Hansard, Monday, 5 October 2020

Order. I have to inform hon Members that I have on 7 September 2020 communicated to the President the Address of Thanks agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on 4 September 2020.

1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider allowing Universities and schools to return to more normalised face-to-face activities and classes when TraceTogether tokens are in widespread use with safe distancing measures in place.

Mr Speaker, students from all levels have resumed daily lessons in our schools. Lower-risk co-curricular activities or CCAs and other activities have also resumed. Likewise, the Institutes of Higher Learning or IHLs have gradually increased the number of students allowed back on campus for practicums, laboratory sessions and other classes. They are progressively allowing selected non-timetabled activities to return to campus, including project discussions and some student activities.

We now have effective Safe Management Measures in place in our schools and IHLs, coupled with a system of rapid contact tracing. We have also improved capabilities to detect community cases quickly through our expanded testing regime and are exploring the monitoring of wastewater in student hostels.

With these conditions in place, we are now studying ways to resume more in-person activities safely in our schools and IHLs, as the Member has suggested. These activities, together with the resumption of a wider range of CCAs and other activities, are important because we must strive to provide our students with a holistic educational experience, while keeping risks to a manageable level. MOE is working through the details and will share more in due course.

2 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Health with the low number of community cases for COVID-19, what can be expected on further easing of measures for Singapore and when can this be done.

3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government has completed its review of work-from-home arrangements and where does Singapore stand in the Government's risk assessment in determining when to move into Phase 3 of Singapore's reopening.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 2 and 3 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Sir, when Singapore exited the circuit breaker period in June 2020, the Multi-Ministry Task Force or MTF set out a Three-phase Plan to resume economic and social activities. Since then, we have progressed from Phase One to Phase Two.

We have learned important lessons from other countries in easing precautionary measures for COVID-19. For example, when restrictions are lifted prematurely, or too hastily, a resurgence of cases may occur, resulting in the need to partially reimpose these restrictions. On the other hand, it is not sustainable to maintain tight restrictions for a prolonged period which will severely impact not only our economy, but also our lives. Therefore, we have taken a carefully calibrated approach in opening up our society and economy as we work towards Phase Three. This is complemented by close monitoring, extensive testing and comprehensive contact tracing to keep the situation under control, as we balance the protection of lives and livelihoods.

We have made significant moves towards restoring economic and social activities. From 28 September 2020, we allowed more employees who have been working from home to return to their workplaces, which Mr Louis Chua had asked about. However, we need to continue to keep our workplaces safe and minimise crowding. Therefore, such employees should still continue to work from home for at least half their working time and there should be no more than 50% of such employees at the workplace at any point in time. Work-related events, including conferences, seminars and meetings, have also been allowed to resume, albeit within a 50-person cap for these activities to reduce the risk of transmission. Other safe management measures should continue to be observed at workplaces.

We have also taken steps to support the resumption of a few very targeted and specific areas. We recognise the importance of key life events such as weddings and the importance of religious activities and worship to our spiritual needs. Therefore, we have allowed greater numbers of up to 100 persons to attend each of these events, in multiple zones or time slots of at most 50 persons each to limit potential risk exposure. Earlier, we had also allowed the resumption of physical exercise classes in common community spaces, and allowed an increase in capacity for cinemas and leisure attractions such as the Zoo and Bird Park. Museums and libraries have also reopened. We are piloting live performances to prepare us to eventually be able to resume such activities safely.

Ms Jessica Tan has asked what can be expected on further easing of measures going forward and when this can be done; and I understand Ms Foo Mee Har1 would like to know whether the social and dining group size limit of five persons will be reviewed. All these are very important questions that we ask ourselves constantly.

Sir, if all of us continue to work together and keep our guard up even as more activities resume, we will be able to keep the pandemic under control and progress towards further opening up our economy and society steadily. For instance, we could allow for general group sizes larger than five, so that larger families or groups of friends could meet and have meals together. We are particularly concerned about dining as we need to remove our masks so as to eat and drink, but we tend to also talk at the same time. The risk is considerably higher than activities which we can keep our masks on and maintain a safe distance.

We have begun pilots of events and activities with a larger number of attendees, such as trade exhibitions, conferences and religious worship to assess whether we can maintain effective precautions and safe distancing measures. If these pilots are successful, we will be able to use the lessons learnt to allow more large-scale events to proceed. We will also continue to facilitate further opening up for overseas travel in a safe and calibrated manner, which Minister Ong Ye Kung will talk about later in greater detail later.

The low number of community cases currently is not accidental but has come about due to our collective hard work and sacrifices. Even as we move towards Phase Three, the new normal will be different from what we were used to in the pre-COVID days. The MTF is working on a road map towards Phase Three and we will share more details when we are ready in the coming weeks.

As overseas travel restrictions are progressively eased and more activities resume, it has become even more critical that each of us plays our part to exercise social responsibility and adhere to the safe management measures, in order to keep our family and friends safe as we progress towards Phase Three.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the response. I note that we are now at about 50% of our work-from-home policy, but I think Minister Lawrence Wong originally said that we should embrace working from home even after the circuit breaker ends. So, can I just check whether the Government still stands by that statement?

Second, I think working from home has allowed more fathers to play an active role in child care-giving duties. I am just wondering whether the Government has studies or will be studying whether our work-from-home policies can contribute towards levelling the child care-giving duties at home and hence, tackling this gender stereotype?

I thank the Member. Let me answer the first question. Working from home will continue to be default, but we do accept and acknowledge that there are challenges both from the employers as well as from the employees' perspective. Some employees' homes may not be conducive for working from home. Therefore, we made some arrangements and provided flexibility to allow the employers and the employees to work out better, more flexible arrangements, but subject to the criteria that I have just mentioned – no more than 50% of all employees who are working from home today, can go back to the office; and for those who are working from home today, not more than half of their time should be spent in the workplace; and they should still continue to work from home if they can.

It is a flexible arrangement; we want to provide some flexibility for the workers and the employers. We also recognise that some employers do need to consult their employees, they still need to have face-to-face interactions and meetings. This is also part of the process of team bonding and is critical among the employees. We cannot totally do away with the face-to-face, physical meetings and interactions amongst employees and employers. So, we provide some flexibility but we still encourage employers and employees to work out the arrangements and to allow employees to stay at home, work from home, as much as possible. This will help to reduce overcrowding in the workplaces and at the same time, also reduce the congestion on the roads and on public transport. These are important.

As I had mentioned in my reply, even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, whenever that happens, we will continue to encourage this flexible working arrangement. Through this period of COVID-19, we have found that working from home has a lot of advantages, like Mr Louis Ng has mentioned. You can spend more time with your family and fathers can also play a bigger role in the family setting. But this is a separate issue on family matters, which is probably more appropriate for the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) addressed to MSF, rather than for MOH to respond specifically.

But generally, we will continue to encourage working from home and we will continue to provide flexibility to allow flexible work arrangements between the employer and the employees.

A reminder to Members to keep the supplementary questions relevant to the PQs, please. Mr Louis Chua.

I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation. Specific to the roadmap that Minister had mentioned that he would be sharing over the next couple weeks, may I ask, firstly, if there will be additional parameters or guidance given to businesses and individuals such that they will be able to make their planning in advance? For example, earlier, we allowed up to 50% of the employees to work from the office, but I think that was only given five days in advance of the 28 September date.

The other matter is in relation to my question on the Government's risk assessment. One specific measure would be relating to the DORSCON status. I note that we have been in DORSCON Orange since 7 February earlier this year, and remain in DORSCON Orange today, even though the number of cases has gone from about more than 1,000 a day, to right now, less than 10. Is that something which the Government will review in order to provide us with a more handy reference guide in terms of where we stand in the risk assessment?

I thank the Member. This is a very important question. So, I thank him for the opportunity to explain and elaborate. For employment practices, we are working very closely with MOM and MTI to engage the various stakeholders. Because different sectors will have different challenges and we are working through these challenges with them. You would have noticed that for some of the announcements, the notice period is very short, basically because there is really no need to meet any deadline. For example, when you allow workers to go back to work – you can start on Monday, you can start next week, you can start next month. It is not a requirement that you must get them to go back to work and therefore, there is really no need for a lead time to prepare. You can take as long as you need to prepare yourselves, to discuss with your employees how to introduce this flexible arrangement. So, it is an on-going process.

In fact, many of the measures, you would notice, we do not accumulate them into a big package and then announce them at once, so that there are many changes at one go. We work with the sector leads to discuss how to help them, how to solve some of the challenges. As and when these issues are addressed and solved, we move ahead. Some of them may not even require a specific public announcement because it may be very sector-specific and so we would just discuss with the sector. When we come to some common understanding to make sure that safe management measures can be put in place, and we proceed with it.

So, these are differentiated approaches that we have adopted.

With regard to the DORSCON level, we have to always bear in mind that, as I have mentioned before, DORSCON level is not just determined by the number of cases alone. At this moment, particularly, we have to be very mindful that while the number of cases in Singapore is low, the cases around us, in other parts of the world, are still rising. Therefore, we cannot let our guards down. I will continue to maintain DORSCON Orange for the time being until we are quite confident that the global situation is under control.

As I had mentioned in my reply, we will be opening up our borders. We will need to continue to encourage more travels because Singapore is a hub city. So, we need to ensure that our travel hub and business hub status do not get undermined. I should not go into too much detail on this because Minister Ong Ye Kung is all ready to speak on this. I will leave it to him to elaborate. Suffice to say that until the world is safe, we will not be safe. Therefore, we have to continue to maintain the DORSCON level and to keep our guards up, so that we can continue to keep the number of cases low, especially in the community.

4 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs following the judgment of the High Court in Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187, what steps will be taken by the different agencies to identify why the issues identified in the judgment occurred and how these issues will be addressed in future.

5 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of the High Court judgment in Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187, what are the agencies' findings on what is assessed to have gone wrong and what will be done to address the findings.

6 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs over the last five years (a) what percentage of cases of theft as an employee has a foreign domestic worker been the accused; (b) what proportion of the above has (i) been charged in Court (ii) proceeded to trial (iii) been convicted and (iv) been acquitted respectively; and (c) what proportion of each subgroup above has had legal representation.

7 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are any updates on its internal reviews of what happened in Ms Parti Liyani's case, and in particular the police's handling of the matter.

8 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will appoint a committee of inquiry consisting of members not affiliated to the Government to conduct a public inquiry into the conduct of the Singapore Police Force and Attorney-General's Chambers with regard to Ms Parti Liyani's case.

9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider allowing foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders to be accompanied by non-legal personnel in Police interviews, similar to the Appropriate Adult Scheme.

10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Home Affairs what has gone wrong in the chain of events related to the case of Ms Parti Liyani and what are the findings and outcomes of the review.

11 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the root causes that led to the procedural lapses on the part of the Police in Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187 and whether there are sufficient procedural safeguards and supervisory review and oversight of Police investigations.

12 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Law whether there are any updates on the Ministry's internal reviews of what happened in Ms Parti Liyani's case and in particular the handling of the matter by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

13 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law in light of the Parti Liyani case (a) whether an expedited trial process can be created for economically vulnerable foreign accused persons; (b) whether the honorarium for volunteer lawyers under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme can be increased to signify their contributions; (c) whether an Office of Public Defender can be created to provide legal assistance to accused persons in Singapore; and (d) whether there are any steps being taken to strengthen the interpreter service in the Singapore Police Force.

14 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law whether the Government will consider providing direct legal aid to vulnerable persons or those with lesser financial means who are charged with criminal offences, in light of concerns raised about access to justice and adequate legal representation for such persons, following the case of Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187.

15 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law how many State Court judges have previously worked as prosecutors in the Attorney-General's Chambers and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties.

16 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Law with regard to the case of Parti Liyani v PP [2020] SGHC 187 where gaps in the prosecution's case have been noted, what are the procedures and supervisory oversight in place at the Attorney-General's Chambers in the assessment of evidence throughout the process of prosecution.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 11, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs and Question Nos 12 to 16 on behalf of the Minister for Law together, please.

Please proceed.

The agencies have considered the High Court judgment and are conducting reviews. These reviews are still in progress. As indicated by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, a Ministerial Statement will be made to address the questions raised by Members after the reviews are completed. This is expected to be done at the November sitting.

If I may, Sir, I would like to ask the hon Minister of State, in relation to the scope of the review by the relevant agencies, what exactly is the scope of the review, and in particular, whether the subject matter of the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) in Question Nos 4 to 16 in the Order Paper, and the implications of the judgment as set out in these questions, would be covered in the review. And I have two further supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Can you keep the supplementary questions in two, as I had mentioned at the last sitting?

Yes, Sir. In relation to the issue about the disciplinary proceedings that has been commenced by Ms Parti Liyani – this was something that happened subsequent to the filing of my PQ. So, if it carries on, I wonder whether the hon Minister anticipates that he would be in a position to deal with the case and make the Statement in November 2020, if there is a prospect that leave be given for disciplinary proceedings to carry on which as the hon Minister would know, would involve the Court, and there could be a notion of sub judice in those circumstances.

Minister Shanmugam.

Sir, as regard to the questions and whether we will cover them, I will hope to cover the questions that have been raised and if I have not covered any particular part, Members can further ask some clarifications.

On the disciplinary proceedings, no decision has been made by the Court, and I prefer to wait until the Court has heard and decided the matter, which is, I think, in a week or so, before I comment on it.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs that given the errors which have occurred at every level of the criminal justice system, is the independent review going to be considered within his Ministerial Statement to be delivered in November?

Sir, as I have indicated, let me finish the reviews, deal with that, present an account in Parliament, and then Mr Leong can ask his questions.

Thank you, Minister.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

17 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the considerations behind the Ministry's punitive actions against the employer for the illegal deployment of Ms Parti Liyani as a foreign domestic worker; and (b) whether the actions taken are consistent with similar cases in the past.

In determining punitive actions for illegal deployment, MOM's key considerations are the degree to which the well-being of the foreign domestic worker has been compromised, and the extent of the illegal deployment. Ms Parti Liyani's case of illegal deployment was handled by MOM in accordance with these considerations.

At the conclusion of MOM's investigations in May 2018, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC, the Ministry took no further action against Mr Liew. A Caution was issued to Mrs Liew and an Advisory Notice to Mr Karl Liew. The actions taken against the three individuals were in line with actions taken by the Ministry against similar cases in the past.

From 2017 to 2019, there was an average of 550 complaints of illegal deployment of foreign domestic workers each year. Of these, MOM took actions against an average of 155 employers per year for illegally deploying their foreign domestic workers. About 60 of them were issued with an Advisory Notice; 80 were issued with a Caution. On average, 16 employers were issued with financial penalties each year, ranging from $3,300 to $24,000.

There is a review on-going for this particular case regarding Ms Parti Liyani's illegal deployment arising from the High Court's observations. MOM will give an update when the review is completed in due course.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am the Director with the NTUC ARU unit. Usually, an employment agreement ties an employer with an employee legally. So, in this case, I understand that for Ms Parti Liyani, warning letters were issued to Mrs Liew as well as to Mr Karl Liew who were not her employers. So, in this case, may I ask if the MOM will be reviewing this and to see if the MOM would also be responding to why the letters were actually written to Mrs Liew as well as Mr Karl Liew?

In light of the particular vulnerability of foreign domestic workers, we will review our punishment framework and action will be taken against employers in similar illegal deployment cases, regardless of whether they are aware of the illegal deployment. This is to remind the employers that they are ultimately accountable for their foreign domestic workers and should take steps to ensure that their households' deployment of the foreign domestic workers do not contravene the law.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply as well. I understand that the foreign domestic workers or FDWs can be deployed outside their registered address if they are looking after the young children and the senior parents or the elderly parents of the employers. Could I ask whether moving forward, MOM can require a documented consent from the FDW if they are going to be deployed outside the registered address? That way, I think it can sort of resolve some of the disputes that have been raised at MOM level.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for the question. The answer is yes. Currently, employers are required to notify MOM, if they intend to deploy their foreign domestic workers to an address that is different from what is stated in the work permit, particularly if they require the foreign domestic worker to take care of their charges such as young children or the elderly at a relative's home. We are considering ways to enable the employer to be able to notify MOM more effectively so that we can track and approve such cases more consistently.

Mr Derrick Goh.

Sir, I have a question for Minister of State Gan. She mentioned earlier that the review of the cases was such that there was a Caution and Advisory that was issued by MOM that was in line with other similar cases in the past. Can Minister of State Gan clarify the reason for the additional review?

MOM's actions against Mr Liew's family were based on the information available to our investigation officer during the period of the investigation from October 2017 to January 2018. We all know arising from the High Court proceedings, there were observations made and there is a requirement for MOM to take into consideration the additional information provided to us, and hence, the review is on-going.

18 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the recent incident of an SBS bus driver being abused (a) what more can the Ministry do to protect our bus captains and transport service staff; (b) how can high-risk passenger management procedures be enhanced; (c) whether a public awareness campaign directed at passengers to encourage respect for bus drivers and to outline expected behaviours while travelling on public transport can be explored; and (d) whether a code of conduct for passengers can be developed.

Mr Speaker, bus captains are called "captains" for a reason. They are in charge of the bus and ensure the safety of commuters throughout their journeys. In today's context, this includes ensuring commuters wear masks, so that public transport does not become a transmission setting.

Sir, I am very concerned about the recent cases of commuters verbally or physically abusing bus captains. The actions are wrong and unacceptable. I think people all know that, and it is not a matter of writing down a code of conduct. What we need is to take a clear stand. The Government, unions, public transport operators, and I would say the great majority of Singaporeans, we stand united in taking a zero-tolerance approach towards such abusive behaviours.

The large majority of commuters treat our public transport workers and other commuters with courtesy and respect. For the small number who think they can behave badly and get away with it, let me be clear – if you abuse our public transport workers, whether verbally or physically, be prepared to face the full consequences under the law.

LTA will work with the unions and public transport operators to remind commuters of the serious consequences of abusing public transport workers and to raise awareness on the responsibilities of commuters on public transport.

Commuters too can play a part when such incidents happen. For the recent case where a bus captain was attacked by a commuter who refused to wear his mask properly, three good Samaritans helped to restrain the assailant before the Police arrived. I met two of them, Mr Clement Tan and Mr Muhammad Mu’tasim. Mr Melvin Yong was there too at the recent event; he was representing the National Transport Workers' Union. Mr Tan was a commando during his National Service and Mr Mu’tasim served his National Service as a Police officer. We applaud them for their courage to step forward and do the right thing.

The best way to protect our bus captains and recognise their contributions is to have the right societal culture, one that is based on respect for our frontline workers. Let us continue to support our public transport workers, so that they can work in a safe environment and provide an essential service to keep Singapore going.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat for answering my question. I have one supplementary question.

With regard to his zero-tolerance approach to the issue, I am reassured that LTA and MOT will take this zero-tolerance approach very strongly against commuters who get offensive against the bus captains. My question is: will LTA or MOT be willing to explore doing reviews just like what was done by the state of Queensland, Australia, for example, where they did an Improving Bus Drivers' Safety Review in 2018? They came up with a few measures introduced in 2018, including anti-shatter films, driver barriers and also a release of a code of conduct for passengers in the middle of 2018. They also ran a public awareness campaign from June to December 2018. So, my question is whether LTA or MOT will be willing to explore such a review and encourage best practices between our multiple bus operators? Because, after all, a bus driver who feels safe means all passengers are safe.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary question. I welcome his question. The zero-tolerance approach that we take is towards abusive behaviours by a small number of commuters. Mr Saktiandi has touched on a very important point, which is that this requires the collective effort of Government, operators, unions and I will add commuters too. All of us as stakeholders in this public transport system can play our role. For the on-going review that we are conducting with the operators and the unions, I would welcome further suggestions on what are some of the specific measures we can put in place to offer greater protection to our frontline workers.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply and his assurance that the Government takes a serious view on abuse cases against our public transport workers while on duty.

I declare myself as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union. The Union is currently working with the respective public transport operators to resume trials on installing a protective shield on our public buses.

Since the Senior Minister of State asked what other suggestions we may have, we aim to address the feedback and shortcoming surfaced in a previous trial in 2018, which the LTA was involved. I would like to ask if the LTA will support scaling the installation of such protective shields across all our public buses should the current trial find a suitable model to do so?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong. This suggestion from the unions is currently being discussed with the operators. We would also take feedback from our bus captains because they are the ones who will be using this. When this safeguard is in place, they will be the ones who are going to use it daily. I think an important consideration when we ask the bus captains for their feedback, will be to ensure that the installation of these protective shields will not interfere with the safety when they are driving the buses. I think that is a very key consideration. We will also get their feedback, because I think previously the trials showed that when you put some of these protective shields in place, there was a bit of glare that affected the drivers, the bus captains. So, we will also have to look at that because, ultimately, this is for both the protection and safety of the bus captains and also for the safety of commuters.

19 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the next-generation ERP system allows for developers to create third-party applications; (b) whether the design of the on-board unit (OBU) be further streamlined for motorcyclists; and (c) whether the majority of the OBU's functions can be replaced by a smartphone in the future.

20 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the next-generation electronic road pricing (ERP) system is an open-source app-based device; (b) how will LTA allocate slots for installation of on-board units (OBU) to minimise queueing; (c) whether there is any replacement cost should the OBU get faulty after usage; and (d) in light of safety concerns about how the OBU's screen may be distracting to drivers, whether there can be an option to dim or turn off the display.

21 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA will reduce the size and improve the design of the on-board units (OBUs) for all classes of vehicles for the next-generation ERP system to ensure safe use, avoid distraction to motorists and better interfacing with the vehicular dashboards and systems; and (b) whether LTA will assure Singaporeans that the price of the OBUs will be kept low and affordable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 19 to 21 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, Members have raised a few questions commonly asked by the public on the next-generation Electronic Road Pricing, or nexgen ERP system. Let me assure Members that in designing the system, LTA has carefully thought through these issues.

The first question is why not process ERP payments using our smartphones? After all, we use it to pay all kinds of transactions, including charges at HDB and URA carparks.

Technically, while this can be done, there will be many security and operational issues.

LTA consulted an inter-agency committee including the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, who advised that the core charging transactions and ERP data must be safely and securely processed with high assurance. The on-board units or OBUs, which is an integral part of the ERP system, have been designed to uphold the necessary protection for such purpose, and the security features are superior to that of a mobile phone. Hence, to better protect the system which contains the data of all motorists, we adopted the OBUs.

There are also operational issues. Motorists need to remember to bring their smartphones, ensure it is sufficiently charged, is connected to the cellular network and the ERP payment app is launched throughout the journey. There will bound to be numerous unintended failed transactions and inconveniences caused. Hence, LTA concluded that it is better to process payments through a dedicated and integrated OBU, similar to today’s in-vehicle unit or IU.

The second question is about the design of the OBU. Sir, at this juncture, may I have your permission to show the OBU and IU units.

Yes, please.

Thank you, Sir. So, if you compare, the OBU for motorcycles is only slightly larger than the current IU. The dimensions: for the current OBU is 14 cm x 8 cm x 5 cm versus the current IU which is 13 cm x 8 cm x 4 cm; so 1 cm difference. But I concede it may look a little bulky because of the larger screen – but it is actually good for people like me.

As for the OBUs for other vehicles, unlike for motorcycles, the processing unit will be installed below the dashboard and separated from the display unit on the screen. So, this is the processing unit but it is not going to be on your windscreen. It is actually going to be below the dashboard and it depends on the vehicle model where it will be put, but it will be out of sight. This is the processing unit and you can see that it has got ventilation, because it is actually a little CPU.

The processing unit is separated from the display screen and the antenna – this is necessary because the OBU uses Global Navigation Satellite Technology and is, like I said, really a little computer. There will be safety and reliability issues to leave the processing unit on the dashboard when vehicles with enclosed spaces are parked under the hot sun, similar to how we will not expose our smartphones that same way.

The OBU display unit will be mounted on the windscreen, and, actually, it is only slightly larger than the current IU. So, if Members look at this, it is about 3 cm longer but thinner. The current IU is 12 cm x 8 cm x 3 cm versus the OBU's display screen which is 15 cm x 8 cm x 2 cm.

We are currently consulting the workshops and authorised motor vehicle agents on how best to install this display unit. The antenna is actually very small, so it will be on the windscreen, where your current IU is. But we are looking at how to best install the OBU so that the display unit can be installed in cars such that the blockage of the windscreen is minimal. Actually, this thing can be folded in, so that you will not see it if you do not want to see it. They are looking at how to do this better.

As to what information to show on the display unit, indeed, we will look at how to make sure that whatever information is shown and the way it is shown, it will not be distracting and it will not affect safety.

LTA intends to present a few options to gather public feedback. For example, the display can be kept black most of the time, and only display ERP charges paid when a transaction is effected. As a possible future upgrade, LTA is also studying whether information from the OBU can be pushed to our smartphones, then the smartphones can be used as the display screen instead.

Ms He Ting Ru1 has asked a question for the next Sitting on whether public consultation was done on the design – and we thought it is better we answer the question today. Where possible, our practice is to consult the public, but in this case, LTA faces some practical constraints.

This is a first-of-a-kind project – there is no similar system anywhere else in the world. LTA sought proposals through an international tender. Several designs were submitted, and LTA has to select the best from the point of view of performance, design and value-for-money. But after awarding the tender, LTA is contractually bound.

It could have specified that the winning tenderer has to conduct a major public consultation exercise and make significant changes to the design to take in public feedback, but that will add significant uncertainty which will delay the project and push up the tender prices.

The first OBU will be free of charge for existing Singapore-registered vehicles. For new vehicles, the OBU would already be installed in the vehicle and form part of the overall cost of purchasing a new vehicle, as is the case with the IUs today.

The pricing of OBU is still under consideration and LTA will release more details later including the warranty period of OBUs and information of the installation exercise. In allocating the slots for installation, we will ensure that there are sufficient installation points and give motorists ample notice to make their booking.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State Khor. The first one is, if the concern is around the data protection, because today, under the OneMotoring.sg, all the details about every driver's particulars as well as the vehicle particulars are already available. Can we consider using the legal framework or data protection framework so that there is no concern in terms of information leakage.

The second supplementary question that I have is, because eventually there is a consideration, as Senior Minister of State had pointed out, to push this into the smartphone app, can we bring forward this implementation to make sure that we do not have to put on an additional gadgets on the dashboard or any part of the car frames.

I want to thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Firstly, with regards to data integrity, data security and protection, indeed, she is right to say that, for the ERP backend system, we will have data to more than some one million or so motorists – specific data. What we are doing is that the core charging function can only be done through the OBU, no third-party apps, not done through the mobile phone, simply because of security reasons and data security as well as reliability.

The OBU interfaces, or speaks directly, to the backend ERP system and is able to access this.

We do not allow third-party apps or mobile phones to do the core charging function because there may be a compromise on the data – leakage, as well as the fact that there could be hacking, spoofing of the location and you can have fraudulent charging. For a system like that, you would want to maintain confidence in the system for our motorists as well as the fact that motorists must be confident that the vehicles' specific data will not be leaked. That is the reason why this is done.

With regards to the second question about whether we can actually bring forward the timeline to look into whether we can allow data to be pushed one way, from the OBU to mobile phone and therefore, allow the mobile phone to replace the OBU display screen. What we want to do is to ensure a smooth implementation of the next-generation ERP system. The current ERP system is already more than 20 years old, it is reaching its end of its operational life and, in fact, is increasingly difficult and actually very expensive to maintain. Some of the parts are not going to be manufactured anymore. So, there is an urgency, a need to implement the nexgen ERP.

We have already announced the timeline, starting from next year, for 18 months to do the installation. So, what we want, is to ensure a smooth installation of the nexgen ERP. To do this, the display unit will be a standard issue. We also need time to work with the contractors and the consultants to come up with the programme to be able to push OBU's specific data to the mobile app. And we will do it to the mobile phone third-party apps via bluetooth. What it means is that, motorists also have to give specific permissions for this to be done, they can then opt to use this mobile phone as the display screen.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply or rather her show and tell. I have two supplementary questions. My first question is about the upcoming industry consultations that the LTA has planned, I would like to ask, what is the scope of this consultation and if the LTA is still open to doing a public consultation on the design of the onboard unit – perhaps for future considerations. Like my fellow colleague, Miss Cheryl Chan have said, a lot of vehicles today already have display panels in the vehicle, can we then find a way to connect the OBU with the display that is already in existence in the vehicle.

The second question I have pertains to the costs of embarking on a re-design of the OBU. In June 2019, when there was an online incident of a supposed design leak, LTA then had responded to state that the pictures were just illustrations used for an earlier study back in 2016. On 17 June last year, LTA stated through a Facebook post that the agency was still testing the equipment for the new ERP system, which has not been finalised. However, we also understand from Senior Minister of State's reply today that the LTA is contractually bound to the current OBU design after the tender award and any design changes would have cost implication.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what is the cost of re-designing the OBU at this current stage of the ERP contract and whether it would be more cost-effective to streamline the design now rather than embark on a redesign in the future.

I want to thank the Member for his questions. I think it is useful to clarify these.

Firstly, is with regard to what stage we are at, in terms of public consultation, which we said we will be doing for the installation of the display unit. Let me share that we have started consulting the workshops as well as the authorised motor vehicle agents to look at the installation, how best to do it, to take into account public feedback we have received, with regard for instance, the screen, you know, blocking the road view of the motorists; with regard to it being, you know, quite bulky and so on.

So, this is what we are doing, we need time to work this out with the workshops, as well as the authorised motor vehicle agent, simply because there are so many different designs, make or models of motor vehicles. So, once we have done this, we will share more details on our public consultation with respect to the installation of the display unit.

With regards to changing the OBU design at this stage, well, the fact is as the Member had said, we are contractually bound, so, any significant changes to the design of the OBU, will of course incur cost. Cost is actually subjected to negotiation.

But having said that, we are open to taking feedback from the public, which we have done and we are going to do. One of the things we will do, is with regards to the Graphical User Interface or GUI, what to put on the display screen. LTA, taking into account public feedback, will come up with a few options. Then, we will go out to do a public consultation again, to determine, you know, what are the important information to display with regards to driver safety, distractions and so on and so forth. So, that will be done.

In addition, we will see, as much feedback as possible, we will take into account within the bounds of our contractual obligations as well as the fact that you have to consider for instance, impact on the project timeline, technical viability is another other one, and of course safety requirements. So, the other one which we are doing and which we have taken feedback on, is of course with regard to the use of the mobile phone as a display screen. So, this is something that we are studying and we are looking to push this out. The Member Miss Cheryl Chan had asked if we do it as early as possible. As I have said, we want a smooth implementation of the nexgen ERP, let the system stabilise, we will look at this and then when it is possible, we will be able to offer it to the motorists and they can replace their display units. For new car owners, they can actually opt for that, in future.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister of State for her answers to the questions. One supplementary question I would like to ask is basically, the tender was awarded in 2016 as we understand. That was four years ago, technology moves very quickly these days. So, I am just wondering what were the tender specifications that basically resulted in us being bound by the design that we committed to four years ago, rather than allowing for flexibility to update that as and when we went along? And whether we will consider this in future tenders and future calls for tender to allow us to have greater flexibility given that technology moves really quickly? And that, we do not inadvertently as in this case, end up incurring costs if we need to change the design as and when with public consultation and when technology moves along.

Let me thank the Member for her additional supplementary question on this issue again. I do not have the details of the contract, obviously, but I would think that, as with all contracts, there will always be certain specifications that have to be put out. Otherwise, people cannot tender and you need to give contractors or tenderers some amount of certainty.

But within those limits, I am pretty sure and I understand that there is room for some consultation. And in fact, they have done this. As the Member said it was in 2016 that the contract was awarded, it was early 2016. The tender was called in 2014. As I have said it is a first-of-its-kind project, it is an international tender and there is no reference point so we did take a bit of time to look through the various tenders and proposals before we awarded it.

Within that time frame, we had consulted and the contractors themselves have also done some internal consultations as well as even engage, for instance, NTU, to do a study, a human factor study on the GUI features – what to display and so on. I understand that they even had a driver trial experiments to look at the safety of the GUI features. We have also got an inter-Ministry committee that we consulted as I have shared earlier. And in fact, we also did two independent reviews on the features, the security features of the OBU. That is the reason why we have adopted what we have recently shared – that the OBU integrated with the ERP backend system and no third-party apps or use of mobile phone for the core charging functions.

So, indeed, we are mindful that we have to take into account technology improvements and advancements which the contractors would have to do it. But understanding that this is a very, very significant and large project, I think Members will also appreciate why the timeline is actually stretched.

22 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the Report of the Auditor-General, wherein it stated that test checks found that JTC premises may have been sublet to about 26,000 business entities without JTC's approval (a) whether JTC has completed investigations into all identified business entities and confirmed cases; and (b) what are the penalties imposed on affected tenants, lessees and sub-lessees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua for his question. The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) had, in its 2020 Report, identified 26,000 instances of potential unauthorised subletting because 26,000 business entities had indicated JTC premises as their registered addresses even though they were not JTC’s lessees, tenants or authorised sublessees.

JTC is investigating the entities highlighted by AGO. So far, JTC has found that 1,900 of them are deregistered entities and 700 of them are on divested properties where JTC’s subletting policies do not apply. There are another 12,400 related entities of JTC lessees and tenants. For these 12,400 related entities, even if there was subletting of space, there would not have been any potential loss of revenue as the subletting fees would not have applied. Together, if we add them all up, these 15,000 entities account for around 60% of all the entities that AGO has highlighted.

For the remaining 40% of the entities – there are about 11,000 of them – JTC has now prioritised investigations for them. Based on preliminary investigations, JTC has found that a significant number of them are using JTC premises as their registered address even though they are not physically operating out of the premises. Again, since they are not operating out of these premises, these cases do not involve any unauthorised subletting of space.

To date, JTC has confirmed around 400 cases of unauthorised subletting. JTC will continue and will complete its investigations by the first half of 2021.

JTC is strengthening its processes as well as its inspection regime and it will make use of data analytics to better detect and reduce future incidences of unauthorised subletting. It will take enforcement action against lessees or tenants for confirmed cases of unauthorised subletting. Depending on the severity and circumstances of the breach, enforcement actions will range from financial measures to recover the sublet fees owing to JTC, to legal action to repossess the site from recalcitrant occupants.

I thank the Second Minister for his response. I have two follow-up questions, the first of which is in relation to the 400 cases thus far identified. In terms of these cases, what would the penalties be and what would have been the loss in the sublet fees that JTC would have collected. The second supplementary question is in terms of the sharpening of the analysis to improve the inspection regime, specifically with the use of data analytics which the Second Minister has affirmed. What has really changed between now and then? Since the implementation of this change, has there been more cases of unauthorised subletting that have been discovered and how would the Ministry assure the efficacy and efficiency of such a new regime?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have alluded to earlier, the 400 cases were detected as a result of fairly stringent actions undertaken by JTC. As to the extent of the sublet fees and the unauthorised part, it is still a subject of further investigations. We will take all active steps and measures to recover these fees that are owing and, in cases where clear-cut illicit subletting has been proven, we will not hesitate to take legal action to enforce it.

On the part about using data analytics, indeed, in terms of the understanding of the ability to register a business address using a premise, this is one of the policies which we need to tighten and realign. Having said that, in terms of the 11,000 that we are now actively looking into, many of the measures that we are taking actually draw a fine balance between taking a proactive step towards encouraging new businesses to start up and to set up and, of course, we need to draw a fine balance between enforcing to make sure that these businesses do not think that every single one that is setting up we treat them as if they are out to game the system itself.

So, to that end, the measures that we have taken are in terms of looking through the register of addresses, going into frequent and more intense inspection; in 2019, we had conducted about 1,900 inspections. But, of course, these are on a regular time basis to inspect the premises whether there is illegal subletting. Now, over and above what we had done in 2019, on top of the regular inspections, we are also going into random spot checks as well. So, the intensity of the checks, audits and inspections has also increased significantly.

At this particular point in time, I am not at liberty to share what is the frequency of these checks and inspections. But suffice to say that this is at a much more focused pace and, obviously, we are going to put a lot more effort and work into tightening it.

23 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the Auditor-General's Report for FY 2019/2020 (a) how many companies have received the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) so far; (b) what action will Enterprise Singapore (ESG) undertake to ensure strict compliance to the minimum 30% local shareholding criterion for all future cases; and (c) whether ESG claws back grant monies from recipient companies as a matter of practice when there a substantial change in local shareholding before an EDG-funded project is completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) is part of Enterprise Singapore’s (ESG) toolkit to help businesses grow their core capabilities, innovate and internationalise. As of September 2020, ESG has supported almost 5,000 EDG projects. In administering the grants, ESG strives to strike a balance between ensuring the robustness of the governance process and the ease with which local enterprises can apply for support.

Checks are performed during the grant approval process to ensure the EDG applicants meet the minimum 30% local shareholding criterion. Thereafter, the grant conditions require all EDG recipients to inform ESG of any changes in the application information during the course of the project. If recipients are found to be in breach of the grant conditions, including the 30% local shareholding criterion, ESG will withhold or, if disbursement had been made, ESG will claw back the grant. ESG will also subject these companies to enhanced scrutiny for future applications.

For the case raised in the AGO Report, no disbursement had been made to the company. The company has also been placed on ESG’s watchlist for stricter scrutiny for future grant applications.

ESG agrees with AGO’s recommendation and has commenced a second round of checks on shareholding eligibility before grant disbursement. ESG is also studying the feasibility of improving such checks using tools, such as data analytics.

24 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the Auditor-General's Report for FY 2019/2020, (a) whether the Ministry will be undertaking a more wide-scale review of the number of successful career conversions and Professional Conversion Programme outcomes thus far; and (b) what will be the extent of sample checks to be conducted on grant Programme Partners by Workforce Singapore or the Ministry in future.

Mr Speaker, Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) provide training and salary support to employers who hire and reskill mid-career jobseekers for new PMET jobs with good prospects. WSG currently works with 30 programme partners, including Trade Associations and Chambers and Institutes of Higher Learning, to run close to 100 PCPs in about 30 sectors.

A significant majority of our PCP participants have enjoyed good employment outcomes. About nine in 10 participants remained in employment 24 months after being placed and about seven in 10 earned higher wages after starting their new jobs. The Auditor-General's Office (AGO)’s audit findings do not call into question the impact of these programmes on the participants, but have highlighted issues with the practices of WSG’s programme partners and its supervision of them.

In the AGO's Report for the Financial Year 2019/2020, it was highlighted that three of WSG’s programme partners did not carry out adequate verification of career conversion for 11 disbursement cases involving 15 PCP participants. There was no doubt that the training had been properly carried out but AGO noted that programme partners had not documented how the participants’ previous and current job scopes were different, which is the requirement for the training to be supported under the PCP. WSG has reviewed each of these cases and verified that all 15 participants changed their job scopes and successfully converted into new job roles through their respective PCPs. In addition, to address the AGO's concern about the adequacy of its guidelines, WSG will be developing a new PCP guide for all its programme partners by the end of the year. The document will include guidelines on how career conversion should be consistently assessed, as well as the critical information that programme partners should report to ensure better and consistent monitoring of PCP outcomes.

AGO also checked 16 PCPs managed by eight programme partners and found inadequate monitoring of programme outcomes for 10 PCPs. The programme partners did not collect the complete set of performance indicators required by WSG and also had varying practices in collecting the information. WSG has since reviewed and streamlined its approach. Henceforth, programme partners will focus on the most important outcome indicators, namely, the number of placements and number of participants who completed training, both of which are straightforward to monitor and report.

Beyond the cases studied by AGO, WSG, on its own, initiated a comprehensive check of over 15,000 placements for similar lapses. This is the entire universe of PCP placements since 2016. Although the review will only be fully completed this year, WSG has not uncovered further lapses or systemic anomalies thus far.

Mr Speaker, ensuring good governance and outcomes for our programmes is a key priority for MOM and WSG. WSG has reiterated to all programme partners the need to adhere to the PCP administration process, including assessment of career conversion for participants, as well as the importance of close tracking and timely reporting of key programme outcome indicators. To ensure compliance with these requirements, WSG will conduct sampling checks of up to 20% of PCP placements by its programme partners on a regular basis.

WSG remains committed to working closely with its programme partners to ensure sound governance and effectiveness of PCPs. It will also continue to strengthen its supervision over them.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply to my Parliamentary Question. The PCP programme, as carried out under WSG, is a critical one to ensure that Singaporeans, especially PMETs, get into good jobs, and to that end, I think all of us have a deep interest in the programmes' success.

I would like to focus on one of the observations of the AGO which is at page 63 of the Report. I believe Minister covered it in her reply, where a test check – and AGO cannot check every case; they do test checks – and the test check revealed that 11 out of 56 cases found that there was inadequate verification of career conversion for trainees. The AGO also noted cases "where the trainees' previous and current job scope appeared to be similar". Those are the exact words.

My specific questions are which were the three programme partners identified in the AGO Report? Minister, I believe, in her reply mentioned that there is an on-going review of all PCP matters. I think this number is 15,000 placements. How prevalent is the problem of a similar job scope, after a PMET worker has undertaken a PCP programme?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Pritam Singh for his questions and also for acknowledging the critical importance of the Professional Conversion Programmes in helping our PMETs move on to new job roles, most of the time outside of their existing companies and industries, but sometimes within the same company or within the same industry.

He acknowledged their importance and raised the question of the findings by the AGO on the career conversion.

I should emphasise this – the AGO noted that the career conversion was not well documented but it did not say that there was no career conversion. And, on subsequent checks, WSG established the clear fact that there was career conversion and it was a question of the programme partner not having properly documented this.

So, it was not that the job scopes did not change substantially. It was simply the fact that the programme partners did not document them properly and they did not have a very consistent way of assessing the degree of career conversion and the degree of change of the job scopes across different programme partners.

I would just want to emphasise this that there was, in fact, the change in job scope. WSG's verification confirmed this and it was a question of documentation. That being the case, we focus on fixing the problem of documentation. And I think I have explained earlier on in my reply how we go about doing so.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. I would assume, having read the AGO Report that there would have been some time for WSG to respond, as the Minister has in Parliament, in the AGO Report as to that particular matter of documentation – that, really, it is not that the outcome was not achieved but the documentation was not done properly.

I understand that. My query is, was there enough time for WSG to inform the AGO that it is looking into these findings of the AGO and, thereafter, the reply could have been in the AGO Report? Or whether there was not enough time? So, that is the first question. The second question was, as part of my original Supplementary Question, was about the identities of the three programme partners.

In the AGO Report, if we look at its reporting of findings in other Ministries, it is quite consistent. Even if the agencies have addressed the issue, it does not prevent the AGO from making the Report. That is the merit of the system – that regardless of the actions that have been taken up to follow up on the findings, the AGO's responsibility is to report them so that the public is aware that there were these lapses. We acknowledged the lapse and we fixed it.

As to the names of the three programme partners, certainly, if Mr Singh is very interested, we can provide it to him. But I think the question really is, "Did the programme partners make a mistake in good faith or did they deliberately try to defraud the Government in some way?" And if our assessment is that they deliberately attempted to try and defraud the Government in some way, then the appropriate action is to report them to the Police so that a complete investigation can be conducted. At the appropriate juncture, their identities will be made public.

But, in this case, it was an incident of the programme partners not having done a thorough job of documenting what, in fact, did happen. So, we do not as a matter of practice regularly name programme partners for sometimes administrative errors that they have committed.

Mr Alex Yam.

25 Mr Alex Yam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the weak links highlighted annually in the Auditor-General's Reports (a) how does the Civil Service ensure that officers are adequately trained and supervised to meet the Government's procurement processes; and (b) whether officers handling tenders have to attend regular refresher courses to stay abreast with new regulations and processes.

26 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the recurring lapses in IT controls highlighted in the latest Auditor-General's Report, whether there are inherent systemic issues within the public service and what effective measures will be taken to address the weaknesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 25 and 26 together, in my response?

Yes, please.

Let me first assure Members that, as mentioned in the Auditor-General’s reports, all the agencies take the audit observations seriously and are committed to making improvements. Actions have been taken at the whole-of-Government level to address the gaps identified.

Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General’s Report for FY 2019/2020 highlighted weaknesses in IT controls, specifically in the areas of: first, review of privileged users’ activities; and second, management of account and user access rights. These observations were raised in previous Reports.

To provide some context, I should first explain that the Government IT systems were built over time, beginning from when we first built IT systems in Ministries back in 1980s and eventually extending to all Ministries and also new Ministries and programme offices.

Since then, the IT systems have been upgraded, refreshed or replaced to be more effective and efficient to cater to the requirements over the years. Consequently, we now have more than 2,000 Government IT systems built over the years, by different vendors and using different technologies. Each system has its way of logging user activities and of managing who can access the system. As the access controls are not linked across systems, when an officer moves to another portfolio, it requires a chain of manual adjustments to different systems, to remove obsolete access rights and create new access rights for the officer. The reliance on manual adjustments is prone to human errors.

The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group or SNDGG is developing systems that will automate the processes involved and minimise errors. It will take some time to fully implement the solutions across the whole-of-Government because we need to implement the automated process in more than 2,000 IT systems.

First, we are automating the review of privileged users’ activities. SNDGG has started a pilot with some agencies and the tool will be progressively deployed from January 2021. This will be fully implemented for high-priority systems by December 2022 and all remaining systems by December 2023.

Second, we are automating the management of account and user access rights. SNDGG has made available a solution which can alert agencies to staff movements and role changes so that they can manually remove the user accounts that are no longer required. Five of the 38 agencies that have onboarded this system were audited by AGO and no lapses pertaining to account and user access rights management were found.

SNDGG is in the midst of enhancing this solution, so that it can trigger automatic removal of unneeded user accounts and review of user access rights, once the staff movement or role change is updated in the HR records. This system will be implemented for 800 high-priority systems by December 2023 and all remaining systems by December 2024.

When officers are freed up from manual tasks, they are better able to focus on aspects of cyber-security and data protection that cannot be replicated by a machine. SNDGG has stepped up efforts to educate public officers on the importance of strong ICT governance and security controls, and to have the right habits and instincts. All public officers are required to undergo annual cyber and data security awareness training.

Next, on procurement and contract management, the recurrent lapses tend to be for more complex types of procurement – such as IT and construction, and in less straightforward cases, such as assessing price reasonableness for single bids and managing urgent contract variations. Navigating these complexities require not only technical skills but experience and judgment which require long-term efforts to build up.

To address this, we have been stepping up efforts in recent years to strengthen the competencies and capabilities of Public Officers in managing the procurement process. First, we are stepping up training of officers in key areas such as evaluation and approval of tenders. The training covers learning points from audit observations and good practices. Second, we will be providing additional guidance to approving authorities, which will be available from early next year. Third, since 2018, we have required all officers who are involved in procurement processes to complete a compulsory e-learning module. These are supplemented with regular refreshers and updates on new policies and practices.

In addition, we are also stepping up efforts to strengthen construction and IT procurement and contract management capabilities, which are more specialised areas requiring deeper technical know-how. The Building and Construction Authority or BCA is developing a competency framework to train public officers in managing construction contracts. MOF and BCA issued a good practice guide last year, containing practical advice on the management of variation orders and how to spot fraudulent quotes. To enhance governance, we will track agencies’ performance in contract management, based on a set of governance indicators. Similarly, GovTech is working on a competency framework for IT procurement and developing an e-learning module that will be ready next year.

To take these efforts forward further, MOF and the Civil Service College jointly established the Finance and Procurement Academy this year to better equip Public Officers with finance, procurement and contract management skills. The academy will work with technical agencies such as BCA and GovTech to not only conduct formal training, but also promote informal learning such as through practitioner sharing and mentorships. It will also support officers in continual learning to keep abreast of developments in finance, procurement and contract management policies and practices.

In the area of developing finance capabilities, finance officers today are required to attend induction courses that cover the fundamentals of Government financial procedures, including on governance and internal controls. These are reinforced and refreshed at milestone programmes, forums and sharing sessions throughout the officers’ career. Similar efforts are also undertaken to raise awareness of these concepts more widely across the Public Service. For example, they are incorporated into finance courses targeted at non-finance officers. MOF also conducts regular briefings to agencies’ senior management to emphasise the importance of public accountability.

In conclusion, let me say public officers are expected to be accountable for their actions and decisions, and this includes maintaining high standards of compliance with guidelines and procedures as they perform their duties. We place high expectations on the senior leadership of the Public Service, who are entrusted to be stewards of public resources. They must uphold strong governance and accountability in their organisations. These expectations are spelt out in the form of leadership competencies and responsibilities, which are conveyed to all senior Public Service leaders in Ministries and Statutory Boards. We evaluate our leaders against these expectations as part of their performance reviews and those who fall short will be rated less favourably. Depending on the nature and cause of the incident, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken as well.

So, finally, let me assure Members that public accountability remains a top priority for the Government. Where warranted, agencies mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report are conducting further investigation into the lapses. The senior leadership of the Public Service is accountable and committed to addressing the lapses identified, resolving the problem at the root and preventing future recurrence.

Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Minister Josephine Teo.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 29-32, 41-60, 63-68, 70-84, 86-90, 92-106 and 108 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 27-28, 33-40, 61-62, 69, 85, 91, and 107 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 6 October 2020.]

Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I correct a factual error in my speech at the 1 September Sitting during the debate on the Motion of Thanks for the President's Address.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I had said that in the last five years, about 40,000 employers have applied for Employment Passes at least once. [Please refer to "Debate on President's Address", Official Report, 1 September 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 3.]

That is an error. In the last five years, 75,000 employers have applied for Employment Passes at least once. Thank you.

Ministerial Statement. Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after a most difficult past several months, the COVID-19 situation in Singapore has stabilised and large parts of the economy have resumed operations. It has been a test of a generation, which we have tackled as one nation.

The Government has rolled out a decisive set of crisis management measures to minimise and cushion economic impact, preserve jobs and capabilities, and support households. This includes the support measures which I announced in August, before the Opening of Parliament. [Please refer to Annex 1.]

I made the announcement then, as some of the support schemes were ending in August and we needed to give our firms and workers certainty during this difficult period. We are now tabling a Supplementary Supply Bill, which provides for the resources to implement the measures announced in August, for debate in Parliament. My Ministerial Statement today will provide context for the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our four earlier Budgets committed close to $100 billion of support measures to deal with COVID-19. This is on top of other measures such as special relief measures for debtors and tenants. These measures have substantially cushioned the economic impact. MAS estimates that the combined Budgets will prevent the economy from contracting by a further 5.6% of GDP in 2020 and 4.8% in 2021.

Our economic support measures will also offset some of the rise in resident unemployment rate by about 1.7 percentage points this year. This could mean about 155,000 jobs saved over these two years, although we will still see job losses overall. More than half of the jobs saved are due to the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS alone.

This outcome has only been possible with the collective determination, adaptability and sacrifice of our people and businesses.

Today, I want to look forward, and share how we will approach the next six months as our economy reopens, as well as our plans for our longer term economic recovery to emerge stronger.

The trajectory of our economic recovery depends critically on how well the world deals with this still dangerous virus. Every passing day brings new surprises and new hope. Even as we learn more about it, there are profound uncertainties ahead.

One major uncertainty is how effective other countries are in containing the pandemic and the success of policies they adopt in opening their economies.

Another key uncertainty is whether, and when, an effective and safe vaccine can be developed. Even if such a vaccine becomes available, the pandemic may not end quickly. Supply of the vaccine will be limited initially, and global rollout is likely to be uneven. We do not know how long the protective effect may last, or if mutation of the virus may render it ineffective.

But there is also hope that we can overcome this crisis. In our fight against COVID-19, we are currently in a stable position, but we must remain vigilant. Amid the uncertainties, we are adapting to living with the virus. We have worked out the steps to further re-open safely in the months ahead. We are putting ourselves in the best position to fight COVID-19 by focusing on four key prongs.

First, vaccination. We are working very actively to secure early access to safe and effective vaccines, if and when they become available.

Singapore is an early supporter of the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access or COVAX Facility, which accelerates the development and production of, and equitable access to potential COVID-19 vaccines. Together with Switzerland, Singapore co-chairs the Friends of the COVAX Facility to promote vaccine multi-lateralisation.

Singapore is also pursuing the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines with a number of pharmaceutical companies. At the same time, we are supporting local efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine as well as building up vaccine manufacturing capacity.

Second, testing. In the meantime, we have increased our Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR testing capacity manifold, and are close to our target of being able to conduct 40,000 laboratory tests a day. We are also evaluating new testing technologies that are less invasive and can produce test results more quickly. This enhanced testing capability will help us safely resume more activities sooner.

Third, tracing. Swift contact tracing and isolation of infected individuals are key to limiting the spread of the virus. Our contact tracing teams are doing a sterling job and using digital tools well. The TraceTogether app, together with tokens that are being distributed nationwide, and the SafeEntry programme, enable contact tracing to reach the speed and coverage needed to rapidly contain viral transmission.

Fourth, safe management. We must continue to adhere to safe management measures and do our part to facilitate contact tracing. Keeping community infections low is the key to re-opening our economy safely.

The Multi-Ministry Task force co-chaired by Ministers Gan Kim Yong and Lawrence Wong will be releasing more details on the roadmap to Phase Three in the coming weeks. This will include the expected timeline for moving to Phase Three, changes to current regulations on the size of group gatherings, and participation at mass events.

While managing the healthcare front of the COVID-19 battle, we must also deal with economic and social fronts. Many of our businesses, workers, and households have been hit hard by the disruptions and uncertainties due to COVID-19. Our path to recovery will not be easy.

Our support over the four Budgets has been to provide immediate relief and also to minimise the scarring effects of COVID-19 on our economy, by preparing our businesses and workers to emerge stronger. In short, we are working together to alleviate near-term pains to build for a better tomorrow. We will remain focused on these over the next six months and beyond.

With the situation stabilising in Singapore and some parts of the world, we will progressively open up more activities, at a pace that enables new practices to be internalised, to keep everyone safe.

The performance and outlook for different economic sectors is highly uneven. Some sectors are doing better than before COVID-19. Firms in the IT, biomedical, e-commerce and finance sectors have benefited from the rise in demand for these services during this period. Some restaurants and hawkers are on their way to recovery. Construction activities will gradually resume as we complete the testing of workers and as they adjust to new safe management measures.

But sectors that involve the movement of people across borders, such as aviation and tourism, will recover only when people around the world feel safe enough to resume travel and this will take some time. And businesses that involve large gatherings, such as in MICE, sports and concerts, will recover slowly, unless rapid test kits are effective in screening participants for safe entry.

Not only are the outlooks different for different sectors, but within sectors, firms that have been nimble are doing better. For instance, some wet market stalls started online selling, and are enjoying robust business. Given these differences in outlook between and within sectors, we have adjusted broad-based wage support under JSS.

For the hardest-hit sectors such as aviation and tourism, which face an uncertain road to recovery, our aim is to help companies preserve core capabilities and enable workers to retain specialised skills.

As earlier announced in August, this will be through the Enhanced Aviation Support Package, a temporary redeployment programme, and the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers.

In addition, we will extend the Enhanced Training Support Package, or ETSP, which I enhanced in the Resilience Budget. I will extend the ETSP for another six months, until 30 June 2021, to provide enhanced course fee subsidies for firms in our hardest-hit sectors. I will extend the ETSP to the Marine and Offshore sector from today, on top of the existing sectors, such as Air Transport, Retail, and Tourism. In recognition of the gradually recovering economic situation, we will also be lowering the absentee payroll rates to 80% from January 2021, capped at $7.50 per hour.

In tandem, we will continue to provide strong support to firms that are growing. In this way, our workers can move into growth areas, stay employed, and build new skills.

We have enhanced support for start-ups, via the Startup SG Founder programme. Since I announced the enhancements in August, more than 500 aspiring entrepreneurs have signed up for the three-month Venture Building programmes.

We will provide wage support of between 25% and 50% for each new local hire in firms which increase their total local headcount, through the Jobs Growth Incentive, or JGI. The support will be for the first $5,000 of gross monthly wages for up to 12 months.

As persons with disabilities may face greater challenges in finding jobs, I will provide the higher tier of wage support of 50% under the JGI to all Persons with Disabilities. This will apply to new hires of Persons with Disabilities from September 2020 to February 2021.

To give a boost to businesses seeking to internationalise, transform and digitalise, I will extend or enhance our capability-building grants, namely the Market Readiness Assistance Grant, the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant, and the PACT programme. These will enable firms to tap on new sources of growth. MTI will announce details in the coming weeks.

Even as we shift our approach in supporting businesses and workers as the economy recovers, we will make sure that the support does not taper off too sharply.

We had earlier enhanced support through loan schemes to provide working capital support for viable businesses. We will extend the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme for six months, until September 2021, at reduced levels. MAS will also extend the MAS Singapore Dollar Facility for Enterprise Singapore Loans, until September 2021.

We will adjust the support available under the Enterprise Financing Scheme to help Singapore enterprises access financing in areas such as trade and project needs. MTI and MAS will announce more details later.

Later today, MAS will be announcing details on the extension of payment moratoriums, at a tapered level of support. Taken together, the staging of these measures avoids sharp drops in support, while facilitating restructuring where needed.

All this support for our firms will ultimately benefit our workers. The best way to protect the welfare of our workers is a good job. By helping viable firms stay afloat during this difficult period, they can retain their workers. By helping firms to restructure and retrain their workers, they can emerge stronger.

More competitive and productive firms can provide better jobs and better prospects for workers. And more skilled and committed workers make firms more competitive. This synergy between competitive firms and capable workers is critical for both to do well.

As part of our long-standing practice of tripartism, we must not fear, but instead ride on change together to achieve synergies and to emerge stronger.

But even with the best efforts, some firms, especially in hardest hit sectors, may not survive, or may have to release some of their workers. So, other than supporting workers through our firms, we will continue to provide our fullest support to workers who have lost their jobs, to help them reskill and move into firms that are hiring.

The National Jobs Council is implementing the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package that I announced at the Fortitude Budget in May.

The Council has curated 117,500 opportunities under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package as of end-August. This is good progress, but we must press on.

The Council is working closely with companies to hire mid-career jobseekers looking to make a switch in their careers and to redeploy workers in affected sectors where activities are low, such as aviation and tourism, to areas of need and where their skills are valued, such as healthcare and childcare.

It is also engaging companies to offer traineeships, company attachments and training opportunities, which can later lead to good jobs.

The key task is now to make sure that workers know of and are successfully matched to these opportunities. We are doing this across multiple channels.

We have set up SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in every HDB town and have Career Ambassadors to reach out to residents.

The Singapore Business Federation, or SBF, is working closely with other TACs and NTUC’s e2i to do business-to-business job matching across sectors, through the SBF SGUnited Jobs Initiative.

MOM and WSG will also be appointing employment agencies as Placement Partners, to assist in placements.

I encourage everyone to step out of your comfort zones and keep an open mind to learn new skills and take on new jobs. One good example is Ms Tan Bee Lian, who is preparing to be a Healthcare Assistant after being in the oil and gas industry for over 30 years. This is very commendable.

To help those who have lost their jobs, MSF has recently extended the COVID-19 Support Grant, and applications are open until the end of the year. Beyond this year, we are studying the support for self-employed persons and workers who are most vulnerable. The continuation and form of support will depend on the labour market situation and economic outlook. One key consideration is to make a stronger link to helping individuals find a new job or to acquire new skills. In this way, we can better prepare our displaced workers for new opportunities as firms restructure. We will provide an update before the end of the year.

Other than supporting our businesses and workers, we will also continue to support our households.

The household support announced earlier continues to flow in the coming months. Please refer to this slide on schedule of support measures, which will also be digitally distributed to Members after the session. In it, you will notice that in October alone, eligible households will receive the GST Voucher – U-Save, the first tranche of Grocery Vouchers, and Service and Conservancy Charges, or S&CC, rebates. Eligible lower income workers will also receive the October tranche of Workfare Special Payment.

We have received feedback that COVID-19 has caused some aspiring parents to postpone their parenthood plans. This is fully understandable, especially when they face uncertainty with their income. Hence, to help with expenses during this period, we will introduce a one-off additional support for newborns. This will be on top of the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, which provides eligible parents up to $10,000 in benefits. Minister Indranee will share more details on the additional support soon.

I have laid out our approach to support our firms, workers and households in dealing with COVID-19 in the next six months and to have more babies. We will adjust our support if necessary, in response to changes on the medical front and global economic developments.

I hope that businesses, workers and households will make good use of these resources in the months ahead.

Beyond the immediate crisis, we want to emerge from COVID-19 stronger as a society and more united as a people. We are determined to have better jobs for our workers and stronger support to enable them to bounce back if they fall. We want to build an endearing home for future generations, and a fair and caring society based on what we stand for as a people.

To deliver on these priorities, we need a dynamic and growing economy, with good jobs for all Singaporeans. Economic growth is an enabler for individuals and families to realise their aspirations and ensures that the public sector is adequately resourced to invest in our national priorities. Given the importance of economic growth as an enabler, I will now spend some time to sketch out the broad strokes of our strategy.

The post-COVID-19 global economy will be different. Our future economy must be responsive to structural shifts, many of which have been accelerated by COVID-19.

Support for globalisation is weakening and some countries are turning inwards. The adoption of digital technology has been given renewed impetus, unlocking new sources of return. Digital technology and its many applications are the new capital of the innovation-driven future economy. Asia continues to rise in global economic weight, as its recovery accelerates. Ensuring sustainability and care for the environment are gaining momentum.

At home, we face slowing resident labour force growth. Future economic growth will come from raising productivity across the economy. So, we must make the best use of the skills and talents of our people and use new technology as a key complement.

We are at a critical juncture in our economic development and the stakes are high. In the next few years, economies will undergo rapid transitions. Depending on their response, COVID-19 will benefit some and disadvantage others, whether at the firm-level, sector-level, or across the entire economy. We must take the actions now that will allow us to not just get through COVID-19, but more crucially, gain ground that will pave the way for our next lap of economic growth in the next five to 10 years.

I will speak on what we are preparing for in this next lap of growth. Before I get into the details, I wish to stress that everything this Government does to protect, re-open, and grow our economy – we do, not for the economy’s sake, but for our people. We strive to secure a way for Singapore to continue to make a good living, so that Singaporeans can have a good life. This is our guiding principle.

Thankfully, we are in a good position.

Since 2017, the Future Economy Council has been driving the implementation of our Industry Transformation Maps, or ITMs, to restructure our economy sector by sector, firm by firm. We have made good progress.

Before COVID-19, our resident unemployment rate was low at 3.2% as at end-2019.

Between 2016 and 2019, overall productivity, measured by real value added per actual hour worked, rose by a creditable 2.4% per year. This is also an improvement over the 2.2% per year growth in the preceding three-year period.

Overall, real median income for Singaporeans grew by 3.7% per year in the last three years, up from 3.2% in the preceding three years. Incomes at the 20th percentile grew by 4.4% per year in the past three years, up from 4% in the preceding three years.

In 2015, we launched the SkillsFuture movement as well as our Research, Innovation and Enterprise, or RIE 2020 plan. These support our ITM work by strengthening our foundations of skills and innovation.

We are building on our good position and keeping up the pace.

In the midst of this pandemic, we set up the Emerging Stronger Taskforce in May to update our economic roadmap to respond to the new realities and to emerge with a new competitive edge. There are many new business and growth opportunities for Singapore to seize, and the Taskforce has already made significant progress in this through the Alliances for Action.

As rapid-action taskforces, the seven Alliances have rallied key players around common challenges faced by industry. They are developing prototypes to validate new business ideas, new business models, and new business solutions, in areas such as sustainability, robotics, and safe visitor experiences. Government agencies are partnering businesses to review regulations and promote innovation.

Beyond the first wave of Alliances, the Taskforce is looking to launch new Alliances to build momentum for change and explore opportunities in new areas of growth, such as MedTech. The Taskforce will share more details.

All these moves build on our ITM framework to deliver a refreshed economic strategy for a post-COVID-19 world, with emphasis on three priority areas.

First, remaking Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation, and enterprise. We will secure our external economic linkages as a vital global node in Asia and transform ourselves into a vibrant centre of technology and innovation.

Second, redoubling our efforts to foster inclusive growth. With COVID-19 revealing vulnerabilities in our labour market, we need to better understand its structure, and upgrade jobs and skills across all segments of society.

Third, investing in economic resilience and sustainability as a source of competitive advantage. Our resilience can be a source of growth, at many levels – for our individuals, industries, nation, and the world.

Let me start with the first key move, which is to remake ourselves as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise.

COVID-19 has changed travel patterns, sharpened the fragmentation of supply chains and accelerated digitalisation in different markets. It has heightened emphasis on resilience as companies and countries review their operations.

Asia, in particular Southeast Asia, will continue to grow as one of the key global engines. We must deepen and broaden links to build up Singapore’s role at the heart of Asia’s growth, while forging connectivity with other key markets. A role that we have played in our long history as a trading port and which we will renew in two ways: one, rebuild and grow our physical connectivity – in travel and trade; and, two, enhance and expand our digital connectivity.

Our air hub has been badly affected by COVID-19 and we are sparing no effort to rebuild it.

Compared with last year, passenger traffic has fallen by more than 98% in August, with daily passenger volume of about 3,000, down sharply from 190,000 previously.

When global passenger traffic resumes, as it surely will, the Changi Air Hub will resume its role at the Global-Asia node, together with all the related sectors such as tourism, manufacturing and logistics.

Accordingly, we must re-establish our position by reopening our borders gradually, positioning Singapore as a safe destination, levelling up capabilities and refreshing our infrastructure.

We are committed to revive our air hub and restore our air connectivity. The Multi-Ministry Taskforce is studying this carefully as part of our broader re-opening plans and the Minister for Transport will share more in his Ministerial Statement tomorrow.

Our maritime trade has to date remained resilient to COVID-19, and we will accelerate moves to strengthen our position.

Notwithstanding the 13.5% drop in global trade on a year-on-year basis in the first half of 2020, container throughput at Singapore's ports fell by a milder 1.1% over the same period. At the same time, firms are more prepared to diversify their operating bases to increase resilience.

So, we must press on with improving transhipment capabilities, inking trade facilitation agreements and anchoring key shipping routes through Singapore.

The first few berths of Tuas Port are on track to be operational by 2021.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is slated to be signed this year, connecting a trade region of 15 countries accounting for about 30% of the global population and GDP.

Moving ahead, we will further strengthen our value proposition through greater regional cooperation, and by building up a leading trade and logistics eco-system.

Southeast Asia can benefit from the greater premium on supply chain resilience through regional cooperation. For example, the Iskandar Malaysia and Batam, Bintan, Karimun region presents good opportunities for companies to cluster the full value chain of complementary activities from research and development, to regional headquarters and manufacturing.

To support our ambitions, we will significantly strengthen our entire trade and logistics ecosystem, deepening capabilities in our port, airport and beyond. We will enhance our infrastructure for Singapore to handle larger flows of food, pharmaceuticals, electronics and e-commerce.

We will accelerate the build-up of digital capabilities, which will be a game-changer for Singapore’s connectivity with Asia and the world. Digital payments and data facilitate physical trade. It makes the exchange of varied goods and services more efficient, opens up new possibilities, and strengthens our value proposition as a trading node.

Within Singapore, the Alliance on Supply Chain Digitalisation is exploring options and bringing together key players across the supply chain in this venture.

We have also concluded Digital Economy Agreements with Australia, Chile and New Zealand, and have ongoing talks with South Korea. These agreements establish common frameworks and rules for digital trade, enabling our businesses, especially SMEs, to access international markets more easily.

These moves to enhance Singapore’s digital connectivity will open up new markets and opportunities for our businesses.

As part of our ITM work, we are helping firms to make full use of digital technology. COVID-19 has accelerated the digitalisation and transformation of many businesses, big and small.

Since January this year, enterprises have embarked on over 27,000 projects to improve their productivity and build new capabilities through the Productivity Solutions Grant and the Enterprise Development Grant schemes.

During my dialogue with businesses on Friday, I met the founder of Seonggong, a restaurant group with brands such as Seorae Korean BBQ. Seonggong used digital technology to revamp its operations, from accounting to ordering to procurement. So much so that increased sales from online deliveries have more than offset losses from their dine-in business, by 10%.

The experience of businesses shows that digitalisation is a strategic capability to unlock growth, evolve their models to harness digital possibilities and to integrate processes such as logistics, payment and marketing.

We will press on with our ITM work, which helps businesses big and small, to transform holistically, bringing together the different aspects needed to upgrade.

A key priority for us now is to build on this momentum and bring digitalisation to our heartlands. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and Minister of State Low Yen Ling will be announcing further plans for heartland enterprises in the coming days.

I have spoken on seizing new opportunities through physical and digital connectivity. Beyond being an effective and trusted broker for trade and digital flows, we must be a key node where new ideas are born and nurtured into globally-competitive enterprises.

Today, we have a business-friendly environment, strong rule of law, a skilled and diverse workforce, advanced infrastructure and a globally-competitive eco-system of financial and professional services. We must continue to build on these complementary strengths built up over the years.

We will be unveiling a new five-year Research, Innovation and Enterprise, or RIE plan in December. The plan will build on earlier investments and enhance research to support areas of national priority, such as early childhood development, lifelong learning and keeping our seniors healthy. We will expand our transformation of the manufacturing, aviation and maritime industries, and deepen our capabilities as a Smart Nation and sustainable society.

We will also position Singapore as a global intellectual property, or IP, centre in Asia. Ministers Indranee Rajah and Edwin Tong are leading our efforts on our Singapore IP Strategy 2030, and will share details at World IP Day.

A major effort will be to integrate the work of the Future Economy Council and our RIE plan, so as to accelerate our transformation into an innovation-led economy, powered by technology. In this way, our businesses can be more competitive and our workers can have better job prospects.

An example of how we will scale up the translation of ideas and technology into business improvements is through the use of innovation platforms that bring industry and researchers to work together on specific challenges.

We are also promoting the Open Innovation Network, an online platform which brings problem owners and problem solvers together to create industry-led solutions.

Since 2017, a total of close to $13 million in grant and prize monies has been awarded to firms with viable solutions to deploy and scale their ideas under Enterprise Singapore’s Gov-PACT and IMDA’s Open Innovation Platform.

This year, we have taken this further, with two rounds of National Innovation Challenges. We hope to see the outcome of these in the coming months.

To summarise, we are making good progress in our move to position Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. By enhancing our connectivity and making innovation pervasive, we can better meet the challenges of a post-COVID world, and create good jobs and a brighter future for all Singaporeans.

Our aim is not just to grow a vibrant, innovative economy, but an inclusive economy, where growth uplifts all Singaporeans. To achieve inclusive growth, our workers need to have the skills to stay relevant and we need to provide holistic support to uplift our vulnerable workers.

First, skills. To take on good jobs and enjoy the fruits of growth, our workers need the right skills for the job. We have a strong base of human capital developed through our education system. But there are big changes upon us. There is stiffer global competition. With deep technological changes, skills are going obsolete faster.

We will therefore need extensive upskilling and continual reskilling of our workforce, to equip our workers to continue to get good jobs. We want to do so for every worker at every age. We are investing significantly.

This year, we have set aside about $3 billion for the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package to provide immediate employment and training support for our workers.

This is on top of the close to $5 billion set aside over three years for our longer term structural measures, to support workers of all ages to upskill and access new job opportunities.

Firms and training providers have a major part to play. I urge all firms to make full use of the schemes for developing our people.

We have a suite of leadership development programmes for Singaporeans at various stages of their careers, such as the Global Ready Talent Programme and the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative.

Companies on the Human Capital Partnership, or HCP Programme, which recognises fair and progressive employers, have also benefited, as the HCP mark endorses them as employers of choice.

We will work closely with industry and training providers, to make sure that the skills workers learn are useful.

Skills upgrading is most effective when the training is relevant to the company’s needs and jobseekers have certainty in the value of the training. For example, through NTUC’s Company Training Committees, our Professional Conversion Programmes, or PCPs, and TechSkills Accelerator Company-Led Training programme for ICT jobs. These have had good outcomes. For example, about nine in 10 of PCP employees remained in employment 24 months after being placed, and about seven in 10 saw a wage increase after starting their new jobs.

As part of this whole-of-society movement to build skills, companies too, need better skills! Skills to develop their workers, and redesign skills-based jobs to move beyond paper-based qualifications. We will continue our work through our ITMs, together with our unions, to drive these changes in each firm and in each sector.

And finally, individuals have a key part to play in taking charge of their own learning. Our schools provide a good foundation. We are increasing the digital skills content in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning to prepare our young for a digital future. But learning does not stop after leaving school. We spend more years outside of school than in school. We all need to learn through life. In the process, we can enrich our lives, and our society at large.

Even as we level up the skills of every worker at every age, we still need to bring in global talent to complement our Singapore talent. By building on complementary strengths, we can build cutting-edge capabilities in our workforce and our firms and plug into global networks. This will ultimately benefit all Singaporean workers.

We will continue to update our foreign workforce policies carefully, such as our Employment Pass and S Pass rules, to achieve this synergy.

Let us all play our part in building a strong, skilled workforce together. Singaporeans, growing up in a multi-cultural society, have an edge in building relationships with people around the world, especially in a more fragmented post-COVID landscape. Let us build on this.

I have covered how we will grow skills across the workforce to keep our workers competitive. The second way to ensure inclusive growth is to help vulnerable and lower wage workers raise their skills and secure good jobs.

I had a good discussion recently with career coaches and union leaders, to better understand the challenges experienced by different groups of jobseekers.

Each worker also faced different challenges. For some, it was a skills gap issue. For others, it was an issue of expectations – trying to find a job which matched their earlier salary. For yet others, especially mid-career and mature executives, employers were concerned about whether they could adapt.

These are all important issues that we need to tackle together, urgently.

For example, our lower income workers have been particularly hard hit by COVID-19. Many of these workers face a twin challenge, as they are also in sectors that will be affected by longer-term structural changes in the economy, such as retail or F&B. Some are also in the gig economy.

Our middle income and middle-aged workers also have heavy family responsibilities and commitments, but face the challenges of a rapidly evolving labour market.

For all these workers, there is even more urgency to upskill and transition into jobs with good long-term prospects.

In the design of our support schemes, we have been deliberate in channelling additional support to vulnerable groups, to help them access opportunities and stay in good jobs.

For example, mature and older workers are eligible for higher wage support in our career conversion programmes, as well as higher course fee subsidies. I announced some of these earlier this year as part of our SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package.

Our lower income workers also get additional support for skills upgrading via the Workfare Skills Support scheme. This has been implemented in July 2020 to better support acquisition of skills and qualifications that are more likely to lead to higher wages.

The Progressive Wage Model, or PWM, is an important labour policy innovation. PWM is more than a sector-based minimum wage.

It is a four-in-one framework comprising a Job Ladder, Skills Ladder, Productivity Ladder and Wage Ladder. These four upgrading ladders are mutually reinforcing.

By offering a proper career ladder, skills upgrading ladder, productivity improvement ladder and wage enhancement ladder, our four-in-one PWM transforms jobs that are traditionally less attractive to our locals.

We will expand PWM to more sectors over time, while making sure that businesses in those sectors can absorb this change. Companies that voluntarily pay progressive wages and provide advancement pathways for lower income workers will also be recognised with a PWM Mark. In doing so, we will raise skill levels and create more and better jobs. And in time, we will slow down the future growth of the foreign workforce in these sectors.

We may still be battling the downturn, but will be actively looking to identify the next few sectors where we can use the four-in-one PWM framework to redesign jobs and raise skills levels, and expand PWM to benefit more groups of lower wage workers as soon as conditions allow.

This will also mean that business costs will go up, which will add to the difficulty of businesses during this time. But COVID-19 has highlighted why it is critical, for long-term survival, for firms to be more manpower-lean, productive and have jobs that are attractive to our locals.

We will have to explore solutions and the Government will provide support for the transition.

It is a continuing journey to improve the job market for our more vulnerable workers. Beyond incentives, we need to shift culture and employer mindsets. But if we focus on the strengths of our workers and adopt flexibility in job design and redesign, we can customise creative solutions for different groups of workers.

For example, we know that some workers find it hard to travel far for work. At the same time, some of the shops in our heartlands may find it difficult to find workers. By putting these job openings together, and placing them at potential touchpoints like Social Services Offices, Community Centres, MyCareersFuture portal, and SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres, we can facilitate job matches for these workers.

I have asked Minister of State Low Yen Ling, who is also Chairperson of the Mayors' Committee, to look into how we can better help our displaced mature professionals, and how we can make better use of micro-jobs to bring job opportunities closer to the heartlands. More details will be announced later.

Given the scale of structural changes in the global economy, we need to redesign jobs and reskill workers, across all our ITMs, in significant ways. We need to be innovative in pursuing this and work in close partnerships between employers, workers and our unions. It will take time and effort, but if done well, will usher in a more dynamic and inclusive economy.

I have covered the first and second moves in this next phase of our industry transformation journey. Our third move is to invest in our economic resilience and sustainability as a source of growth and competitive advantage.

Economic resilience is not a new idea for Singapore. We have achieved resilience through a diversified economic structure, with multiple engines of growth. No one industry accounts for much more than 20% of our GDP, so we do not put all our eggs in one basket.

We thus entered the COVID-19 pandemic on a relatively strong footing.

We were able to ensure sufficient medical supplies and essential goods for our public and healthcare workers because we had a strategic national stockpile in place, supported by a combination of local production of essential supplies, and a diverse network of trading partners.

Nonetheless, COVID-19 exposed vulnerabilities around the world. Beyond essential goods, critical inputs for industrial production and access to workers were cut off due to global work stoppages and travel bans. Demand also ground to a halt in many industries.

We must therefore act now to improve our economic resilience. In doing this, we may have to creatively combine the efficiency of having things ready "just in time" with the resilience of building buffers "just in case".

Will this drive for resilience come at the expense of growth and efficiency? Not necessarily so. For example, firms that embrace technology raise not only productivity, but also resilience.

Lingjack, a manufacturer of fire extinguishers, automated its labour-intensive production lines in 2017. With over 90% of its production lines automated, Lingjack achieved efficiency gains of up to 40%. At the same time, this also made the company less vulnerable to worker shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.

One key way to enhance our resilience and to grow is to produce essential supplies locally, which can be used both for local consumption and export. One example is medical supplies, such as masks and test kits.

Another example is food. We set ourselves the ambitious "30 by 30" goal of producing 30% of our nutritional needs locally by 2030, up from less than 10% today. Our agri-food sector will enhance our resilience to food supply disruptions.

The technology developed in support of this strategy, such as in seeds and alternative proteins, can be exported. We can grow these capabilities, building on our strengths in R&D and our standing as a trusted hub.

Singapore is already the global R&D centre for AgriProtein, one of the world's leading insect protein companies. The R&D team develops technologies to upcycle food waste into sustainable animal feed solutions.

As we grapple with climate change, environmental sustainability is an important aspect of our economic resilience for a low-carbon and resource-constrained future. Here again is an opportunity for the green sector to be a growth industry in its own right and to power our economy.

First, we are transforming our industries to build a sustainable economy.

We will continue to invest in research into energy and resource efficiency technologies and encourage adoption of these technologies through various incentives under EDB, EMA, BCA and NEA.

Going forward, we will further promote the decarbonisation of the economy and pursue initiatives for a more sustainable economy.

Under our Zero Waste Masterplan, we will promote the circular economy and support businesses to turn "trash to treasure", namely, to recycle or transform waste into useful inputs for production. Harnessing the circular economy model, JTC is working with companies on Jurong Island to build a more sustainable Jurong Island.

We are increasing our deployment of renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, at both the national and industry level.

And we will invest in new capabilities and solutions, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to complement our existing R&D efforts. In time, we hope that these promising technologies can become commercially viable decarbonisation pathways in future.

Even as we transform our existing industries, we are seeking new business opportunities in the green economy, given our region's growing needs for sustainable development.

We will establish ourselves as a carbon services hub in Asia.

Efforts to limit the growth of carbon emissions will increase the demand for engineering, legal and consultancy services related to carbon.

The Alliance for Action for Sustainability is market-testing some concepts and business opportunities.

Finance is also an important enabler of green growth. We are developing financing solutions and markets in Singapore to help firms finance their adoption of more sustainable practices under MAS' Green Finance Action Plan.

Taken together, our moves to strengthen our economic resilience and sustainability serve a dual purpose. They strengthen our economy so that we can bounce back quickly and better from shocks, while adding to our value proposition as a vital global node in Asia. In turn, all these initiatives will create many new opportunities and valuable jobs for our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have set out a set of interlocking strategies that will enable us to build back better and emerge stronger from this crisis. These strategies strengthen both our economy and our social compact.

The key to achieving our objectives is working together. In our system, tripartism – between the Government, businesses and the Labour Movement – has been a tremendous source of strength.

Our Emerging Stronger Taskforce's Alliances for Action are a new form of collaborative partnership – nimble, action-focused partnerships that involve people from a wide spectrum of society, while putting ideas into action quickly. This will further strengthen our capacity for economic transformation and change.

By working together, our businesses will be better positioned to capture new opportunities in Asia, digitalisation, innovation and to build a more resilient and sustainable economy. Our people will be better placed to take on these new opportunities and bounce back from setbacks. We can then emerge from this pandemic stronger as an economy, as a society and as one people.

As I announced in my August's Ministerial Statement, the continued support for our fight against COVID-19 will cost a further $8 billion this financial year. The additional measures I have spoken on today remain within this and earlier voted sums.

I will fund the additional expenditure by reallocating monies from other areas with reduced spending, such as development projects that have been delayed due to COVID-19. The proposed reallocations are indicated in the Supplementary Estimates presented to Parliament today.

When I announced the Fortitude Budget just after the start of the financial year, the economic situation and overall revenue picture were highly uncertain. We are now in the middle of the financial year and are in a better position to revise the overall revenue estimates.

Hence, I am presenting the revised revenue estimates to Parliament, which will also take into account the revenue forgone arising from measures in the Fortitude Budget. The revised estimates will reflect a $1.5 billion draw on Past Reserves resulting from these measures, such as the Foreign Worker Levy waiver, for which the President had given in-principle approval. There is no additional draw for this latest support package itself.

When I briefed the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers in August, I thanked them for their earlier support and approval for the use of Past Reserves to fund our response to COVID-19. In total, we are dedicating close to $100 billion to support our people and businesses.

We are starting this new term of Government from a most challenging fiscal position. For this financial year, we already expect operating revenues to be 16% lower than initial estimates presented at the Unity Budget in February 2020.

Revenue collections are expected to fall across all categories of revenue. For example, compared to the estimates at the start of the year, we expect GST collections to be down by 14%.

We expect our revenue position to be weak for a number of years, as the effects of COVID-19 on the global economy linger and our economy slows. At the same time, our expenditure will rise as we continue to provide support for our people and businesses.

In short, the Government is bearing a substantial part of the economy-wide adjustment during this crisis, through reduced revenues and substantial transfers to households and businesses.

This challenging fiscal position is a result of a global pandemic that no one could have predicted. What is within our control is how we use our fiscal resources well to respond to this crisis and to prepare for the future.

We have dedicated close to $100 billion to support our people and businesses through this difficult period. As we do so, we must be careful not to spend in a way that squanders what generations before us have painstakingly built up.

Our guiding principle is prudence, not austerity. We will continue to invest decisively in our national priorities, with a deep commitment to leave behind a better future for our children.

There is much work to be done to transform our economy, and to build a fair and inclusive society, a sustainable and liveable city, and a safe and secure Singapore. We will have to find ways to fund these sustainably – higher taxes, and more effective spending. These are difficult choices, but we must meet them head-on.

We will pay for our recurrent needs, like healthcare spending, with recurrent revenues, such as taxes. We will also maintain a disciplined and judicious use of borrowing, reserving its use for long-term infrastructure whose benefits are spread across many generations.

Our Past Reserves have been critical in our fight against COVID-19. Governments around the world have committed trillions of dollars in response to COVID-19, and their debt levels have risen to record highs. Such debt will take generations to pay off. We have avoided this outcome because successive generations have built up strong reserves ahead of this crisis. We must have the discipline to start earning, saving, and investing for the future again.

COVID-19 is not our first crisis and certainly will not be the last.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The COVID-19 situation in Singapore has stabilised. The key to controlling the pandemic is Singaporeans working together. We must remain vigilant and continue to cooperate in disease prevention and comply with the safe distancing measures. Testing, tracing, development and production of vaccines as well as the progress of controlling the pandemic in other countries will determine when we can safely reopen all our economic activities.

At present, the pace of recovery varies across sectors. Hence, we will continue to provide assistance to Singaporeans and businesses from now till the next financial year or beyond.

I understand that many businesses are still facing liquidity problems. I will extend the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme until September 2021, at reduced levels. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will also extend the MAS Singapore Dollar Facility for Enterprise Singapore Loans to help businesses continue to access credit.

In addition, we will extend the Enhanced Training Support Package to June 2021 to provide course fee subsidies to hardest-hit sectors such as aviation and tourism.

We understand that the uncertainty brought about by the pandemic has caused many young families to postpone their parenthood plans. Hence, we will provide eligible couples with a one-off additional support to help them reduce their child-rearing burden.

The Government has started to draw up the Budget for 2021. We will continue to work closely with businesses, workers and community organisations to chart the way forward for Singapore.

In order to create more quality jobs for our people, we need a flourishing economy. Fortunately, the Government has already started on industry transformation with the setting up of the Future Economy Council and introduced the Industry Transformation Maps for the various sectors. We have also established the Emerging Stronger Taskforce to refresh our economic strategy to prepare for the post-COVID era. We have also established the Alliances for Action to try out new ideas.

We also need to further consolidate Singapore's position as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation, and enterprise . We must invest in economic resilience and sustainability as a source of competitive advantage to prepare for a sustainable low-carbon future.

Singapore must also foster inclusive growth. Our workers need to have skills to stay relevant. We will expand the Progressive Wage Model to more sectors over time, introduce job redesign and raise the skills of our workers to benefit more groups of lower-wage workers. And in time, we will slow down the growth of foreign workers in these sectors.

In the Ministerial Statement I made in August, I have provided an additional $8 billion to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Together with the four Budgets announced earlier, we have promised as much as $100 billion to help our people and businesses to tide over this difficult time. Besides having to meet huge expenditures, our tax revenue is also facing substantial pressure due to economic slowdown globally.

Despite this, our guiding principle is prudence, not austerity, when planning our finances. We will continue to invest resources in families, healthcare and infrastructure to enhance the quality of life of our people.

A thriving economy not only enables Singaporeans to realise their aspirations but also ensures that the Government has sufficient resources to meet their needs.

The post-COVID era will be a very different world. We will constantly refine our economic strategies to keep up with the times, innovate and maintain our competitive advantage. No matter how challenging the situations will be, we will put the interests and welfare of Singaporeans first. I believe that as long as we stay united, we will be able to overcome our immediate difficulties and usher in a better future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, our people and businesses are in the thick of battling COVID-19. We have adapted together, and I am glad that many continue to give their utmost in this difficult situation, and do their best for their families and communities.

I have shared with this House and our people a stocktake of where we are, and where we are headed. I give you our commitment that we will continue to support our workers and businesses in this difficult time. We have worked out the steps to further re-open safely in the coming months. We have refreshed our economic strategy for a post-COVID-19 world, to remake Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation, and enterprise, achieve inclusive growth and build resilience and sustainability, so as to achieve better lives and opportunities for our people.

Given the great uncertainty ahead, we have to remain vigilant, work in close partnership, and continue to adapt as we plan and move ahead.

Work on Budget 2021 is underway. I encourage each of you to share with us your perspectives and ideas, and to do your part to build our future as part of our Singapore Together movement.

Together, we will overcome this crisis and emerge stronger. [Applause.]

Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, "That the Ministerial Statement made by me be considered by Parliament."

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

Mr Speaker, to give Members some time to consider my Statement, I would like to adjourn the debate. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."

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

Resumption of debate, what day?

Wednesday, 14 October 2020, Sir.

So be it. Order. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.

[(proc text) "to give effect to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, done at the Hague on 5 October 1961, and for connected purposes, and to make related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) 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 the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018) to provide for temporary measures in the form of simplified procedures relating to a compromise or an arrangement with creditors and winding up, and related matters, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide for the power to exempt persons from certain criteria in relation to insolvency practitioners' licences", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) 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 the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 26 of 2012) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran) 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 the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; 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)]

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

Sir, over the years, the Government has made significant efforts to strengthen Singapore's position as a premier international legal services and dispute resolution hub. We have capitalised on our geographical position and our strong adherence to the rule of law, to grow these services.

In international arbitration, we have a comprehensive legal infrastructure that supports and at the same time intensively promotes arbitration alongside a robust and effective legal system. We have enhanced our laws, to constantly improve our system and to best meet the needs of the end user. We have a first class judiciary that is supportive of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and these are amongst the main reasons why Singapore is the most preferred seat of arbitration in the world today.

We have come far, in the last 25 years, since the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the SIAC, was set up. Today, Singapore is a popular seat for arbitration and also recognised as the third most preferred in international arbitration in the world. It is also the third most preferred arbitral institution, the SIAC, globally. In 2019, the SIAC saw a new high of 479 case filings. This is the third consecutive year that the SIAC's caseload has exceeded 400 and we will aim to do even better in the coming years.

This growth has only been possible with the close partnership between the Government and the legal fraternity. We share a common understanding about the value of alternative dispute resolution to Singapore's position as a legal services hub. At the same time, the arbitration landscape is constantly evolvingand we must be ever alert to changing needs and continue to improve Singapore's value propositions as a hub for international commercial arbitration.

With the uncertainties facing the global economy, it is now even more important that we regularly review and enhance our legislation, so as to continue to build on our reputation for being a trusted and neutral jurisdiction, under-girded by a strong rule of law and a legal framework that is responsive and remains relevant to the users' evolving needs.

This Bill, Mr Speaker, is moved in that spirit.

In 2019, MinLaw conducted a broad public consultation on a number of proposals to improve and enhance and to consider for amendment of the International Arbitration Act or IAA. These proposals were aimed at enhancing our offerings, in the international arbitration arena and they included: the introduction of a default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party situations; recognising that an arbitral tribunal and the High Court ought to have powers to enforce obligations of confidentiality; allowing a party to the arbitral proceedings to appeal to the High Court on a question of law arising out of an award, provided that parties have agreed to opt into this mechanism; and allowing parties to waive or limit the annulment grounds under the Model Law or the IAA. These are amongst the several proposals that were considered in the consultation in 2019.

We consulted widely. And received feedback from arbitral institutions, from professional bodies, from practitioners, from academics, from multi-national companies who are themselves users of the arbitration in the international arena, key industry experts, both local and foreign. We have studied the feedback and the views very carefully. We received a broad range of views, because this really represents the end-users and the market. We received views on whether to implement them and if so, how then these changes ought to be implemented.

After extensive consultation with stakeholders, we have decided to proceed with the first of the two of the proposals first. This Bill therefore introduces two amendments.

First, it sets out a default mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators in multiparty situations.

Second, it recognises that the tribunal and the High Court have the power to enforce confidentiality obligations in an arbitration.

The rest of the proposals which were considered in the public consultation are still being studied and evaluated by my Ministry. I wish to thank and place on record our gratitide to all those who have contributed their views, their time and suggestions. They have been very welcomed and most helpful in shaping our views. I would like to emphasise that the Government remains committed to working with our stakeholders to strengthen the international arbitration regime so as to ensure that this regime remains attractive and continues to serve the needs of international businesses.

Sir, let me now take Members briefly through each of the amendments.

At present, the IAA provides a procedure for default appointment of arbitrators only where there are only two parties to a dispute; and where these parties have adopted an ad hoc arbitration instead of institutional arbitration or have chosen not to apply institutional arbitration rules. There is currently no similar procedure in the IAA or the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, for arbitrations where the dispute involves more than two parties.

As Members know, today as transactions become more complex, disputes become more complex, multi-party arbitrations have been a growing trend. It is no longer often that we see a case where there is a single claimant with a single respondent. The increasingly complex and diverse nature of contracts means that more often than not, these disputes will be multi-party in nature.

Where there are multiple parties, they may not be able to collectively agree on an arbitrator. Indeed, it is sometimes not in their interest to do so. A group of claimants will probably find it easier to be aligned, but in some multi-party cases, the interests of the disputing parties are not necessarily aligned neatly into two opposing sides and very often, they are not. As a result, it is not easy for these two groups of parties to agree on who they wish to nominate as their respective arbitrator. Such situations could also occur in disputes arising from multi-shareholder or multi-joint venture party disputes.

In one example that was cited to us, the dispute comprised a state, a ministry and joint venture vehicle as the respondent. On the side of the claimants was a consortium of oil companies. The claimants were more easily able to co-ordinate and appoint an arbitrator, but when it came to the respondents, it was a lot more difficult as the different parties comprising the respondent group, comprised different entities with divergent interests. This would result in one side not having the benefit of a party appointed member on the tribunal, through no fault of his except that its interests were not coincident with the rest of the respondent group.

Other examples include claims by a developer against two contractors, in a situation where each of the contractors might have had a distinct role and each of the contractors might well have a reason for suggesting that the other contractor is at fault. In those situations, you would not expect the respondent parties to be coincident or aligned in terms of their choice of arbitrators.

It is also not uncommon for respondents to try to delay or frustrate an arbitration by either failing to appoint an arbitrator or dragging their feet or just not taking part in the proceedings for nomination at all.

These examples are just some, but they demonstrate the importance of having clear rules or procedures, upfront, to help parties to quickly resolve their differences, at the procedural stage. This is not a problem where parties have decided on a set of institutional rules, but it does become critical in the context of multi-party ad hoc arbitration situations where there is no agreed mechanism for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, and where the parties' inability to agree on the appointment of their arbitrators would invariably lead to disagreement and delays in commencing the proceedings. This invariably adds to costs and unnecessary time spent on process and procedure, when the parties really ought to get into the heart of the substance of the dispute and resolve those disputes. We also want to ensure that, as far as possible, all parties receive equal treatment in the formation of the tribunal.

Sir, to address these concerns, clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new section 9B to the Act, to provide for the default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations. It will apply where there are three or more parties and three arbitrators. The default procedure will only apply where parties have not agreed on a procedure for the appointment of the arbitrators.

Let me now take Members briefly through the steps involved in this procedure. The claimant must first appoint an arbitrator on or before the date of its request for arbitration. If there is more than one claimant, then all the claimants should make the appointment by agreement. The claimant or claimants must then inform the respondents of the appointment and state the appointed arbitrator together with the notice of arbitration.

The respondent must then appoint an arbitrator after the receipt of the request for arbitration. Again, if there is more than one respondent, all the respondents need to make or agree to the appointment. The respondent must inform the claimant or claimants of the appointment. And finally, the two appointed arbitrators on both sides, will then get together and appoint the third arbitrator, who will be the presiding arbitrator.

However, where parties are unable to come to an agreement on their choice of arbitrator, then the new section 9B(2) provides that the appointing authority must then, in that situation and upon the request of any party, appoint all three arbitrators. In doing so, the appointing authority is required to have regard to and I quote, "all relevant circumstances". So, a broad discretion, to consider all the facts, all the matters which arise in the context of that appointment exercise is to be considered. 9B(2) also allows for the appointing authority to consider the choices already made by the parties at that stage, if any, and at what stage the proceedings might be at.

Let me elaborate a little on this. Under the IAA, where the parties have not agreed on who should be the appointing authority, then the default appointing authority will be the President of the Court of Arbitration of the SIAC and any other person nominated by the Chief Justice to exercise the powers of that appointing authority.

In doing so, the appointing authority may have regard to all relevant circumstances as I have mentioned and that authority may reappoint or may revoke any appointment that has already been made. The appointing authority may also designate any one of the three arbitrators as the presiding arbitrator. This process seeks to strike a balance between party autonomy and equality in the arbitration process. And this process is itself aligned with the rules of leading arbitral institutions on the multi-party appointment of arbitrators. So, the process that we have designed in this, is in terms of philosophy, aligned with that of leading institutions around the world.

In similar fashion, the appointing authority will appoint the third arbitrator upon the request of any party, and if the two arbitrators appointed by the parties fail to agree on the appointment of the third arbitrator within the timeframe specified. Again, the appointing authority is granted discretion to consider all relevant circumstances, in coming to its decision. And these may also include the reasons why the two appointed arbitrators are not able to agree on the third arbitrator or their reasons for failing to come to an agreement within a specified time.

Introducing this default mode of appointment in multi-party arbitrations will reduce potential delay in the conduct of arbitration proceedings. And this might arise where parties are unable to agree or refuse to agree as I mentioned earlier. Or, if the party-appointed arbitrators are themselves, unable to agree on a third appointment.

With the amendment, the parties' failure to agree on joint nominations, or indeed, a refusal to agree, will not prevent the arbitral tribunal from being constituted expeditiously. As any party in this default mode of appointment would have the right to make a request to the appointing authority, to cite reasons and to request the authority to make the appointment. This would also, as I mentioned, avoid the problem of parties seeking to delay or frustrate the arbitration by not taking part in the process at all.

And we believe that ultimately, this default mechanism, that is set up upfront, will save time for parties, will increase the overall efficiency of the process and will be a further step in continuing to make Singapore an attractive seat for complex international arbitration disputes including those with include multi-parties.

Sir, I now move on to broadly outline the second amendment.

Currently, unless parties otherwise agree, the parties and the arbitral tribunal have a duty of confidentiality. This can arise in a number of ways. First, as a result of an agreement between the parties. Second, under any written law or rule of law and this includes the common law. Third, under the rules of arbitration including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organisation, which the parties have agreed to, or have been adopted by the parties.

Confidential information obtained in anarbitration proceeding is protected from disclosure or use for any other collateral purpose, not the purposes for which the information was obtained, which is the arbitration.

The scope and content of such a duty might differ. In other words, what does this duty cover, what kind of information, what type of documents? They might differ from case to case.

And depending on the circumstances of each case, this duty could cover documents used or disclosed in the proceedings.

Our Courts over several decided cases have recognised that, in the absence of an express agreement between the parties regarding the existence and the scope of a duty of confidentiality, even in that parties to the arbitration have an implied duty of confidentiality.

At the same time, our courts have also commented that there ought not be any generalisations as to what the duty of confidentiality would encompass. In other words, do not set out upfront for every case and in each and every case for each type of categories of documents, what that scope of confidentiality covers because each case ought to be evaluated and contextualised in its own circumstances and the implied duty reflects the needs and expectations of the parties as well.

A distinction has to be drawn between different types of confidentiality attaching to different types of documents or evidence that has been obtained in these proceedings. So, for example, arbitration awards may be treated differently from the underlying materials used or disclosed in the course of arbitration proceedings.

This duty is also not absolute and the extent to which the duty is preserved will depend on the individual circumstances.

Given the centrality of confidentiality in arbitration, parties expect that their various obligations of confidentiality can be protected. However, the International Arbitration Act, as it currently stands, does not expressly recognise that. The arbitral tribunal does not recognise that the arbitral tribunal or the Courts have the power to enforce existing confidentiality obligations in the event of any such breach.

The Bill, therefore, seeks to insert a new section 12(1)(j) in the IAA to expressly recognise the powers of the arbitral tribunal and the High Court in terms of enforcing such a duty and to give effect to such obligations by making orders or giving directions as may be appropriate. These powers will apply, regardless of whether the obligations arise under any of the limbs which I mentioned earlier, whether the obligation arises by written law, by rule of law, under common law, rules of arbitration or by agreement between parties.

The amendment recognises that confidentiality is an important attribute of arbitration and that the common law is still developing as to the precise extent of the obligation, in other words, whom it should bind and the exceptions, if any, to the rules. The Bill, therefore, does not codify obligations of confidentiality but seeks to strengthen parties’ ability to enforce existing obligations. It does not impose any new or additional obligations of parties beyond what has been set out in those three broad categories that I have mentioned.

For instance, the new provision will not require a plaintiff in arbitration-related court proceedings, to have to apply for the sealing of the court file and redaction of the papers, when commencing such proceedings and that is the position currently.

Sir, in summary, this Bill will strengthen our international arbitration framework. It keeps us up to date and will ensure that Singapore remains an attractive venue for international arbitrations. It will also show the international arbitration community that we have a continued commitment to providing strong legislative support for international arbitration. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators.

I rise in support of this Bill, which amends the International Arbitration Act or IAA and seeks to enhance Singapore’s status as an international commercial arbitration hub.

Over the years, Singapore’s position as an international dispute resolution hub in the globe has been cemented, largely due to its strong recognition of the rule of law. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – in particular, mediation and arbitration, are increasingly popular in recent times, with the privacy afforded to parties at such forums. Additionally, the Singapore Courts have also recognised arbitration agreements and stayed Court proceedings commenced in breach of such agreements. This lends weight and legitimacy to the arbitration landscape in Singapore and parties can be confident that their earlier agreements to arbitrate their disputes will be upheld in Singapore.

I understand that the Bill makes the following two key amendments:

First, the introduction of a default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations where parties’ agreement does not specify the procedure for such appointments; and

Second, the Bill will explicitly provide for the arbitral tribunal and the High Court to enforce obligations of confidentiality, by making the relevant and/or necessary orders and directions, where such obligations exist.

I welcome the amendments, for the following reasons.

In an era where contractual obligations are being restructured, varied, suspended and/or terminated, as a result of the unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on global economies, the potential for disputes over substantive matters is rife. The complexity of such matters may be exacerbated where there are more than two parties involved in the dispute. The amendments plug the lacuna in the law. With the stipulated procedure on appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations, this should minimise procedural disputes on the same time, resulting in saved time and costs for parties. We note that there is a growing trend in arbitrations from joint ventures, oil and gas matters, and merger and acquisition disputes – these disputes often involve substantial sums of monies, and there is all the more reason why we want these matters to be arbitrated in Singapore.

Additionally, privacy and confidentiality remain the cornerstone of arbitration. The enactment of statutory powers of the arbitral tribunal and High Court to enforce existing confidentiality obligations, whether under agreements or at law, gives bite and effect to such obligations, which will certainly bring Singapore’s arbitration landscape to greater heights.

While the amendments do not seek to impose fresh and/or new confidentiality obligations in arbitration proceedings, my query relates to the scope of such existing obligations. The authorities suggest that the general principle in Singapore’s arbitration law is that arbitrations are not only private but also confidential.

The High Court in Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co Ltd v Win Win Nu and another in 2003 held that “there was an implied obligation on the parties obtaining documents not to disclose them or use them for any purpose other than the dispute in which they were obtained.”

Disclosure, however, may be permissible in certain circumstances, such as the consent of the other party; by order or leave of Court; where it is reasonably necessary; and/or where it was in the interests of justice or where legally required.

Would the Minister be able to provide certain specific instances in which confidentiality obligations are waived? For instance, where documents and/or evidence are raised in arbitration proceedings for which a finding has been made, are subsequently raised in court proceedings for a separate matter between the same parties who wish to deviate from their original position?

Sir, clarifications notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I support this Motion. I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer who practises international arbitration.

Between June and August last year, MinLaw proposed several amendments to the International Arbitration Act for public consultations. Six areas were put out for public consultation and this Bill implements two of them.

The first amendment is to provide for a default mode of appointment for arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations.

Generally, when an agreement is entered into parties would usually include standard arbitration clauses in those agreements. These clauses would typically provide for tribunals consisting of a sole arbitrator, or sometimes three arbitrators. Where there are three arbitrators to be appointed, the usual method is for the Claimant to appoint one, the Respondent to appoint one and for the two appointed arbitrators to agree on a third. These are general practices, of course, specific clauses may vary. There is typically also a deadlock mechanism. If the two party appointed arbitrators cannot agree on the third, namely that it will be appointed by some third party, usually institution appointed under the arbitration agreement. This could be ICC, for example.

Where problems arise is if there are more than two adverse parties in an arbitration and all are separately represented. I think the Minister highlighted several examples in his speech. And this is increasingly common in the context of multi-party agreements or in a situation where different agreements are consolidated because we now have rules permitting consolidation of arbitrations. So, in this scenario where you have three parties or more, there is a greater likelihood that parties will not be able to agree upon "party appointed" arbitrators. For example, if there are multiple Respondents, each separately represented and with different views on the same issue, there may be deadlock.

What these rules provide for is the default appointment of arbitrators in such situations, which is eminently sensible. It requires parties to name arbitrators at specific points in the process as well. So, this also reduces the chance that the appointment of arbitrators will be used as a way to delay proceedings.

Now, the core of arbitration is always party autonomy and party autonomy is still protected here because if parties have agreed on their own default mechanism where agreement cannot be reached, that should still prevail. What this amendment deals with such a situation where parties did not really provide the mechanism but would not have wanted deadlock either. So, what this provides is really a process by which this deadlock can be broken and the arbitration process can be moved smoothly along, even where parties or whether there are three or more parties who cannot agree on the arbitrator.

The second amendment also deals with another vexed issue and this is confidentiality

Confidentiality obligations are common in arbitration proceedings. This is also one of the main attractions of arbitration for many parties as they would prefer to settle disputes out of the public eye. However, the protection of confidentiality is sometimes more difficult because the most common remedy for breach of confidentiality is to get an injunction to prevent dissemination of the information. This would only be available if the information is not already in the public domain. Thus, speed is of the essence if one wishes to get injunctive relief to protect confidentiality of matters subject to arbitration.

For most practitioners, we would agree that the Tribunal always have powers to make such orders but this was never expressly set out in the legislation. There was some debate on whether tribunals may have the power and to what extent that powers would extend to making confidentiality a part of the arbitration. So, by making this amendment to section 12 of the International Arbitration Act – which is really a section that spells out the Tribunal's powers – what it now provides specifically is that the Tribunal has such powers to make orders to protect confidentiality in an arbitration. Of course, the scope of this obligation is not defined precisely but this is necessary because exactly what documents are covered by it, which are already out in the public domain, which are not – these are all matters for that Tribunal to decide. But at least the one debate that will be off the table is whether or not the Tribunal has these powers.

The other benefit of putting it in this section of the International Arbitration Act is that the Court will also now have the power to make an order where a Tribunal is not able to so this is also, I think, necessary as a catch all provision because given the speed with which one has to move if you want to protect confidentiality. If the Tribunal is not in place, for example, it may be necessary to go to the Courts to get such an order.

I support and welcome both of these amendments. I think they both solve practical problems that practitioners encounter and it is a tidy solution. I would also add, in my concluding remarks, that I also agree with the other four proposals the Ministry had put forward in the consultation and hope that these too can be implemented in due course. Each of these are good solutions to practical problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. I thank the Second Minister for Law for the explanations to the amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a legal practitioner in international arbitration disputes.

The two broad areas of amendments that the Bill proposes in relation to multi-party arbitration and powers of arbitral tribunals and the High Court are important are important and very much welcome.

These amendments are also timely since the last amendments came in 2012. I have no doubt that with these amendments, more parties will benefit by bringing their disputes seated in Singapore or before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre or SIAC. I thank MinLaw which had proactively consulted various stakeholders in the international arbitration eco-system in Singapore. There were various proposals stated in the public consultation paper.

It has to be noted, though, that since the conclusion of the public consultation in 2019, admittedly we are now facing a much-changed global legal landscape ravaged by the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Since the pandemic, there has been an uptick in terms of brewing cross-border disputes arising out of force majeure, impossibility of performance and other contractual breaches. However, even with our Singapore law firms’ increasing global presence, connections and international expertise, we continually face stiff competition to attract these disputes to our shores.

This is because clients and litigants are not only more sophisticated, but they are more sensitive to disputes, especially during this time. They are craving for certainty both in terms of costs and outcome of arbitration proceedings especially in the midst of this economic outlook. They require more flexibility; some may prefer greater court supervision on matters of law in arbitral proceedings. Others, as so, and prefer to waive appeals to the High Court on arbitral awards in the interests of having finality in the arbitral process. Corporations are also rethinking their agreements to prepare for a post-COVID world and considering the best dispute resolution mechanism that would offer them the best flexibility or option.

Hence, while I applaud the efforts made to further ensure that Singapore’s arbitration regime remains responsive and relevant to evolving needs, I would urge MinLaw to consider expediting the tabling of the other proposals in the consultation paper as this will be key to cementing Singapore’s status as the preferred seat for arbitration disputes and leapfrog us over other competitive jurisdictions.

My focus is on two separate proposals raised in the consultation paper which are not tabled here in this Bill.

The first of which would allow parties which seek greater curial intervention, to appeal to the High Court on a question of law in an award based on an opt-in mechanism. The second would allow parties who on the other hand prefer minimal curial intervention, to agree to waive or limit the annulment grounds under the relevant sections of the IAA and the Model Law.

I believe that these proposals would be beneficial to Singapore.

Firstly, they would sharpen our edge as a preferred seat of arbitration as they would cement parties’ autonomy, front and centre, in our arbitration legislative framework. Parties would have more options and flexibility to tailor an international agreement to suit their unique purposes, especially in preparation for a post-COVID world. This would hopefully then attract more cross-border transactions and international disputes to be heard before the Singapore Courts and SIAC.

Consequently, it would only mean more exposure and training for our local lawyers from a professional development standpoint. As an international disputes lawyer, I have handled disputes in various jurisdictions and arbitration centres, SIAC here, London Court of International Arbitration and International Court of Arbitration in London and Paris. However, looking at the current climate, local younger lawyers, may not get much exposure and opportunity to experience handling international arbitration disputes. As such, we need to consider tabling these other proposals soon for the benefit of our future generations of talent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a glass-half-empty kind of guy – looking at what is not there instead of what is. But I fear that if we do not fill the glass up now, we may be too late to do so in the future.

Necessity is the mother of all inventions. There is an opportunity for us to reinvent and leapfrog the competition now.

I therefore seek an indication from the Minister on whether the other proposals in the consultation paper, particularly the two I mentioned, are being tabled and if so, when. Clarifications notwithstanding, Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill.

Sir, Singapore has emerged as one of the leading hubs for international arbitration in recent years. In 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre or SIAC set a new record with 479 new case filings and parties from over 59 jurisdictions chose Singapore as their destination for arbitration.

The amendments in this Bill will further strengthen our international arbitration regime and raise Singapore’s profile as a global centre for international arbitration. Parties who require arbitration services will also have access to a wider range of options best tailored to their needs.

That said, I have a few clarifications on the Bill, many of which, Minister Edwin has already clarified on.

My first clarification is on the default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration. It is good that we recognise that we need to provide for the appointment of arbitrators in multi-party disputes which are on the rise. They occur, for instance, in disputes involving joint ventures, mergers and oil and gas acquisition.

The new section 9B details the default mode of appointment for multi-party situations. There is some concern about point 4 of this section, which states: if either the claimants or the respondents fail to appoint an arbitrator, the appointing authority must appoint all three arbitrators. The authority can also reappoint or revoke any appointments made.

It is unclear why the failure of just one side to appoint an arbitrator means that the appointing authority must now step in to appoint all three arbitrators even if the other side managed to agree on their arbitrator.

Essentially, this means that failure to agree by one side, makes the agreement reached by the other side ineffective.

I do understand that it is common for arbitration institutions to require the appointing authority to appoint all three arbitrators if either the claimants or the respondents are unable to come to an agreement on an arbitrator.

However, there is a permutation on this model under article 8(1) of the 2020 London Court of International Arbitration Rules. It says: where all parties have agreed in writing for each side to nominate a single arbitrator, but one side is not able to come to an agreement on a nomination, the other side is free to make its nomination.

Party autonomy is a significant feature of arbitration.

To ensure that parties’ agreements are given consideration, can the Minister confirm that the appointing authority should take into account the agreement reached by parties on one side on their arbitrator when appointing the three arbitrators?

My second clarification is on the amendment to expressly recognise the powers of the arbitral tribunal and the High Court to enforce obligations of confidentiality.

This amendment is welcome and will assist in tightening the process and preserving confidentiality of the proceedings.

That said, despite the express recognition, the Bill does not codify confidentiality obligations that the Minister mentioned.

Given that one of the main draws of arbitration is the confidentiality of proceedings, and codifying confidentiality obligations will assist in reducing uncertainty and potential disputes over these obligations, can the Minister clarify the reasoning behind deciding against codifying confidentiality obligations?

For a good example, we can take a look at the arbitration scene in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance expressly provides for a statutory duty of confidentiality in arbitration.

Under section 18(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance, unless agreed by the parties, no party may publish, disclose or communicate information relating to the arbitral proceedings and awards.

Notably, this confidentiality extends to the existence of arbitration proceedings. This position is also mirrored in article 45.1 of the 2018 Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules.

Hong Kong was ranked among the top five seats of arbitration worldwide in 2018 and still continues to have a lead over our own SIAC in 2019.

We note that codifying confidentiality obligations may lead to some challenges. For instance, there may be difficulties in defining the scope of the duty of confidentiality and its exceptions.

However, such difficulties are already present in our current approach of implying the duty of confidentiality in arbitration.

In fact, it is not uncommon for arbitration proceedings to be delayed because of parties disputing over their scope of implied duty of confidentiality. The delay reduces one of the main draws of arbitration – its efficiency.

I hope the Minister will consider codifying confidentiality obligations, whether in the Act itself or in subsidiary legislation, as this would encourage parties to arbitrate in Singapore.

My final clarification is on the exclusion of the proposed opt-in mechanism for parties to incorporate a right to appeal to the High Court, on a question of law arising out of an arbitral award.

Can the Minister clarify the reasoning behind deciding against including this right to appeal on a question of law?

As things stand, parties may only apply to the High Court to set aside an arbitral award on relatively limited grounds. These grounds include fraud, corruption, breach of the rules of natural justice or contravention of Singapore’s public policy.

One of the key components of arbitration proceedings is finality. However, this should not be at the expense of leaving questions of law unresolved. This may potentially have significant impact on the substantive rights of parties.

Furthermore, the opt-in mechanism allows parties to choose to exercise this right or to rely on the default position. This adds to Singapore’s commitment in giving parties the flexibility to determine certain issues and procedures in their arbitral proceedings, as compared to court proceedings.

In fact, the right to appeal on a question of law has already been expressly recognised in our domestic arbitration. Section 49 of our Arbitration Act provides that a party to arbitral proceedings may, with the agreement of all parties and with the leave of the Court, appeal to the Court on a question of law arising out of an arbitral award.

Giving parties this option to have a right to appeal on a question of law may not only encourage more parties to arbitrate in Singapore, but also assist in determining case law in Singapore.

Sir, in conclusion, I look forward to Singapore increasing its global standing as a centre for international arbitration.

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill. If I may add, Sir, I slowed down my speech and spaced it out significantly so that I did not deliver my speech in a quick-fire fashion as Minister Edwin mentioned at the last Sitting about my speeches. I took into account the Minister’s previous feedback and I hope that he will now agree to all my proposals in this speech.

Minister Edwin Tong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members, particularly Mr Ng for slowing his speech, but I will have a response for him, perhaps in a less quick-fire fashion.

Sir, I am very grateful that the Members have highlighted that the principle of party autonomy, which really has been one of the key considerations in the way in which we have organised arbitration rules or laws. And obviously, our whole eco-system in encouraging parties to come into Singapore and choose Singapore as a neutral, trusted venue.

We understand and agree with this principle which really undergirds the amendments that we have proposed in this Bill.

Members have sought various clarifications and I will address these in turn.

Mr Ng’s first question relates to the question of whether the appointing authority should also take into account the agreement that had already been reached by the parties at the stage where the appointing party’s role is triggered, and whether it should take that into account when deciding on the appointment all three arbitrators.

Sir, that was a very good question and let me just give a little bit of background before I answer Mr Ng’s question. In the feedback we that we received from the various consultations, the principle of equal treatment of the parties in the context especially of the appointment of the tribunal was something which was emphasised to us. It is part of the adjudicative system.

Arbitral institutional rules and also the national laws unanimously impose a requirement, whether express or implied, that the parties be treated equally throughout the process.

Although the solutions adopted differ in some particulars, most major institutional rules, including the LCIA Arbitration Rules that Mr Louis Ng referred to, now either permit or, in fact, require the institutions to designate the entire tribunal in multi-party proceedings. In other words, the moment there is a disagreement on one party's nomination, then the rules either permit or, in fact, they require the appointing authority to designate the entire tribunal. That is the position in LCIA and also some other major institutions. The reason behind this is to preclude imbalance or, at least, the perception of imbalance in the way in which the tribunal is subsequently appointed and avoid a situation where just one party has a say on his or her nominee for the arbitration.

In scoping section 9B, we can see that there are many reasons why a party may not be able to agree or has chosen not to agree to the arbitrator. It could be because parties do not identify with the same “side” as the party nominating it even though we may be co-respondents to the arbitration, or it may be because one party is intentionally delaying the proceedings, not nominating, or dragging its feet, as I have mentioned earlier, so as to trigger the default mechanism to appoint all three and, in that process, hope to sideline the choice put up by the other party. And we are very much alive to that possibility.