could not wait to complete every single essential worker before we then started with the elderly, the vulnerable or other at-risk groups.

So, we have a parallel processing, if you like, that essential workers continue to be vaccinated although most of them have largely been done so, together with the roll-out to the elderly. And, just as now, not all the elderly are vaccinated, we have started with the next group and we will, in parallel, open up to more and more segments of our population as our vaccine supplies come in. But we will continue to pay close attention to make sure that those who are vulnerable or who are at high risk or who perform these essential functions will get priority.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, I have quite a large number of residents who wanted to travel for various reasons and who have made various appeals. Some of them may be for studies and some of them may be for other purposes, like looking after nephews, to attend weddings. For some reason, MOH has applied quite strict criteria to those who have made the appeals. I am asking MOH whether they will consider being more flexible about allowing people to get their vaccination earlier before they travel overseas, as contrasted to extending the vaccination programme to residents of a different age when they can be actually quite neutral about taking their vaccination earlier or later. So, we have one group who wants it earlier versus another group who are actually very neutral about whether they get their vaccination earlier. So, could MOH be a bit more flexible to allow those who want to get their vaccination earlier to get it earlier?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. The issue is the limit of our vaccine supplies. Even though there may be some people who are a little bit agnostic about exactly when they get it and are willing to defer, the reality is that we are vaccinating people as quickly as possible, given the supplies that come in.

So, if we were to prioritise one group, it will be at the expense of another who currently wish to be vaccinated. The slots are booked and the capacity is being used up and the vaccines are being used up. So, we recognise that there are people who wish to be prioritised. We do have an appeals channel. We will try our best. There are criteria and it is very helpful that documentation is submitted to support those criteria and we will work our way through these appeals to try to help as many people to be vaccinated as soon as possible. But, ultimately, the limit is not our wish to force people who are perhaps a little bit hesitant at this point – we do encourage everybody to do it – the limit is actually the rate at which the supplies are coming in.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question. A few elderly residents told me they felt pain in their legs and their knees the day after vaccination. One even showed me a rash at the vaccination area. So, they worry and they wonder if it was caused by the vaccination or would it go away or they needed to seek treatment. So, I would like to propose if MOH would consider having a hotline manned by a multilingual team who can speak the mother tongue and dialects. It would be helpful to assure them.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. There are two points which are slightly separate. One is the importance of making sure that we make our materials, transactions and interactions available in multiple languages. Indeed, we will pay quite a lot of attention to this, especially on the ground at the service counters at the vaccination centres.

The separate issue is residents who then experienced symptoms after having had a vaccination. What the Member is describing is a situation where one has clinical symptoms a day after vaccination and was worried about whether these are problems where you need medical help. I would suggest that perhaps a MOH hotline manned by our non-clinical staff may not be the best first port of call for residents in such a situation. If they have clinical symptoms, if they have persistent pain, persistent fever, rash and, especially things like difficulty breathing, what they need is to seek clinical help and they should do so from the relevant hospital, polyclinic and clinical care providers that are close to them.

Ms Joan Pereira, next question.

10 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will provide cards or letters to Singaporeans who, for medical reasons, are unable to receive their COVID-19 vaccinations, for them to show merchants and their staff who may disallow those without vaccination from entering their stores in future.

11 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health whether a digital vaccine passport system will be used to enable local residents who have been vaccinated to return to pre-COVID-19 activities and be exempted from quarantine upon return from overseas.

12 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health whether the approval of certain less commonly recognised COVID-19 vaccines for use in Singapore may compromise the value of our COVID-19 vaccine certification passport for travel to countries that do not recognise these vaccines.

13 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health whether he can elaborate on the COVID-19 vaccination passport plan, especially on how business, compassionate and leisure travels may be allowed under such a plan.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 10 to 13 together, please?

Yes, please.

Sir, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) will only approve COVID-19 vaccines that have met our high safety, quality and efficacy standards for use here in Singapore. The effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which are currently the only COVID-19 vaccines allowed for use in Singapore, are widely recognised internationally.

MOH will be releasing further information on how individuals can show their valid vaccination status when ready. We will make it easy and convenient to prove one’s vaccination status, including for persons without smart phones. The measures required for the unvaccinated are generally based on public health considerations to prevent infection and, so, would not distinguish between those who choose not to be vaccinated and those who were not medically eligible. Other vaccines may be available in the future for those who are not currently medically eligible. We will continue to evaluate scientific data and review the eligibility criteria accordingly.

Data on the duration of the vaccine’s protection and its effectiveness in preventing transmission, has been encouraging thus far. More data is needed to assess if changes to border measures, such as testing and Stay-Home Notice (SHN) requirements, can be made for vaccinated individuals. More information is also needed to assess if such measures will be affected by the different types of vaccines. We are actively discussing with international counterparts on the possible mutual recognition of vaccination certificates. However, most countries have only just started vaccinations. Border measures will also take into account other factors, such as the number of COVID-19 cases and the infection control measures implemented in the source countries. Hence, progress on cross-border recognition of vaccine certification may take some time. We will provide further updates when there is significant progress.

The COVID-19 vaccination programme remains voluntary. MOH encourages everyone who is medically eligible to get vaccinated.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State one supplementary question. The federal authorities in the US have updated travel guidelines for fully vaccinated people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have declared that vaccinated travellers do not need a COVID-19 test unless required by the destination country and do not need to be quarantined upon returning to the US but should only be tested before boarding their return flight.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if our Health Sciences Authority has reviewed the scientific basis for the US CDC's recommendations and whether Singapore may issue similar guidelines.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Indeed, it is so and that is why, in the previous announcements, there were accommodations made for individuals who have completed the full vaccination regimen, such as from 24 April 2021, if you have had more than two weeks after your second dose, one can gain entry into events that require pre-event testing without the need to undergo pre-event testing.

Similarly, the same set of information has allowed us to make changes to the rostered routine testing for some personnel. So, the short answer to the Member's question is yes.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his responses. I am just wondering, very quickly, does the vaccine passport recognition influence our decision to approve specific types of vaccines? So, the concern, of course, is that, if we are approving vaccines with much lower efficacy rates, that will affect the overall recognition of our vaccine passports when they are to be issued.

And related to that, would the acceleration of the vaccine passport recognition be possible for countries that are deploying comparable vaccines to us?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The answer is no. The factors taken into account for approving the vaccine are the vaccine's quality, its safety and its efficacy.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing about the progress and discussing the vaccine COVID-19 passports with various countries. While we need to wait for this to develop because the vaccination programmes are still happening in many countries, can I check how many countries are we actively in discussion with? Are they mostly unique system of bilateral recognition? And are we expecting a significant public budget to have to be invested, when countries open up more for such a recognition system to happen for air travel?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. It would be premature to discuss the details of this at this point in time. As I have explained in my initial answer, the process is very early. Many countries have not really gotten significant proportion of their population vaccinated. And in truth, we are only getting going recently, and so, it is something that we will update as and when we have further information in the future.

14 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide more details on the digital vaccine passport system between Singapore and Australia and travel bubble arrangements with countries that have the COVID-19 pandemic under control.

Mr Speaker, the question is also on vaccination passport, now posed to the Ministry of Transport (MOT). But let me reiterate some of the points that Senior Minister of State Janil has made.

We are exploring with several countries and regions, including Australia, on the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates. The certificates can be physical or digital, and we will need them to be secure, tamper-proof and verifiable.

However, vaccinations are only one aspect of pandemic control. Social distancing, contact tracing, quarantine and testing are also very important aspects which countries and regions have used to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus even as vaccines become available.

Singapore will continue – together with the Ministry of Health (MOH), MOT and other agencies – to holistically evaluate the COVID-19 situation in various countries and regions, and explore the possibility of restoring air travel when it is safe to do so. And we have been proactively doing so, given the importance of our global connections.

Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, how would the recent announcement by the Hong Kong government to bar Singapore Airlines (SIA) from flying to Hong Kong for two weeks, affect the negotiation or the preparation of the travel bubble between Hong Kong and Singapore. And two, will the Minister reveal which are the countries we are negotiating with and preparing for travel bubble over the next few months?

Mr Speaker, in short, the recent suspension of SIA flights to Hong Kong does not affect the talks to establish or restore the air traffic bubble that did not get to start. The reason is this. Hong Kong's civil aviation authorities set in place very transparent criteria for airlines. Once they breach the criteria, they get suspended for 14 days. So, they have suspended 23 times before this latest incident, involving SIA. The suspension came about because of technical reasons. One of the criteria was breached, which is that SIA had a transit passenger, not from Singapore, tested negative at pre-departure, but tested positive at post-arrival. So, maybe an old case with intermittent shedding.

And at the same time, I believe there were a few passengers who tested negative but carrying certificates from labs that are not ISO-certified. The Hong Kong civil aviation authorities enforce the criteria very strictly. So, it triggered the suspension.

Any travel bubble will not carry transit passengers. The travel bubble operates on the basis that the flights travelling within the bubble carries only what we call Origin Destination passengers. So, transit passengers are outside of the bubble. We continue to want to work with Hong Kong to restore this travel bubble.

As for how many countries we are speaking to, there are many. But let me explain. I actually do not quite like the term "vaccination passports". It gives you the impression like we carry a passport and we can go anywhere. It does not work like that. I think what happens is every healthcare authority, after vaccination, issues a vaccination certificate that has to be verifiable, tamper-proof. And then, we talk to other regions and authorities to mutually recognise our certificates.

That is the part where we are talking to many partners because it is good to mutually recognise our certificates. In Singapore, we have a very strong certification system run by MOH – verifiable, notarised.

And after you mutually recognise the certificates, then you ask yourself, "So what?" Are you therefore – which is a question that Ms Foo Mee Har asked – subject to shorter quarantine, fewer tests? These are things that we have to discuss. I think the first criterion in such discussions would be, how safe is this region? If a place is safe, such as Brunei, New Zealand, Australia, even before there were vaccines, we already opened our borders to them. So, that is the first and foremost criterion. Is the place safe? And if it is moderately safe, then we can consider relaxing restrictions for vaccinated travellers.

From time to time, you will see public statements being made, but actually behind the scenes, a lot of work is going on. When there are significant progress and significant things to announce, we will do so and inform the public.

15 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) with regard to the case of an Indian composer plagiarising the song titled "Count on Me Singapore", what actions has the Ministry taken to protect Singapore's copyright; and (b) what is the policy stance of the Government towards individuals who infringe on Singapore's national symbols and songs, whether for commercial gain or otherwise.

16 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry regularly checks the media and the Internet for possible infringements of our national symbols; (b) how many cases of copyright infringement have been uncovered to date and how were they dealt with; and (c) whether there are any plans to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights for our national symbols.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 15 and 16 together?

Yes, please.

Sir, our principal consideration, when addressing questions as to the use of copyright in our national songs and symbols, is to ensure that we protect our ownership and interest in our national songs and symbols, as well as to promote the dignified use and respectful use of them.

To address Mr Leong Mun Wai's question about the actions the Ministry has taken to protect Singapore's copyright in the case of a composer plagiarising the song "Count on Me Singapore", let me set out the details of this incident.

We first received feedback that the song, "We Can Achieve", was featured in several videos, some of which were of school children, apparently from India, singing the song. This song was almost identical to "Count on Me, Singapore", save for minor differences, such as replacing the word "Singapore" with "India", and a line in the song which goes, "we are told no dreams to hold that we can strive for".

In the videos, the students appeared to be expressing their love for their country and the song was not disrespectfully treated. The publisher of the song "We Can Achieve" subsequently came forward to acknowledge that the song seemed to be substantially copied from "Count on Me, Singapore" and apologised for it, as well as removed it from their platforms.

We did not believe that there was any ill will or malice intended and hence accepted this apology.

Shortly after, one Mr Joey Mendoza, then alleged that he, in fact, was the one who wrote the song, "We Can Achieve" in 1983. This was an untenable assertion, given that this song, as I mentioned earlier, was practically identical to "Count on Me, Singapore". If his claim was right, it would be a direct affront to our own ownership and interest in the national song "Count on Me, Singapore".

We thus pressed Mr Mendoza to substantiate his claims. If he could not, then he should withdraw them. We were prepared to initiate legal proceedings, if necessary, to protect our position.

At the same time, we also undertook extensive fact-checking in Singapore and in India, to refute Mr Mendoza's claims. We obtained confirmation of contemporaneous and documentary evidence of the writing of the song, "Count on Me, Singapore". Mr Jeremy Monteiro, a respected musician and Cultural Medallion recipient, was witness to the events at the material time, contemporaneously. Members might have read his account in the news of how he worked alongside Mr Hugh Harrison when Mr Harrison composed the song in 1986.

In response to our requests for proof of his claims and to substantiate his position, Mr Mendoza then changed his position. He subsequently withdrew his claims. He admitted that he had no evidence to support his claims and confirmed the following in writing:

that he unconditionally and irrevocably withdraws all claims to the lyrics and music of the song, "We Can Achieve" which he recognises is similar to "Count on Me, Singapore";

that he had informed all his associates and networks of the above and also instructed all social media platforms to pull down the song "We can Achieve" with immediate effect; and

that he had no intention of attacking the integrity or professionalism of Mr Harrison, the original composer of "Count on Me, Singapore".

Mr Mendoza's admission leaves no doubt that "Count on Me, Singapore" was written by Mr Harrison and that the rights and ownership in the national song remain with us. Mr Mendoza also wrote to us to confirm that the song "We Can Achieve" has been taken down from known networks and platforms. We have thus let the matter rest on this basis.

Sir, our national songs hold a special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) takes any challenge to our proprietary rights and interests in our national songs and symbols very seriously, and we will take the necessary steps to protect them. The current legal position for our national songs and symbols includes the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem legislation (SAFNA), as well as the Copyright Act. The legislation around the use of the national symbols and the Government's stance on copyright of the national songs are intended to prevent misuse that might diminish or denigrate the standing of such symbols and songs.

At the same time, we should not take umbrage at every such use, and resort to legal remedies each time. A careful judgement is made in each case, as to whether and if so what, action is to be taken, along the considerations which I have outlined above.

To Mr Gerald Giam's question on whether the Government regularly checks for possible infringements of our symbols, the Ministry monitors reports on the use of the national songs and symbols by the media, does online sensing and also takes public feedback. Our symbols have generally been treated with respect and dignity. There have been rare cases of flag-burning, which usually involved other forms of misconduct, and were dealt with swiftly under the appropriate regulations in the Penal Code.

Mr Giam may be aware that MCCY first announced in September 2020 that it had initiated a review of the rules governing the national symbols. We are also looking into whether there is a need to enhance IP protection for our symbols. Honouring and respecting our symbols, however, is not something that is achieved only by legal regimes or protecting copyright. We must also cultivate and sustain a strong connection and respect that Singaporeans feel for symbols and songs. All of us have a part to play in upholding our symbols and passing them down to future generations. And to that end, MCCY has convened a citizens' workgroup on our national symbols to seek the public's feedback and views on this review, because these symbols indeed, belong to all of us.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Singaporeans who have invested their time and energy to participate in the workgroup as well as those who have responded to our survey on our national symbols.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. Our national songs were written by various composers, both local and foreign, some of whom were working for advertising agencies contracted by the Government. Can I confirm that the Government holds the exclusive copyright to the music and lyrics for all our national songs, such that none of these composers or advertising agencies can claim ownership whether now or in the future?

Secondly, if the Government holds this exclusive copyright, do groups and individuals need to seek permission from the Government to perform the copyrighted work publicly, whether in Singapore or overseas?

The answer to Mr Giam's second question is yes, permission needs to be sought and the legal ambit and regulations that govern this will be set out in the Copyright Act, as with any other ownership of copyright.

As for Mr Giam's first question, most of the songs which were written by third parties, the copyright is with the Government. There are some other arrangements where the copyright in the composer and lyricist might be different. But in all situations, where it is either owned by the Government or managed by the Government, to that extent, permission would be sought before any third party uses or performs these songs on any other platform.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have two questions. One is when MCCY put up the first statement on "Imitation is the best form of flattery", was it before Mr Mendoza came out to claim his rights?

Second question is, since Mr Mendoza had come up originally to claim his rights, after we had done our check on our rights, why did we not actually press the issue further and asked him to admit plagiarism, rather than just letting him go like that? Because in Singapore, we are aspiring to be the global original arbitration centre. Dealing with such infringement of IP rights lightly, will affect our aspirations to be that. Can the Minister clarify, please?

On Mr Leong's first question, the original post by MCCY was before Mr Mendoza surfaced his claims. As I explained earlier, the first video or the first series of videos were of school children in a respectful setting, using the song albeit without permission. And it was in that context that the first message that Mr Leong refers to was put up.

Subsequently, when Mr Mendoza asserted his claim, as I explained in my answer earlier, Mr Mendoza's assertion was a direct challenge to our own ownership and proprietary interest in the song, then things took a different turn and we pressed Mr Mendoza to withdraw his claims, which brings me to my second point.

As I explained earlier, Mr Mendoza did in fact admit that he has no ownership interest; he has got no evidence to substantiate his position that he lays any claim to the song. He withdraws his position he previously took on "We Can Achieve".

So, to Mr Leong's point about assertion of interest in our copyright, assertion of our position and our ownership of such copyright, that was what we did precisely with Mr Mendoza.

Mr Leong should not also confuse asserting our rights with necessarily taking legal action, legal proceedings. They are not necessarily the same thing. And in this case, it was far more efficient, quicker and a lot more effective for Mr Mendoza to be persuaded that his own position was untenable, for his claims to be withdrawn by himself and not in any way removing the Singapore Government's claim and, in fact, for all Singaporeans' interest in the songs to be preserved.

That, I believe in this context, was a far more efficient outcome that was achieved in a matter of several days, as opposed to being caught up in protracted legal action, which could potentially take a fairly long period of time.

17 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government’s published cash surpluses indicate that the Government has more fiscal space than it states in its Budget Statements; and (b) whether this reduces the need for the planned increase in GST rate.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question as it highlights an area which some have misunderstood, leading to incorrect conclusions about our fiscal position and the need to raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Let me explain why.

There is a distinction between (a) cash receipts and (b) revenue that is available for spending.

Cash receipts reflect all the cash that comes in. Every year, the Department of Statistics (DOS) reports our cash receipts and indicates whether we have a cash surplus or cash deficit. But not all our cash receipts constitute revenue available for spending.

The largest difference between our cash receipts and revenue comes from the sale of state land. Such proceeds from land sales do not generate fresh revenue. They are simply a transformation of one asset to another – when land is sold, the asset is converted to cash. State land that are not due for immediate development are typically leased out for interim use. This yields revenue for the Government too, in the form of rental income.

So, selling land does not increase the Government’s revenue, and if we were to spend all the proceeds from land, it would deplete our store of wealth.

Think of a family that has a house. So long as the family owns the house, it can rent out some of the empty rooms to generate income. But if the family sells the house and uses the proceeds for day-to-day expenditure, it will soon have nothing left. However, if it invests the proceeds of sale wisely, it will still have the original sale proceeds, plus a constant stream of income from those proceeds. This income can then be used partially for expenditure and partially re-invested to help sustain both present and future members of the family.

Likewise, for Government budgeting, land sales proceeds are not considered part of our revenue and cannot be directly used for expenditure. Instead, they are invested and part of the investment income is used to support the spending needs of Singaporeans via the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC).

The NIRC is now the largest single source of Government revenue, supporting about one-fifth of our spending needs. This is only possible because of the prudent and disciplined approach we have taken to building and protecting both our land and financial reserves.

In a recent social media post, the Workers' Party claimed that there is no need to raise GST because of the cash surplus. As I have explained, this claim is inaccurate and misleading. The bulk of our cash surpluses arise from land sales proceeds. Such cash proceeds do not create additional revenues for the Government and are therefore not a valid reason for holding off the GST increase.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, I thank the Minister for her clarifications. Just one further related question. Under the Constitution, the Government is required to balance the Budget over the term of government. And so, I wanted to ask the Minister whether this requirement, does it lead to the Government typically being more conservative in the Budget during the early parts of the term, and then, distribute and spend a bit more in the later part of the term? Do we have that phenomenon because of that Constitution requirements?

Secondly, what is the Government's policy or the policy approach or principles in the way we distribute our accumulated surplus, accumulated during the term of government?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The Government seeks to run a balanced Budget over the term of government by spending prudently within the limits of its annual revenues and any accumulated surpluses. The Government has generally adhered to this in line with the Constitutional requirement. In general, this means that we avoid running deficits early in the term of government. This is not only to avoid a draw on past reserves, which should be reserved for exceptional situations, it also helps the Government to preserve fiscal headroom to deal with unexpected spending needs during its term of government.

However, in the event of a major crisis, the Government is prepared to run a deficit and seek a draw on past reserves regardless of which part of the term it happens to be in. And that is exactly what we have done this year because we have been facing one of the biggest crises of all. This year, the first full financial year of this term of government, we sought and obtained the President's approval to draw up to $11 billion for the continued fight against COVID-19.

If and when we have unexpected surpluses, we have used them in three ways. First, we share some of the surpluses with Singaporeans. In financial year (FY) 2018, we distributed up to $300 per Singaporean through the SG Bonus following an exceptional surplus in FY2017 due to unexpected market movements that resulted in higher Statutory Board contributions from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Second, we save for anticipated future needs such as the Railway Infrastructure Fund and the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund.

Last, any unutilised fiscal space becomes part of past reserves, which is invested and supports future spending needs via the NIRC.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank Member Mr Liang for raising this question that we discussed during the Budget and, of course, the Minister for the elaboration.

A number of clarifications from me. Firstly, in the Parliamentary Question, it was asked about the fiscal space, and I recall in 2018, when the idea of the GST hike was first raised, if you look at the IMF Article IV report that was published at that point in time, and "looking at these taxes would reduce private income and consumption, especially of low-income households. A GST hike alone could lead to a lower path for GDP and private consumption, and limited external adjustment, relative to using more of the available fiscal space".

And, I think, again in 2019, the IMF also said that, "Singapore has tended to overperform with respect to its fiscal rule of a balanced Budget over the political cycle, contributing to a large build-up of net assets suggesting that Singapore has substantial fiscal space."

Mr Speaker, if we look at the situation in 2018 versus today, where we have COVID-19 in terms of what is impacting the cost of living, the question that I have is, is raising a regressive tax such as the GST really the best option for us in terms of raising revenues? Could there be other options that could be explored, for example, looking at the NIRC framework again?

And this also brings me to the second clarification, which I also raised during the debate earlier in February, in that if you look at our reserves position today, we are looking at having drawn down about 20 years' worth of surpluses – some Members have said that it is about 10 years. Where do our reserve stand today versus, say, last 10 years or five years? That would help us to adequately frame the context of this GST rise as well.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. He opened by saying that we had discussed this topic during the Budget. Actually, we had not.

During the Budget, the Workers' Party, touched peripherally on the Budget. I believe Mr Louis Chua mentioned land sales. But what the Workers' Party did not say during the Budget debate, was what they had said in their social media post.

In their social media post, what they had actually said was that: "the Government says that the Government expects a deficit of $11 billion" and they said the deficit should only be $3.5 billion. So, effectively, in their social media post, what they are really saying is that the Government is not setting out the correct fiscal position.

The Government has set out the correct fiscal position. We do expect in this year, a deficit of $11 billion and we have explained why. So, essentially, in the social media post, what the Workers' Party had done was to point just to cash surpluses. And as I explained earlier, you cannot look just at cash surpluses to understand the fiscal position. You also need to look whether or not all of that constitutes revenue under our budgeting rules. And as for the reasons that I explained earlier, it does not. So, that was the first point that I wanted to respond to the Member Mr Louis Chua.

Then, the second point that he raised I think – well, he went through quite a lot of things but I think that the question that he ultimately came back to was, is the raising of GST the best option? I think after going through what the IMF said and so on, that was the question, and is it time to look at the NIRC formula again?

This has been explained in some detail by the Deputy Prime Minister during the Budget. In fact, this question should have been brought up during the Budget because then it would have given the Government the opportunity to explain the position.

But in summary, we all know, we are so badly constrained, because of COVID-19, we already have to go into actual reserves, we have to dip into actual reserves. It is no longer just a question of taking from income on the reserves. We are squeezed on the corporate tax front. Because of the economic situation, you can have a scenario where even your personal income tax is going to be affected. So, GST is one of the options that we have, but because we know that GST does have an impact on the lower income and the vulnerable, we take steps to deal with that.

So, as the Deputy Prime Minister explained earlier, actually 60% of our GST revenue comes from tourists and from the higher income. But we do know that middle income and lower income are affected, which is why we set aside the $6 billion Assurance Package, which will effectively buffer the majority of Singaporeans for five years against the increase and the lower income for 10 years.

And with respect to the last question, I think, whether when we look at our reserve position – we have already explained all of that in the Budget statement and Round-up speeches; it is not necessary for me to go into that. But essentially, our formula for spending of the returns is a fair one – 50% of returns. It is no magic to this formula but it is a fair formula: 50% for today's generation and another 50% for tomorrow's generation.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Minister for the elaboration. The first point is that, during my speech, I did set out, in terms of the revenues and expenditures as well as how I arrived at some of these numbers.

But I think the question is also about whether or not, looking at this NRIC framework, that is something that we can revisit again. I agree with Minister that, because of COVID-19, this has actually impacted a lot of Singaporeans, a lot of corporates. And all the more, I think a regressive tax such as GST, should be something that we should reconsider. Because while the Assurance Package could offset the impact of the increase of 2% for a number of years, I think this is going to stick with them basically for the rest of their lives.

And if you look at, I recall Minister Lawrence Wong mentioning in 2018 that, we should never say never. So, if you look at the past amendments to the Constitution that we have done: in 1991, this was when the reserve protection framework was introduced; in 2001, we had the Net Investment Income framework; in 2008, NIR framework; and in 2015, Temasek Holdings was included the NIR framework as well.

So, given the impact of COVID-19 and all on the livelihoods of Singaporeans, the man on the street, could we not look at the NIRC framework again, as perhaps another measure, given where our reserves have been.

Mr Speaker, again, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. In essence, what the Member is saying is this: he is saying that you have the NIRC framework, can we not re-look it? We all know that things are not set in stone always, but we also know that when it comes to a matter of public policy and when you have frameworks, especially frameworks for expenditure, you cannot just chop and change every other year.

So, it would make instructive reading for Members and anybody who is interested in this, to actually go back to the time when we did set up the framework. This was dealt with in the speech by the Prime Minister when we did the amendments and it is a very instructive speech. Let me just read some parts of it.

He said, "Parliament is considering an important Constitutional amendment to our reserves framework. The immediate issue before us is just a formula change. How much income can the Government draw from the past reserves? We are changing the formula. The new formula will allow us to spend somewhat more. But the deeper significance of this amendment is to establish a more sustainable and equitable basis for spending out of the investment returns. Sustainable and equitable, so that we have resources which can benefit both the present generation and future generations. While we spend for our needs, we also put aside a solid buffer for contingencies, for the proverbial rainy day. That is the deeper meaning. But the most fundamental significance of this amendment is that it reaffirms the importance of protecting our reserves...".

In that speech, the Prime Minister takes us through the history of how originally it was just protecting the principal amount; then after that, we had the NII framework and we spent a 100% of that. Then, we went to 50%. The last amendment really encapsulated the formula that we want to use, the principle, which is that, on the returns, we use 50% for now, 50% for later.

So, I cannot say whether 50 or 100 years from now, we change that. But we should not do is just every year or every two years, when something looks like the the scenario will need a bit more expenditure, we just change the framework so easily. The framework took a long time to come to and was very carefully considered and thought through, tried and tested, many steps. And once we have a framework in place, you should not easily change it. But, and this is the real point, which I have mentioned, we know that there is an impact on lower income and middle income, which is why we have taken the steps that I mentioned earlier.

The Member talks about how the buffer or the Assurance Package will last for five years and 10 years, but the impact will be longer than that. Do not forget we have also said that we will enhance the permanent GST Voucher Scheme when the GST rate is raised. This will provide a permanent cushion for lower and middle income households, even after the temporary support ends. And also, over five and 10 years, there is time for incomes to rise.

So, it has been thought through very carefully, understanding that there is an impact on middle income and lower income, but we have taken the steps to ameliorate that, to buffer that, to make sure that they are okay.

But this still brings me back to the point I started off with, which is that it is not correct to suggest that because, we have a certain amount of cash surpluses that we therefore, that our fiscal position is better than we have stated or that we do not need to raise GST.

18 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) since their announcement in 2016; (b) whether the objectives set out for each of the clusters/industries have been achieved; and (c) whether the Government is planning for ITM 2.0 and, if so, when will it be rolled out given the current economic downturn and disruption.

19 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the progress of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs); (b) whether the Ministry plans to make changes to the ITMs in view of the impact of COVID-19 on the economy; (c) whether the impact of workplace transformation has been considered in each of the 23 ITMs; and (d) whether the ITMs can specifically address the upskilling, re-training and hiring of mature workers, workers with disabilities and other vulnerable groups of workers for an inclusive transformation of the industries.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 18 and 19 together?

Yes, please.

We have seen encouraging progress since embarking on our Industry Transformation Map (ITM) journey in 2016. Singapore's overall labour productivity, as measured by real value-added per actual hours worked, rose by 2.7% per annum from 2016 to 2019, up from 2.2% in the preceding three years. Real median income from work of full-time Singaporeans, including employer CPF contributions, rose by 3.7% per annum from 2016 to 2019, higher than the 3.2% per annum growth in the preceding three years.

Up to 2019, our ITMs have been progressing well, with most of them on track to meet their targets.

Unfortunately, COVID-19 disrupted this progress. Some of our ITM sectors, such as Air Transport, Hotels and Retail were badly hit, and will take time to recover. That is why as part of the series of Budget measures, we provided special support for the harder hit sectors, to help them stay resilient.

Beyond the immediate impact, COVID-19 has also accelerated long-term structural trends such as digital transformation, a review of globalisation and a focus on sustainability.

We must therefore build on the head-start and progress that we have made in the last five years, and refresh our ITMs to meet the accelerated changes brought about by COVID-19.

For each of the 23 ITM sectors, we will update our sectoral strategies to create and seize opportunities through digitalisation, innovation, internationalisation, upskilling of workers and job redesign, with the aim of lifting the productivity and wages of our workers, and creating good jobs for Singaporeans. We target to complete this by next year.

Our ITM refresh is complemented by the work of the Emerging Stronger Taskforce and the Singapore Together Alliances for Action, which have served as pathfinders to help us seize immediate opportunities, even amidst COVID-19.

Ultimately, we transform our economy for the benefit of our people. Our ITMs chart the path forward for each sector to be competitive, so that our people can access good jobs and opportunities which improve their lives. Jobs and Skills are therefore key pillars of each ITM, supported through initiatives such as the next bound of SkillsFuture. We pay specific attention to mid-career workers, to help them stay employable and access good jobs.

Our tripartite partners have also been working closely together to ensure that business transformation is tied to workplace and workforce transformation. For example, Workforce Singapore has worked with Government agencies and industry to develop Jobs Transformation Maps to provide detailed insights on the impact of technology and innovation on the industry and workforce. The Labour Movement has also been working with businesses to establish Company Training Committees, to help our workers upgrade while supporting their companies' transformation. More immediately, the Labour Movement's Job Security Council is working hard to match and place workers, minimise retrenchments and shorten unemployment periods for our workers. This way, we achieve inclusive growth which uplifts our workers.

The Government is acutely aware of the plight of vulnerable workers who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. We have, therefore, been providing additional support for these workers who require more time and effort to reskill, upskill and re-join the workforce. One example is the Jobs Growth Incentive, to which we have allocated another $5.2 billion during the recent Budget to extend the hiring window by seven months. A higher level of support is provided to employers who hire mature local workers, persons with disabilities and ex-offenders.

To help our senior workers, the Senior Employment Credit provides wage offsets for businesses that employ Singaporean workers aged 55 and above. We have also introduced the Enabling Employment Credit, which provides employers with wage offsets for every Singaporean person with disabilities earning below $4,000 per month that they employ. We will continue to build on these schemes to ensure that no one is left behind as we work with our tripartite partners to emerge stronger from the pandemic.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the update on the ITMs. I just have two supplementary questions.

Firstly, in particular, the ITMs, I think two key focuses are on jobs growth as well as strengthening the Singaporean Core. I hope, as MTI and the respective sectoral ITMs flesh out their updates and do their revisions, to share where the jobs growth opportunities are as we overcome and emerge stronger together post-COVID-19.

The second supplementary question I have is with respect to the ITMs. I think different ITMs have varying successes. I hope to see more best sharing of good practices and the successes and the key success factors as well. But I also want to urge MTI as we look at the 23 ITMs and as we prepare for the next bound, to continue the good work of the sectoral tripartite committees because I felt, being personally involved in some of them, they are very useful in overcoming the sectoral challenges. So, I urge that, as we prepare for the next bound, to continue the good work of these sectoral tripartite committees.

I thank Mr Patrick Tay for his supplementary questions.

To his first question on looking for new growth opportunities, I fully agree with him. In fact, as I have mentioned in my reply earlier, a post-COVID-19 world will be a very different world. We are already seeing many of these changes. Changes have been accelerated and, in particular, technological trends have also been accelerated, especially digitalisation. As I have said in my Budget speeches before, COVID-19 has accelerated digitalisation in a way which very few CTOs have been able to do. There have been significant changes in the nature of work and even in the nature of the way businesses conduct themselves. And I must say that our agencies are already responding to that quite well.

If you take, for example, the whole digitalisation trend, we are not waiting for the update of these ITMs before we act. We have increased the number of digital leaders and performers, especially among SMEs, from 9% to 12% from 2019 to 2020, and the share of digital starters also fell from 68% to 62%. Some of our MNCs and large local enterprises are on par with our global peers in this digitalisation.

What this digitalisation trend means is that the nature of the job and the nature of skills will be very different, which is why it is critical that we develop those skills of our workers in this respect. To meet this job growth, the answer is not just in the Government deciding which are the sectors that will grow and which are the sectors that will not.

And the significance of the Jobs Growth Incentive is exactly that when companies decide that they are going to grow, we incentivise them to draw in more workers and that is what the whole SGUnited Jobs and Skills package is all about. There are another part which is about the Attachments programme so that workers can get attached to get a sense of the nature of the job and companies can have a chance to evaluate the workers. For workers in newer areas, they can also go for training. These are the different ways in which we are preparing our workers and to grow our Singaporean Core, to move Singaporeans into areas with growth opportunities.

On Mr Patrick Tay's second question about the varying success of the ITMs. In fact, whether you do ITM or you do not do ITM, the nature of economic growth cannot be predicted in advance. You cannot say that in five years, these sectors will grow; in five years, these sectors will shrink. There are sectors which will face more challenging conditions for which we are helping them to stay resilient. I mentioned that air transport and tourism are the most obvious areas from this COVID-19 crisis. But at the same time, even in normal times, you will find that some sectors will grow faster than others. Therefore, the way that we are helping our workers is to ensure that we provide as much training as possible – and that is where I want to commend our Labour Movement for the very good work that they are doing – both in starting the company training committee so that when companies are looking at how they will change and transform, at the same time, the union is working together with them to look at how the workers can be retrained for that. And this is not something to be taken for granted. I think this tripartism where our Labour Movement is not there to just oppose change but, in fact, to facilitate change so that, at the end of the day, whatever changes that are made can be sustainable in that you have the full support of our workers and our workers can have a better life. So, this is really the crux of this. And I want to thank Mr Patrick Tay and his team for their very hard work in the Labour Movement in doing this.

Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there would be sharing of good practices. Indeed, in fact, I have just made some changes in the way we organise our ITM work to link it to our work on R&D so that as technology and innovation play a more critical role in our economic future, we can work on both simultaneously. How can we help companies to transform to be more technologically savvy? And, in turn, I mentioned about the jobs transformation programme. How do we design programmes to enable our workers to have better skills in order to access those better jobs so that not only do the companies have higher productivity but our workers can look forward to higher wages and better employment prospects?

On Mr Patrick Tay's point on the sectoral tripartite committee, I fully agree with him. These are important work in which we bring all our stakeholders together so that we put our efforts together to achieve a greater impact. So, I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Sharael Taha for their questions.

Mr Sharael Taha.

I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for sharing the progress made by the ITMs and the improvements we have in productivity and I look forward the ITM refresh.

I would like to pose two supplementary questions on ITMs. Given that the ITMs began a few years ago, much has changed since then and we have learnt a lot in the past one year from the pandemic and changing macroeconomic situation. Are we incorporating these lessons learnt and revising the ITMs to better prepare ourselves for the future? For example, in the manufacturing ITM, should we be incorporating capability for vaccination production or preparing for PPE production in preparation for the next pandemic? And for the healthcare ITM, should we explore the use of technology or develop more skills to build latent capacity in our healthcare system that can be called upon and scaled up quickly when the next pandemic arises?

For the second question, coincidentally, today marks the first day, after close to a year, where working from home is no longer the default work arrangement. In an earlier Straits Times poll, three in four respondents do not wish to return to the workplace full-time. Work from home or work from anywhere has brought about many benefits for both businesses and employees, including for the vulnerable workers and workers with mobility challenges. Not only does it allow jobs to be more accessible to all, it could also be a competitive advantage for companies in Singapore to vie for jobs outside of Singapore. This could be a game-changer for our professional services ITM. Can we lock in the gains of remote and flexi-work arrangements before we revert back to the pre-COVID norms? Can we relook at the opportunities to incorporate this into our ITM, moving forward?

I thank Mr Sharael Taha for his questions. Indeed, not only can we work from home, we can work from anywhere and you get calls any time as well.

Mr Sharael Taha mentioned about whether we should take into account the lessons learnt from the pandemic as well as the lessons from these few years of implementation. Indeed, we should do that. And to the Member's specific question, for example, on manufacturing, what are the new opportunities for production of vaccines, for example, or even some way in which we can play a role in the vaccine, the economic agencies have been working very hard on this and I would leave the economic agencies to provide the announcement. All I can say is that I have provided sufficient budgetary support for us to secure some of these projects.

On the Member's question about the skills, for example, healthcare and for us to move towards digitalisation, indeed, that should be the way. And as I have said, digitalisation has been accelerated and we must take this opportunity to look at how we can not only digitalise as much of our companies' processes as possible but also help our workers to build the new skills to be able to access those opportunities. And, in fact, beyond that, I have seen in many of our community centres, for example, that many seniors are being taught how to use digital tools – and I just did one over the weekend – as well as the projects to help our hawkers go digital, help our stallholders go digital and these are achieving good progress. So, I will say, certainly, we must take into account the changes.

As to the Member's second question about work from home and work from anywhere and that this is a game-changer, I fully agree with him that this is a game-changer. But let me add that this is a game-changer that cuts both ways. If you can work from home, anybody in the world can also work from home. And I have seen, for example, videos of how workers in very, very depressed areas being able to access jobs in very advanced economies because all they needed was a knowledge of English, a knowledge of basic skills in doing what they were good at doing, a laptop and an Internet connection. And I have seen companies that have actually chopped up a very complex project into different bits and different parts for which they put it online for bidding and then you have workers all over the world bidding for those projects. And in one of the reports I saw, the worker was extremely happy because he had never earned that amount in his whole life. The company was extremely happy because the the cost to him was a fraction of what he had to pay in an advanced economy with very strong laws regarding employment and so on.

So, it is a major, major opportunity but also a major challenge. That is why in all of last year's Budgets and this year's Budget, we have placed a very, very strong emphasis on upgrading the skills of our workers and I look forward to our Labour Movement working closely together with us on the Company Training Committee and a Job Security Council so that we can help our workers access good jobs, better jobs and to be able to ride on this digitalisation trend. And I hope that the work that we are going to embark on in a refreshed way, linking our R&D efforts with the economic sectors and pulling together these different strengths of efforts will enable us to make even better progress.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 21-35, 37-51, 53, 55-64, 66-71, 73-79, 81, 83-90 and 92-103 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 20, 36, 52, 54, 65, 72, 80, 82 and 91 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

[(proc text) "to authorise loans to be raised by the Government for the purposes of the Development Fund in relation to nationally significant infrastructure and to make related amendments to the Development Fund Act, to make related amendments to the Financial Procedure Act to authorise capitalisation of expenditure on nationally significant infrastructure, and to repeal and make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat); 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 imposition and collection of a tax on the increase in the value of land resulting from a chargeable consent given in relation to land, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]