Hansard, Monday, 8 January 2018

1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of fraudulent claims from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG); (b) what are the counter-measures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.

2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) what will be the measures taken to prevent future abuses of SkillsFuture claims without stifling the growth of the SkillsFuture movement.

3 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) what is the outcome of the Government's internal investigation into the weakness of its controls over the $40 million scam on SkillsFuture claims; (b) whether there have been additional safeguards put in place since $2.2 million have been identified as false claims earlier in March 2017; (c) why did the rectification measures put in place from the earlier incident failed to prevent the recent occurrence; and (d) whether any staff or personnel have been suspended pending investigations on the lapse.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I take Question Nos 1 to 3 together, please?

Yes, please, carry on.

The Members asked about two separate cases of fraudulent claims. They were unrelated and of different natures.

In the first case, more than 4,400 individuals were found to have made false SkillsFuture Credit claims within a very short period last year, amounting to over $2 million. The fraudulent claims were made by individuals who did not attend any training but falsely claimed to have done so. They acted largely on their own accord, prompted by a viral WhatsApp message. As of December, over 90% of these individuals have either made full payment or have made arrangements for instalment payments. Those who did not respond will be blacklisted for all future SkillsFuture grant claims until they have repaid. We will also not rule out further legal and enforcement actions.

Arising from that episode, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has reviewed the claims processes for SkillsFuture Credit. Individuals can no longer be directly reimbursed by SSG for use of SkillsFuture Credit. It has already been implemented. Instead, payments will be made to training providers, who then reduce the course fees chargeable accordingly. This arrangement has significantly reduced the risk of false claims under SkillsFuture Credit. At the same time, the claim process is still convenient and easy and has not affected the number of individuals using their SkillsFuture Credit every month.

The second case involves $40 million of fraudulent claims. It did not involve SkillsFuture Credit or new SkillsFuture programmes. Instead, the fraudulent claims were for training grants drawn from the Skills Development Fund (SDF). SDF was established in 1979 to support the training and retraining of workers and workforce upgrading programmes and is built up through levies collected from employers. It is, therefore, a scheme that has been around for many years.

From its preliminary investigations, the Police believe that a criminal syndicate was behind this. The syndicate operated an organised network that utilised business entities, comprising employer companies and training providers to submit fraudulent claims. Central Provident Fund documents provided by the syndicate listed employees that the Police believe were fictitious. In short, this appears to be an elaborate and conscious effort.

These fraudulent claims were made in 2017, with the majority being made in October. When these irregular claims were detected, SSG immediately suspended all payments of grants to the relevant business entities and reported the case to the Police. Five persons have been charged with various offences, such as engaging in a conspiracy to submit forged documents and concealing the benefits from criminal conduct. The Police have also seized $6.7 million in cash and 11 kilogrammes of gold, and frozen slightly more than $10 million in bank accounts.

As investigations are ongoing, I am unable to disclose more details about the case. But what is clear is that this case involves fraudulent claims amounting to a large quantum. This should not have been allowed to happen. While we cannot always prevent all forms of fraudulent activities, SSG should have detected this case much earlier, especially when it was so egregious and the amounts involved were so large.

SSG's priorities are as follows: firstly, work with the enforcement agencies on the current prosecution to ensure that any perpetrators will face the full consequences of the law; secondly, systematically plough through other claims it has received over the past year. And thankfully, so far, there is no evidence of other cases of a similar nature.

Thirdly and very urgently, improve the system of fraud detection, checks and audits. SSG has formed an Interagency Process Review Task Force, overseen by its Board, and comprising members from SSG management, the Accountant-General’s Department, Commercial Affairs Department and the Ministry of Education (MOE). The task force is conducting a thorough review of how the fraudulent cases happened and will evaluate the current fraud detection system and make recommendations to improve the system.

Specifically, I have directed SSG to strengthen its fraud detection system through data analytics. Fraudsters, who are going all out to cheat, are getting more sophisticated and their plans more elaborate. They will also evolve their approach. SSG's detection system must improve and become more sophisticated, too. Through appropriate use of data analytics and drawing on data across Government agencies, we can better detect false claims without significantly affecting genuine employers applying for training grants to upgrade the skills of their workers. SSG is currently getting help from both private sector consultants and Government Technology Agency (GovTech) to get this done. It has restructured and strengthened the fraud detection and audit team. SSG has started implementing some of the measures manually and will progressively automate and systematise them. By the third quarter of this year, we will have a good and effective data analytics system in place.

In response to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's question, as of now, no staff member has been disciplined or suspended arising from the latest fraud case as there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by any staff member thus far. But SSG will take necessary management measures to remedy this weakness in fraud detection capability. We must also take the real culprits to task, send a strong deterrent signal, so that SkillsFuture continues to serve the working people of Singapore.

We cannot afford a repeat of fraudulent claims of such egregious nature and of such scale. SSG will do a thorough review and rectify any shortcomings in grant administration that it may have. But at the same time, we should not allow this case to detract from the important task of reskilling and upskilling the workforce in this period of technological disruptions and economic restructuring.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer and response. The Minister agrees that because of the large amount of public funds involved, we need measures to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future. Will the Ministry consider raising the bar or, in fact, having greater sanctions and harsher penalties in the review for the SDF Levy Act as well as related legislation involving public funds?

This will clearly come under the Penal Code. Administratively, we have a process. When we set up SSG, we enacted the SSG Act. We have provided for higher penalties. But for cases, such as this, of such an egregious nature will have to come under the Penal Code.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, I have one supplementary question. I have received feedback from residents that, very often, they were falsely told that SkillsFuture Credit will expire, for example, while some are being told that they would need further courses in order for their certificate to be valid. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any plan to make the reporting of such service providers easier. For example, is there a hotline set up for residents to report such service providers?

I thank the Member for the suggestion. We will definitely consider having such a hotline. I believe a hotline to SSG does exist, but we probably have to make it more widely known. The Member can assure her residents that SkillsFuture Credit does not expire.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

I welcome the Minister's approach and strategies to combat such scams in the future. Bearing in mind that this may also mean tightening of the processes, firstly, how would SSG balance not having to make it more onerous for employers to claim and, secondly, given that $40 million was involved in the scams, how does it affect the performance and results that SkillsFuture had earlier reported? Will some old numbers be taken out and the adjusted numbers re-reported?

We cannot count those numbers as training; that would not be honest. In any case, training numbers are not really the full outcome of what SkillsFuture is trying to achieve. We work closely with the Ministry of Manpower. The Adapt and Grow numbers drawing on SkillsFuture funding and programmes are much more important. Thus, outcomes are one thing, key performance indicators are one thing, but understand the spirit of what we are trying to do and the real ground impact of what we want to do.

How to make it not onerous? That is an excellent clarification. The natural instinct is to think, "Because this thing happened, let us double-check everything and let us check a huge number" but this will impede the whole system. That is when genuine employers who want to train their workers will get affected. But we do not have to do that and, if we do that, we will end up putting out efforts in the wrong areas. What we want to do is, through data analytics, work out the pattern of cheating and then we can detect them much better. That pattern of detection of cheating has to keep on evolving because they are evolving, too.

If we can do that well – and we must do that well – we will not over burden employers. We can improve the audit and fraud detection system while not over-burdening employers. The bottom line is this: the system has a big capability gap today, this could have been prevented and it should have been prevented, and we will take the necessary actions to remedy this.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will GovTech be involved in the move to use data analytics to prevent fraudulent claims and, secondly, what are the terms of reference for the Interagency Task Force and will they be making their findings public?

Ong Ye Kung: The answer to the first question is yes, GovTech is involved. Beyond GovTech, we are also inviting private sector expertise to help us in this work. Second, on the Interagency Task Force, I do not have the terms of reference with me, but essentially, it has to, firstly, review the entire circumstances of the fraud case, how it happened; secondly, what are the gaps in our system today that led to us not being able to detect this and led to us detecting it so late; third, implement the measures; and fourth, to take a hard look at the whole structure and system, and what are the changes we need to do, including personnel, organisational reporting lines. So, it will be a comprehensive review.

If the Member files a question, I will be happy to report on the findings of the task force.

4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he can provide a detailed account of the recent spate of Wage Credit Scheme claims; (b) what are the countermeasures taken; and (c) whether a full review will be undertaken to prevent future breaches.

5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Finance in light of recent fraudulent claims made under the Productivity and Innovation Credit, Wage Credit Scheme and SkillsFuture (a) what considerations determine whether additional audits or investigations of a forensic nature ought to be carried out for claims under these schemes; and (b) whether there is any threshold of fraudulent claims which can lead to the suspension/review of such Government schemes in view of the administrative burden of assessing fraudulent claims.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together.

Yes, please proceed.

Sir, the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS), Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), and the SkillsFuture movement were designed for specific economic and social objectives. For businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, the PIC provides funding support so that they can become more productive and, hence, more profitable over time. Through WCS, the Government supports businesses by sharing in sustainable wage growth for workers, especially for our lower- and middle-income workers. As for SkillsFuture, this is a national movement to empower individuals to take charge of their own learning and adapt to a changing world.

Mr Patrick Tay asked about WCS. A total of more than $4.7 billion in Wage Credit payouts has been given out to employers from 2014 to 2017. This includes the recent payout in 2017, where more than $0.6 billion of Wage Credit payouts were made to over 85,000 employers.

Over the same period, which is from 2014 to 2017, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) denied or clawed back $5.57 million of WCS payouts. IRAS found a total of over 1,000 cases where employers either gave false information or contrived to fraudulently obtain payouts that they did not qualify for or which were otherwise non-compliant. The vast majority of these payouts were denied upfront, with the remainder being clawed back by IRAS largely within a year. These figures cover cases of attempted fraud which IRAS detected and acted against over the four-year period. The media had reported the figures recently, but they were not a recent phenomenon. So, the 1,000 cases were all acted upon over the entire period of WCS, since it started. But IRAS recently publicised these figures to caution employers against attempts to abuse or game the system.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Pritam Singh also asked how Government agencies go about investigating fraudulent claims. The Minister for Higher Education and Skills has covered SkillsFuture, and so I will cover WCS and PIC.

Essentially, IRAS uses a risk-based approach to safeguard against abuse. This methodology is used for all IRAS programmes, including WCS and PIC. All potential WCS payouts and PIC applications are first checked upfront against a set of predetermined criteria for signs that indicate possible gaming. This is complemented by the use of analytics, field intelligence and other sources of information, including a whistleblowing platform.

Cases that are assessed to be of a higher-risk profile, say, claim amounts that are not commensurate with the scale of the business, are subject to more detailed investigations. For WCS, this may entail examination of supporting documents, such as payslips and bank statements, and conducting phone interviews to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the submitted wage increases. For PIC, this may entail examination of transaction details and verification of documents, such as suppliers' invoices and payment evidence. IRAS may also conduct field visits to understand the applicant’s business, for example, how the PIC equipment is used in the business.

IRAS will continue to take strict enforcement and legal actions against those who abuse the schemes. This includes disqualifying offenders from other Government schemes and taking legal action against such offenders. Offenders can be charged under the Penal Code or the Income Tax Act for abusing the schemes. To date, IRAS has prosecuted 13 cases for fraud under the PIC scheme, and one case under WCS.

More generally, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) undertakes periodic reviews of Government schemes to ensure that they are relevant and achieve the purposes that they are designed for. Programmes which continue to serve their purpose will be retained. Others, which are intended to be time-limited, will be terminated at their end-date. Yet others may be continued with revised criteria, based on the actual experience of running the schemes and the assessment of the scheme’s overall effectiveness, which includes a weighing of the scheme’s benefits against its administrative costs.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Second Minister for Finance for his reply. I refer to the latest Estimates Committee Report where it was made known that about 313,000 PIC cash payouts have been submitted over the years and 98,000 ­– almost one third of them – were selected for review and, out of that number, 64% of the claims were rejected upfront. The reply from MOF to the Estimates Committee also stated that for the remaining 215,000 PIC claims, I quote, "they may be selected for review based on other factors". Are there any additional factors that IRAS specifically considers for claims which fall outside their usual risk-based approach? From the reading of MOF's reply to the Estimates Committee, it appears that more review is going to be done for claims which were not originally audited.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, IRAS takes a risk-based approach. Taking a risk-based approach means not 100% sampling. As Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier mentioned, doing 100% checks is going to be counter-productive to a large extent because it will entail a large bureaucratic process.

So, taking a risk-based approach means sampling according to risks and when IRAS says that it has done audits for 98,000 cases, then it has identified these as the higher-risk cases and done detailed audits on them. To the extent that there are cases with lower risks, then the sampling will be lower as well.

6 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the processes involved before the Ministry decides to ban a foreign religious preacher from entering Singapore.

7 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the criteria used in banning foreign preachers of different faiths take into account the location and environment in which their speeches justifying their bans were made; (b) whether these views have been or would have been applied to their sermons in Singapore; (c) what is the estimated number of congregants who follow the banned preachers; and (d) whether the Ministry finds the move effective given that their speeches and sermons are still pervasive through other mediums, such as the Internet.

Sir, with your leave, can I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?

Yes. Please proceed.

Sir, we hold a clear position on the preaching of religious intolerance and we draw a line on teachings that seek to divide our society along religious lines.

Second, we should also be clear that a foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right. It is a privilege. It will only be granted if we assess that his entry will not harm Singapore's interests. In this context, the foreigner who wants to deliver a talk in Singapore, if the talk is related to religion, race or politics, he has to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) because the issues are sensitive. MOM will consult other agencies in its assessment of MWP applications. Each application is assessed on its own merits, through a process.

From a security perspective, one of the principles is that a foreigner should not have antecedents of radical preaching and teachings. For example, if he has advocated violence or promoted segregationist, intolerant teachings that are inimical to our multiracial, multi-religious society, he will not be allowed in.

It is not material whether the previous comments were made in relation to Singapore or whether they intend to touch on these issues when they speak here. If they hold views that are inappropriate or unacceptable in our context, then it is not in our national interest to give them a platform in Singapore, whether to propagate their teachings or to build up their followings.

It is also not material to consider how large their following is in Singapore. We should be concerned even if a small number in Singapore take in their radical, intolerant or segregationist teachings. And we should not allow them to preach or speak here to spread these viewpoints amongst Singaporeans and build up anger amongst the different faiths.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the effectiveness of banning such foreigners, given the accessibility of digital platforms. There are obviously limits to the extent to which we can prevent access to such content, in particular, through the Internet. But this does not mean that we should make it even easier for such foreigners to spread their views more directly and personally to Singaporeans and build up a following here by allowing them to come into Singapore and giving them a physical platform. Preaching and grandstanding "live" and in person are quite different a proposition from doing so on the Internet.

Mr Faisal Manap.

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. I just want to know whether the Ministry engages these foreign religious preachers to give them an opportunity to explain themselves prior to the imposition of the ban or after the ban had been imposed, in a way to allow them to make an appeal against the ban.

Let us take someone who says, referring to Islam, communism and other societal problems, such as human trafficking, are referred to as "goliaths standing at our door". He had also described Allah as a false God, asked for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren. Do you think we should invite him into Singapore and give him an interview? Let me know.

Mr Faisal Manap.

I believe the Minister did not answer my question. I just want to know whether there is a process involved or a channel for an appeal to be made.

Let us look at specific facts. Will you answer my question, so that we can take this discussion further?

If the Minister does not mind, can the Minister repeat his question?

I started out by saying, often, it will be quite clear whether we should or we should not allow, and I gave you a passage. Let us say, a preacher says the following, he describes Islam, communism and other societal problems, including human trafficking, categorising all of them together, as "goliaths standing at our door", describes Allah as a false God, asks for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren individuals, who can be saved by converting to Christianity. Do you believe we should invite him into Singapore and interview him, or should we ban him outright?

Sir, I have officially stated my stand on this issue when we discussed in this Chamber on the private Motion moved by Mr Christopher de Souza, regarding using multiculturalism approach as a weapon to fight against terrorism. So, my simple answer to the Minister is no.

That is the approach we take.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

I have a question on the issue of context. It is a tricky one because many scriptures of the various religions do deal with the non-believers, and many religious leaders and preachers have had to address this and speak on such topics when they are overseas. So, it may not be easy for them to align the speeches to the context of multiracialism or multi-religionism, to what we believe here in Singapore; we are an exception. So, how do you differentiate whether it is through their views or it is a context in which they were giving that speech or sermon in those countries? And how can we do more to help our own religious leaders to also counter such radical beliefs?

It has a number of different facets, if you look at it within Singapore, then you look at it outside of Singapore. Within Singapore, we are very clear on the framework. We have complete freedom of religion. We encourage the different faiths to carry on, you have seen the consequences, we are ranked one of the most religiously diverse societies in the world. So, we guarantee freedom of religion, including to the minorities and, in fact, we support them. Both Members of Parliament as well as officeholders turn up at many of these events. The line that we draw and, if you look at it, the Penal Code has legal provisions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has a framework. But essentially, if I were to identify one principle, do not do harm unto others, do not advocate violence, do not put down somebody else's religion. As long as you keep to that, propagate your faith.

That, I think, has seen us being an oasis of religious peace in a world that is highly troubled. So, when we look at foreign preachers, we would have to look at who is bringing them in, we will have to talk to them, and we will have to look at the context of their sayings. But on the whole, we take a fairly conservative approach in that whatever you have said elsewhere, if those represent your viewpoints, like what I just said, if someone calls Allah a false God and then he wants to come into Singapore and say, "Well, you know, that was in a different context", I think, nevertheless, it runs the serious risk of people following such a preacher, and then they go on to look at what else he has said elsewhere and the context is not always apparent to people to be understood. So, I think it is better for us to be careful.

8 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the penalty of US$422 million to be paid by Keppel Offshore and Marine Ltd for corrupt payments between 2001 and 2014 to officials of Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Brazil's then ruling party was part of a three-nation plea bargain agreement, involving the United States, Brazil and Singapore, and Keppel companies; and (b) what are the considerations in reaching such arrangements, which have implications on local law enforcement and prosecutorial decisions.

9 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law in respect of Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) agreement to pay a US$422 million fine as part of a three-nation corruption probe settlement (a) whether the US Department of Justice's (DoJ's) Deferred Prosecution Agreement on the KOM corruption probe settlement, or any other agreement, includes any condition that prevents the public disclosure of the identities of the Singaporeans who are involved; and (b) when does the Government expect CPIB and AGC to formally complete investigations and to charge the individuals in question in view of the criminal findings made against KOM by the US DoJ.

10 Mr Png Eng Huat asked Minister for Law (a) how much more time will the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) need to complete the investigations in respect of the Singaporeans involved in the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) corruption case since KOM and its wholly-owned US subsidiary, KOM USA, have agreed to pay more than US$422 million in penalty to resolve corruption charges of paying about US$55 million in bribes to secure contracts; and (b) how far back in time will CPIB go to in its investigation into the Singaporeans involved since the corrupt activities were committed as early as 2001.

11 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law (a) how many Singapore Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) or their subsidiaries locally or overseas have been investigated or continue to be investigated by local or overseas authorities for corrupt practices over the last 30 years; and (b) what role do the Ministry and Temasek Holdings play to ensure that GLCs or their subsidiaries do not engage in corrupt practices when conducting business overseas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 to 11 together?

Yes.

Thank you. As a country and as a Government, we do not condone or tolerate corruption. This has always been our position. It will continue to be so.

Domestically, corruption cases are investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB). CPIB can investigate anyone. Thereafter, cases are assessed by the Public Prosecutor, who acts independently. Incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore. We must keep Singapore clean.

Internationally, we know that there are many places in the world where corruption is endemic and the business environment is very different from Singapore. We cannot be a global policeman. Singapore companies have to operate in all kinds of environments. But as a matter of principle, we expect that they must do so while keeping their systems clean and complying with the laws of the countries where they operate. They must develop ways of operating which enable them to do this. They cannot lower their own standards of integrity and they must not bring back to Singapore practices alien to the norms which we have established with such great effort here.

Let me now address the questions asked. How we handle allegations of corrupt acts overseas by Singaporeans or Singapore companies depends on a number of factors, including (a) whether the case is connected more strongly to Singapore or to other countries; (b) any practical or legal difficulty in investigating the case, bearing in mind that the evidence will mainly be overseas; (c) any actions being taken by third countries and the legal and regulatory tools they are bringing to bear; and (d) any cooperative mechanisms between Singapore and the other countries involved.

In handling the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) case, the authorities in the United States (US), Singapore and Brazil worked with one another and reached an agreed approach. There was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement", as Ms Sylvia Lim puts it. What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the other two jurisdictions.

In the US, the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with KOM. This is an agreement under US law, between KOM and DOJ. Under the DPA, KOM has to pay a penalty of US$422 million. The amount was determined in accordance with US sentencing guidelines. DPA, which has been published, sets out how the amount was arrived at. Among other things, KOM was given maximum credit for its full cooperation with investigations. Out of the US$422 million, 50% would be paid to Brazil, 25% to the US, and 12.5% to Singapore. The last 12.5% is payable to Singapore, but subject to any further penalties the Brazilian authorities may impose.

In Brazil, the Federal Public Ministry entered into a leniency agreement on similar terms to the US DPA. In Singapore, the Public Prosecutor directed CPIB to administer a conditional warning on KOM. In reaching this decision, the Public Prosecutor considered the following factors.

First, that KOM had voluntarily reported its internal findings to CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in September 2016 and had cooperated with all three jurisdictions in the investigation and resolution process, that KOM also indicated that it will voluntarily agree to the US DPA and the Brazilian leniency agreement.

And that the key elements of this case, in particular, the recipients of the bribes and the projects connected with the bribes, occurred outside Singapore, and the jurisdictions concerned are also acting against KOM, in coordination with Singapore.

A conditional warning allows Singapore to impose on KOM conditions that are closely aligned with the terms of the US DPA. If any of the conditions are breached, KOM can be prosecuted. The aligned approach results in a robust resolution to KOM's case.

The trilateral resolution requires KOM to pay a total of US$422 million. If KOM fails to pay the penalty, there will be consequences under the US, Singapore and Brazilian law. Of the US$422 million, KOM must pay US$52 million to the Singapore Government within 90 days. Another sum of up to US$52 million must be paid to the Singapore Government within three years from the date of the conditional warning, after taking into account any further sums to be paid by KOM to Brazilian authorities.

Any penalty or claim that KOM might be subject to under Singapore law would be far less than what KOM is now liable for under the coordinated resolution. Furthermore, KOM is also required under the US DPA to strengthen its internal controls and compliance and anti-corruption programmes. The current resolution, therefore, achieves more than what we would have been able to do if we had proceeded against the company solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the action to be taken against the individuals concerned. As AGC has stated, investigations into the individuals concerned are ongoing. The Singapore investigations are conducted on the same timeframe as the US and Brazilian investigations and go back to 2001, when the corrupt acts first took place.

There is no agreement, whether in the DPA or otherwise, which prevents the disclosure of the individuals under investigation. However, for criminal investigations, it is standard practice in Singapore, and in many other jurisdictions, not to identify individuals under investigation. This is for the simple reason that investigations can lead to the conclusion that no offence is made out, or that prosecution is unwarranted, in which case disclosure would have been prejudicial to the individuals concerned. Individuals will be identified if and when charges are preferred in Court.

As for the investigation's timetable, this is not a case where CPIB and AGC are acting alone in a domestic case. This is an international case where many different investigating agencies are involved. The case involves many projects in Brazil and goes back many years to 2001. Most of the evidence, including documents and witnesses, are located in different jurisdictions, including Brazil and the US.

Legal proceedings have also taken place in these jurisdictions. AGC needs evidence from these jurisdictions, and it has sought assistance, and it is continuing to work with foreign authorities. AGC has asked for certain information from them and some of its requests are still pending. AGC anticipates that further requests will have to be made as the investigations develop.

AGC is also working on a request for Mutual Legal Assistance. This is a procedure whereby one country formally seeks assistance from another to obtain or secure evidence for use in its own investigations and proceedings. This request will be reviewed and administered by the courts of the foreign country. How quickly and to what extent these requests and applications will be processed is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the request is made. Likewise, any incoming requests from foreign jurisdictions would also have to be considered and acted upon.

Obviously, the intention is to move as expeditiously as possible. However, as I have explained, not all aspects of the investigation are within our control. Only after the investigations are completed can the AGC properly assess the case and decide on the appropriate response. This is something for the Public Prosecutor to decide, independently.

How the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors, including the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, it will be important to determine, for each individual, what he knew, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefit he obtained, the circumstances under which the relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered.

Mr Pritam Singh asked for statistics on concluded or ongoing investigations into corrupt practices by Government-linked companies (GLCs) by overseas and local authorities. I cannot speak for what foreign jurisdictions may be doing. Insofar as Singapore is concerned, past investigations which have resulted in prosecutions are a matter of public record. We do not comment on ongoing investigations, if any, for good reason: so as not to jeopardise the investigations or prejudice individuals or companies if it turns out that no offence is disclosed. Suffice to say, if there is good reason to investigate, the authorities will do so, whether or not the company is a GLC. For example, from 2014 to 2017, seven former Singapore Technologies (ST) Marine officers were investigated and subsequently charged and convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and for other offences under the Penal Code.

Finally, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of Government and Temasek Holdings in relation to GLCs. The Government's relationship with Temasek Holdings is that of a shareholder. Temasek is a shareholder of Keppel Corporation, with a minority stake of about 20%.

The Government does not interfere in, nor influence the business decisions or operations of Temasek and its portfolio companies. Likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies' boards and management. Temasek holds the boards of its portfolio companies responsible for running the companies honestly and competently. If the boards do not perform, Temasek can, collectively with the other shareholders, change the board.

To reiterate, the Government expects all Singapore companies, their officers and their employees to comply fully with the laws of Singapore and the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They have to find ways to keep their own systems clean even when doing business in complex and challenging environments. Above all, they must not import corrupt practices into Singapore.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Deputy Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

Earlier in her response, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that I was not correct to categorise the arrangements reached between Keppel and the Singapore authorities as a three-nation plea bargain agreement. What we read, however, from the statement by CPIB and AGC in December, is that this DPA in the US was reached, of course, with the US government. But in discussion with Brazil and Singapore, and as part of that global resolution, Singapore was issuing a conditional warning to KOM here. So, my question is: is the Senior Minister of State actually saying that these agreements that we have reached with Keppel for the conditional warning were not taken in consultation or as part of arrangements with the US and Brazil, which seems to be what the statement is implying, and that we reached it independently, and we could have actually gone on to prosecute KOM if we had wanted to, it would not be in breach of any global arrangement? So, that is the first question, whether we are completely free to decide whether to prosecute or not in these discussions with Brazil and the US.

The second question is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned in her response that the conditional warning, of course, carried certain undertakings from KOM which were closely aligned with the undertakings in the US agreement, but she did not really specify whether they were coterminous or whether there were variations. So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to give some examples of some of the key undertakings that we have included in the Singapore agreement with KOM.

The third question is, in the Senior Minister of State's response, she mentioned that by reaching this arrangement, we would have achieved much more than we could have on our own. The CPIB and AGC statement says that KOM is being given a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution under PCA. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister of State, in her response, was actually saying that it would have been quite difficult to successfully prosecute KOM, because the evidence was overseas and so on and so forth, in which case, then it is a question of whether this "in lieu of prosecution" really means anything.

Finally, of course, I think the Government would be aware that there has been much interest in this case. Looking at what has been happening to Keppel as a GLC, as a corporate entity, given the large sums of money involved and the damage to our reputation, people perceive that they are just being given a slap on the wrist, whereas it is a daily affair that individuals who are not well connected, they are prosecuted for corruption offences involving $10 or $20 and they go to jail. So, I would like the Government to respond to that because I think there is some public concern about this, what is perceived to be some lenient treatment being given to KOM.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions and the opportunity to clarify certain things. Her first question was whether I had, in my reply, suggested that the actions taken by the AGC were not done in consultation or coordination with the other authorities. I did not say that at all. Let me just read what I actually said. I said that there was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement". What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the two other jurisdictions.

What I was trying to explain is the legal basis or the legal concept behind it. Because when you say "three-nation plea bargain agreement", it suggests that there is either some kind of agreement or treaty to which all three countries are a party to and we are acting under the same instrument. That is not the case. What I was seeking to establish was that each country is acting in accordance with its own laws. But even whilst acting in accordance with its own laws, they reached a coordinated global resolution.

So, that is what I said in the main reply and the intent of it was to explain the underlying basis, which is, that each country is actually acting in accordance with its own domestic laws. That is why in the US, they are acting under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and they are using the DPA mechanism. In Singapore, we use the conditional warning and PCA. And, of course, in Brazil, they had the Leniency Agreement. So, that was all that was being said in relation to that.

The second question was in reference to the main answer where I said that the terms of the conditional warning were closely aligned. Ms Sylvia Lim wanted to know whether it was coterminous and, essentially, asking what are the terms of the conditions. It is not our practice to disclose terms of conditional warnings, not just for Keppel, but for all cases. In other words, conditional warnings are things which had been given in the past by the agencies but, as a general practice, we do not disclose their exact terms. What I can say is what I have said, which is, that it is closely aligned with what has been done in the US.

The third question was whether, when I said that we have achieved more than if we were acting on our own, and acting in lieu of prosecution, if I could just clarify with Ms Sylvia Lim her third question, what was the purport of that?

Yes, what I was asking was that the Senior Minister of State has said that some of the considerations in such transactions which take place primarily overseas and whether we decide to prosecute locally is, for example, whether our local authorities might have difficulties getting the evidence or witnesses locally. That is what I understood the Senior Minister of State to have said. So, my question was that when CPIB and AGC said in their statement that they are giving a warning in lieu of prosecution, is it a real risk of prosecution or is it a case where there will be difficulties and that is why we are saying that we are not prosecuting them but, in reality, the case would be difficult to mount?

I thank the Member for her clarification. In this particular case, since Keppel has actually come forward and cooperated, it has, in effect, as a company, admitted its part in this. So, the next question that arises is: do you prosecute or do you give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution? And in this particular case, it was decided to give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution because of the factors which I had outlined earlier.

But the point I was making, when I talked about being able to achieve more than we otherwise would have been able to do if we had proceeded solely ourselves, is for a number of reasons. First, the maximum fine under PCA is $100,000 per charge. So, this would not get us anywhere near the penalty under the global resolution or even Singapore's share of the current penalty. And with respect to disgorgement, there will be issues of which country gets what. So, under the global resolution, what it means, essentially, is that we are able to achieve all the things that we would have been able to do with prosecution, but even more. And, in addition, under the US DPA, there are requirements for an enhanced compliance programme.

So, all of these are things which we have obtained, which is more than what we would have been able to obtain if you had proceeded solely under DPA. That is what I meant by that.

Let me proceed now to the last question where Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that people may be getting off lightly because it is a conditional warning. For this, I think it is important to understand that there are actually two different things.

First, there is a company; second, there is the individual. Insofar as the company is concerned, it is not a light thing at all. They have not got off lightly. They paid something to the tune of ─ in the DPA, it says US$55 million worth of bribes. They have been slapped with a penalty of US$422 million. That is something like eight times whatever they would have paid out. They have been subject to an enhanced compliance regime. As I have pointed out, we have actually achieved more than what we would have been able to do if they were prosecuted solely under PCA and the company itself has obviously taken remedial actions. So, as far as the company is concerned, make no mistake. There has been a heavy price to pay and deservedly so.

With respect to the individuals, as I have explained in my earlier reply, investigations are still ongoing. That outcome has not been determined. Nobody has got off or not got off, as the case may be. That is something that the Public Prosecutor has to decide, and I have explained some of the challenges that the Public Prosecutor is facing in terms of getting the evidence. But that is something we have to let the Public Prosecutor deal with independently.

But let me just say one other thing on this, which is that it is not a matter of letting individuals off lightly. We have, in the past, taken actions against people irrespective of their status. In the ST Marine case that I mentioned, all seven individuals were senior management, including former Presidents of ST Marine. There was Patrick Lee, the former Group Financial Controller of ST Marine; there was Ong Teck Liang, former Group Financial Controller; Han Yew Kwang, former Chief Operating Officer; Mok Kim Whang, former Senior Vice President; Tan Mong Seng, former President (Commercial Business), ST Marine; Chang Cheow Teck, former President, ST Marine; See Leong Teck, former President, ST Marine.

Government officials and politicians have been investigated in the past by CPIB and charged. These include the Minister of State Wee Toon Boon, sitting and former Members of Parliament Phey Yew Kok and Choo Wee Khiang, the Singapore Civil Defence Force Commissioner Peter Lim, National Kidney Foundation Chief Executive Officer (CEO) TT Durai, and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Public Utilities Board Choy Hon Tim. There was a Cabinet Minister, Teh Cheang Wan, who took his own life after CPIB started to investigate him.

So, there is no doubt about CPIB's record and there is no doubt that we will take action if there is cause to do so.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to ask three supplementary questions. As background, if a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation. As my residents have told me, it is not enough just to win or get the job done.

My first question is: even if the Government or Temasek Holdings do not manage the day-to-day operations of GLCs, what measures are there to send a clear signal that Singaporeans and Singapore companies overseas must not engage in corrupt behaviour, whether directly or through proxy agents?

My second question is: does the Government have a view on whether KOM should conduct a claw-back of bonuses paid out to ex-employees implicated in illegal behaviour? Even if KOM has no legal means of claw-back, should such bonuses be subject to forfeit by law under the Penal Code or the PCA, if not so already?

Thirdly, for Government tenders, what incentives are there to shape the behaviour of proxies and agents to minimise the risks of illegal activity? For example, should there be punitive liquidated damages written into a tender in the event that a contractor is found to have breached the law either in Singapore or overseas?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I certainly agree that it does hurt our reputation and, for that reason, we do not condone this. We are extremely disappointed as well in what has occurred.

With respect to the first question that the Member asked about what measures Temasek can take to send a clear signal to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as I have said − and I repeat − the Government expects Singapore companies and Singaporeans to do business honestly and lawfully even in complex environments.

For Temasek, their position is that they foster an ethos of integrity and good governance and sustainability, and they, too, do not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. So, Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics. Temasek holds the respective boards and managements responsible and accountable for the day-to-day decisions and actions of these portfolio companies, but Temasek does not direct the day-to-day business decisions or operations of the Temasek portfolio companies. But what Temasek can and does do is to conduct regular roundtables, forums, educational programmes, all essentially directed at encouraging not just its portfolio companies but all other companies to keep and maintain clean systems and avoid corrupt practices.

The second question the Member asked was about whether we have a view on whether KOM should claw back bonuses paid out to ex-employees and so on. The Government does not intervene in internal corporate disciplinary actions. This is a matter for KOM and its board. But, as stated in the US DPA, KOM has imposed about US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process.

The third supplementary question, I think, was with respect to tenders. Government tenders explicitly state that tenderers can be debarred if, for instance, they are convicted of corruption by our Courts. Debarred entities will not be eligible to participate in any tender by Government agencies for a period of time. The directors of a disbarred company will also be debarred, and any new companies or businesses they set up during the debarment period will also not be considered for award of tenders. Beyond disbarment, the track record of a supplier is typically an evaluation criterion in Government tenders. Any known facts that reflect on the commercial integrity of the supplier will be taken into account in evaluating the supplier's track record.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Sir, I have five questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is, in view of the Government's status as the largest single shareholder of Keppel, will Temasek Holdings call for an extraordinary general meeting with a view to pursue civil action against board members and senior executives found responsible for the bribery scheme for breach of fiduciary duties and to seek equitable compensation from those responsible?

The second question pertains to the questionable P-61 contract which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. It would have likely required board approval for it to be approved. Is the Government aware whether the Keppel board gave the CEO broad powers to enter into the contract? If not, what is the nature of the board's oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme? Is this something the Public Prosecutor or CPIB is going to look into, or is this a matter for shareholders to consider?

Thirdly, in its information release, the US DOJ shared that a KOM subsidiary in Singapore paid the bribes amounting to $17-odd million into an entity based in Miami, Florida. What is the name of this subsidiary? This is only a question of fact. And who are the officers of this subsidiary?

Fourthly, a former Keppel CEO and Senior Adviser, Mr Choo Chiau Beng, was the Singapore Ambassador to Brazil from 2004 till 2016, I believe. Was Mr Choo removed as Ambassador because of his involvement or knowledge of the bribery scheme and, if so − and I stress, if so − which month or year did the Government first come to know of Mr Choo's involvement? Finally, is CPIB or the Public Prosecutor investigating whether Mr Choo used his position as Ambassador to dishonestly assist Keppel secure contracts corruptly in Brazil?

My final question pertains to the matter of the identities of the individuals identified in the DPA. There is a dissonance between what the public reads in the newspapers for individuals who are being investigated, for example, the General Manager of Ang Mo Kio Town Council. No charges, I understand, have been preferred against him yet, but his identity, his name, is well-known to the public. How does the Minister reconcile that with the non-disclosure of the names of the individuals involved in the Keppel matter?

Let me just deal with the last question first, in which I think the Member wanted to know how does the Government deal with the fact that the names are out there. The Government's position is very simple. The Government deals with the Government's actions. So, the Government's actions are that when investigations are ongoing, we do not disclose the identities of people being investigated. What other people may say outside, what other information may be floating outside, what other comments may go on in social media, that is separate. But as the Government, as an investigation authority, the Government does not disclose names of individuals who are being investigated. And we are not alone in that. All civilised jurisdictions which observe the rule of law uphold that principle simply because, as I have mentioned earlier, we do not want to prejudice either the investigations or the persons being investigated, depending on how the investigation might turn out.

With respect to the first question, I think Mr Singh asked can the Government, as a shareholder, call a meeting and ask for a resolution to be passed to commence civil action. I think that was the thrust of the question.

Let me just correct a few factual inaccuracies here. First, the Government owns 100% of Temasek. The Government is not a direct shareholder of Keppel. That is number one. Temasek owns just over 20% of Keppel Corporation, which is not the entity in question here, which means that there is 80% of other shareholders. Keppel Corporation then owns 100% of KOM, which is the entity in question here. So, the general principle of corporate governance, with which Mr Singh is familiar as a lawyer, is that the shareholders deal with their companies in which they have shares at the shareholder level. Shareholders appoint the boards. The boards then, depending on whether the members are executive or non-executive, it is their business to make sure that the policies and so on for the company are proper, that governance is proper, and then the day-to-day operations are done by the executive team or the executive management.

As I had mentioned earlier, in this particular instance, the Government and Temasek do not interfere in the day-to-day running or management of the Temasek portfolio companies. What I can say and what I can point Mr Pritam Singh to, is what is already in the public domain which is in the DPA, paragraph 4(d) – which I am sure Mr Singh is familiar with – the company has engaged in extensive remedial measures, including taking disciplinary action against 17 former or current employees in relation to the misconduct described in the statement of facts. They have caused seven employees who participated in the conduct described in the statement of facts to separate from the company. They have issued demotions and/or written warnings to seven employees who failed to detect the misconduct and failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate corruption and compliance risks. They have imposed approximately US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process and have conducted individualised anti-corruption and compliance training for six employees.

Anything further than that is a matter for the Keppel group, or for the company in this case, to determine, not for the Government.

Going back to a couple of other questions asked by Mr Pritam Singh, on the P-61 contract, he asked whether—I am sorry, could the Member clarify his question on the P-61 contract?

The Senior Minister of State said that the question really pertained to the nature of the board's oversight over that contract. If, indeed, they had knowledge or they were involved in that contract, what was the nature of their oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme and, specifically, is this something that CPIB or the Public Prosecutor is looking into?

That is actually not so much a question for the Government. As to what is known and not known within the Keppel group, that is, really, a Keppel matter. The only thing that I can do here which would be useful is to point Mr Pritam Singh to one of Keppel's media releases, where Keppel said that the current boards of directors of Keppel Corporation and its unit KOM were not aware of the illegal payments made to secure projects in Brazil. That is Keppel's position. As far as the Government is concerned, as I have explained, the Government is a shareholder in Temasek, Temasek has a just over 20% shareholding in Keppel Corporation and the operations of Keppel are run by Keppel itself.

Mr Pritam Singh also had a question on the name of the subsidiary company. I do not have that information with me. And he asked about the circumstances in which Mr Choo Chiau Beng may have stepped down as ambassador, I do not have that information. What I can say is that he has stepped down and he is not involved in an ambassadorial role at the present time.

The Senior Minister of State is beginning to repeat herself in her answers. And so, I will allow two supplementary questions. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Sir, US$422 million is a huge sum. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State who will pay the US$422 million if KOM is unable to pay? Will it be paid from our Government budget?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the monies will have to be paid by KOM. It would not come out of the Government budget. There will be no impact on the Government's fiscal position. Temasek's 20% stake in KOM is just one part of its portfolio. The Government's spending limit in relation to its Reserves held by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek depends on the long-term expected returns on those assets. It is not based on actual cash contributions of the entities to the Government.

The last question, Mr Png Eng Huat.

Sir, three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. She mentioned whether any KOM staff will be prosecuted depends on whether they benefited from this scam.

One, would the Senior Minister of State clarify whether bonuses and salary increases given to senior staff, past and present, for meeting profit and revenue targets are deemed as personal benefits?

Second, the Senior Minister of State also mentioned that the corruption is done outside Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the email trail leads back to senior staff in Singapore? In the investigation of the scam, did the email trail lead back to Singapore, which means were senior staff in Singapore actually orchestrating or sanctioning all these from Singapore?

Third, would the Senior Minister of State not agree with me that the money earned by KOM through illegal and corrupt means are highly improper, and would the Senior Minister of State not agree that the dividends paid out by KOM who knew very well that its earnings were derived from bribing people and the political party in power would also be deemed illegal, and would then need to be clawed back from members of senior staff, board of directors past and present, and the only way to ascertain the amount is through a forensic audit? Would the Government be ordering one?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member said that I had mentioned that whether or not there is action taken will depend on whether the individuals had benefited. Let me just go back to my original answer, which I hope will be clear. I said how the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors; so not just one factor but several. It includes the culpability of each individual, the available evidence, what is appropriate in the circumstances, the knowledge of each individual, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefits he obtained, the circumstances under which relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered. So, it is not a single factor; it is a whole array of factors which the Public Prosecutor will have to take into account.

The second question was – could the Member just repeat the second question, that the corruption was done outside Singapore and therefore—?

The corruption is done outside Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the email trail leads back to senior staff in Singapore, as in whether approval or directions were given by senior staff from Singapore?

All these are matters which are subject to investigation. I do not have this information and it certainly would not be appropriate for me to enquire on this point. This is something which the Public Prosecutor and CPIB are looking into. Let them deal with it. Let proper process, due process take place and, in time, they will have to make the appropriate decision.

There was a third supplementary question on clawing back illegal payouts and thus, whether the Government would order a forensic audit since this is one of the biggest corruption scandals in corporate Singapore?

As I have said, US$422 million is going to be paid out by the company. That is by the company. Insofar as the individuals are concerned, I have already pointed to the fact that in the DPA, it has been disclosed that the company has gone against the individuals. So, basically, as far as any monies that should not have been obtained, were obtained, they have actually, effectively, been disgorged.

12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's rationale in introducing fee benchmarks for medical procedures; (b) how is this new guideline aligned to the spirit of fair competition; and (c) whether the Ministry is aware that the benchmarks may cause doctors who are charging lower fees to charge higher fees.

13 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health whether the removal of the Singapore Medical Association fee benchmarks in 2007 has led to the inflation of medical costs in the last decade and how will the Ministry's fee benchmarks be independently derived so as to prevent anti-competitive price-fixing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the introduction of fee benchmarks is part of a larger strategy to keep healthcare costs affordable and sustainable as we prepare for an ageing population in Singapore. This is a shared responsibility and requires a collective effort from all stakeholders. We, as individuals, have to take good care of our health and make informed choices when we seek treatment. Healthcare professionals play a key role in providing quality care that is appropriate to patients' needs and charge reasonable fees for their services. The Government and healthcare institutions need to continue to improve productivity and look for ways to deliver greater value for patients. Employers and insurers can help to manage increases in healthcare costs by encouraging prudent use of healthcare services by their employees and policyholders.

Sir, the Singapore Medical Association (SMA) first introduced its guidelines on fees (GOF) in 1987. It withdrew the GOF in 2007 after it was informed by the Competition Commission of Singapore of anti-competitive concerns. There was no significant change in the average annual healthcare inflation rate in the decade preceding and following the 2007 withdrawal of SMA's GOF, which were 2.4% and 2.6% respectively.

Recent policy measures, such as the Pioneer Generation package, MediShield Life subsidies and the Community Health Assist Scheme, have helped to reduce the healthcare inflation rate to about 1.2% between 2013 and 2016.

Over the past years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been publishing historical transacted hospital bill sizes and operation fees for common medical procedures to enhance transparency of healthcare charges. The introduction of fee benchmarks will take this further by providing all stakeholders a useful reference. We believe this will encourage appropriate charging practices and provide useful information for patients and payors to make better informed decisions on their care options.

The fee benchmarks will be set by the Ministry with advice from an independent committee that comprises stakeholders representing the medical community, providers, patients and payors from both the private and public sector. The benchmarks will be reviewed and updated regularly, with references made to historical transacted data.

The fee benchmarks are not intended to restrict competition as doctors are not prohibited from charging lower or higher fees if they wish to. The fee benchmarks serve as references for the public, including insurers and professional bodies, to assess whether the fees charged by a healthcare professional are reasonable.

The Ministry will, however, continue to monitor the charging practices in the healthcare sector.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State regarding the fee benchmarks which MOH will roll out soon. Do they include the total bill, with breakdown into the components, such as the doctors' fees and facility fees? Part of the public concerns have to do with the facility fees charged by the hospitals, which have been increasing quite a fair bit recently.

The second clarification is on my last question asking whether these benchmarks will cause doctors who are charging lower fees now, to up their fees instead. So, we are worried that there could be a knee-jerk reaction.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Indeed, the concern about healthcare fees is not only about doctors' fees. It is about the overall healthcare cost. So, this will include doctors' fees, but it would also include facility fees and other components of the overall healthcare cost that patients, insurers, taxpayers and Government, on the whole, will have to pay.

We focused on doctors' fees for a start because these were also the recommendations of the Health Insurance Task Force. It made a report and recommended that fee benchmarks focused on professional fees in the first instance. For other fees, such as hospital charges, Dr Lim Wee Kiak is aware that we currently publish the facility fees for common procedures. If there are ways that we can present the information better to allow members of public and patients to have more information to make comparisons, we would be happy to receive feedback on how we can do better. We will also continue to monitor if benchmarks for other healthcare-related services will be required in the future.

Sir, the fee benchmarks, by themselves, will not be a silver bullet to address healthcare costs. I mentioned in my reply that we also need collective effort from all stakeholders as providers and institutions need to focus on improving productivity, improving appropriate care. Recently, we set up the Agency of Care Effectiveness (ACE) and they issued some guidance on appropriate care guides, drug guidances. These are ways to help medical professionals, patients and caregivers to identify what are the cost-effective treatment options. So, ACE will also be looking into medical technology guidance this year to guide the selection of clinical and cost-effective medical devices.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I am presuming he was also answering Question No 13.

I meant to ask for Mr Deputy Speaker's permission to answer both Question Nos 12 and 13 together. I apologise for that.

I have three supplementary questions. First, what other sources of information or expertise would the Ministry be using to ensure the independence of the benchmarks other than that of the Advisory Committee? Second, how would the Committee be involving the patients because they are not organised into associations or any other kind of bodies? Third, what would the Ministry do to prevent insurers from using the benchmarks to reduce the payouts or to reject legitimate claims?

I thank Assoc Prof Goh for his supplementary questions. I think it is important for us, when we do the fee benchmarks, to have representation from all stakeholders – the professionals, the professional bodies and, of course, from patients, consumers. We want to be able to reflect different perspectives as we set the benchmarks. These benchmarks are meant as guidelines, as references. When insurers refer to these benchmarks, it is not something that prevents them from treating each claim on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the merits of the case and, certainly, if it is within the appropriate guidelines, insurers, I am sure, would continue to be able to fulfil their obligations to their policyholders, in accordance with the terms of their insurance products.

Going back to the earlier point that Dr Lim Wee Kiak raised with regard to the concern that some doctors may, as a result of this, raise their fees. I certainly hope that would not be the case because I believe that the large majority of our doctors have their patients' well-being and concern at the foremost, and that is what they want to focus on.

But, of course, the benchmarks would help us to identify the small number of doctors who overcharge. This is information for us to be able to use, for patients to use, for insurers to use and for the authorities, including the Singapore Medical Council, for them to be able to take action and prevent the small number from raising healthcare costs for everyone else.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I agree with the logic of representation. The question is: how do you select the patients? Because it is not really organised as a body.

Sir, we have groups like the Consumers' Association of Singapore. We also have groups that can represent different stakeholders. It would not be possible to represent every single individual, as I am sure Assoc Prof Goh would agree with me. But to have the input and perspective from patient groups, from consumers, certainly, that would be something that could be taken as part of the process.

14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of e-scooter accidents and near-misses in 2017 involving pedestrians on footpaths and walkways; (b) what avenues for redress or compensation are available for pedestrians injured in e-scooter accidents; and (c) how awareness of the relevant laws can be enhanced among e-scooter and electric bicycle users of (i) local and (ii) foreign origin.

15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the current measures taken by LTA and the Traffic Police to (i) ensure that e-scooters are not used on roads and expressways, and electric bicycles are not used on expressways and (ii) address unsafe and inconsiderate usage of e-scooters on footpaths and walkways; and (b) whether more measures will be taken to (i) abate such occurrences and (ii) enhance public awareness of the laws governing the usage of e-scooters and electric bicycles.

Sir, may I take Question Nos 14 and 15 together, please?

Yes, please.

There were about 30 reported accidents involving pedestrians and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), including e-scooters, on public paths from January to September last year. We do not have statistics on near-misses.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will step up efforts to prevent accidents through enforcement and education. Last year, LTA issued more than 1,700 advisories for unsafe riding behaviours. Offenders will also pay fines once the Active Mobility Act comes into force soon. LTA is working with 800 Active Mobility Patrol volunteers to conduct regular patrols in their communities and also to share safe riding practices.

LTA will soon be conducting a campaign to raise awareness of the active mobility rules and penalties. The Safe Riding Programme will be launched in schools, foreign worker dormitories and community centres. It will be compulsory for all cyclists and PMD users who are caught riding recklessly.

In the event of an accident, the victim should file a Police report, and the Police will investigate. If the offender is convicted in Court for committing an offence, the Court will consider if compensation to the victim should be paid. The victim can also seek compensation through civil lawsuits, mediation or private settlement.

All types of bicycles, including power-assisted bicycles or e-bikes, are not allowed to be used on expressways. Offenders can face prosecution, be convicted and pay a fine up to $1,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or both.

The use of PMDs on all public roads is also prohibited. In response to the growing use of PMDs, the composition sum of $100 will be increased to $300 and $500 for offenders who ride on local and major roads, respectively, from next week, 15 January. Repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties, including Court action. If convicted, offenders face a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment of up to three months, or more.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, regarding near-misses, would the Minister feel it is beneficial for residents who have been involved in a near-miss to make it known to LTA and the authorities, so that we can draw lessons from such near-misses which may herald more serious incidents in future?

Secondly, would the Ministry continue studying or perhaps reviewing whether we should introduce some form of compulsory insurance for device owners, especially where the potential of harm from an accident from that device is higher than other device types? The reason I raise this is because some of my residents are worried that when an accident occurs, there could be a double financial tragedy. The injured party is injured, has medical bills, the person riding the device may be of limited means and unable to provide compensation even if the Civil Court finds him or her liable.

Sir, I thank the Member for both suggestions. I think both are reasonable and good suggestions. I have actually asked the Active Mobility Advisory Panel chaired by my colleague, Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim, to review the code of conduct and practices governing active mobility devices (AMDs). We have now almost a year of experience and, in the light of that experience, we should see what other rules we should introduce, rules we should tweak or toughen.

Some of these suggestions, I am sure the panel will take into account as well, including insurance, wearing of helmets and whether we should register e-scooters. We have started registering e-bikes, so whether there is a case to also register e-scooters. I do not think we should be registering all scooters or all bicycles but I think those which are power-assisted and, therefore, potentially can incur greater harm, there may be a case of some sort of registration. I leave it to the panel to review this.

Order. End of Question Time. Personal explanation. Mr Leon Perera.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the permission to make a personal statement regarding my supplementary question on the ownership of Parliamentary videos on 7 November 2017.

In my supplementary question on the Parliamentary video footage on 7 November, when asked for specific examples of editing, I said, and I quote, "There was a specific example where a clip was put up in relation to the Presidential Election Act debates. If my memory serves me well, it was in January or February, and the clip that was put up of certain exchanges, there were certain bits removed. It was actually communicated with Mediacorp and, through the correspondence, they actually made the rectification and put up a different clip. So, I think that was resolved quite amicably", unquote. I was asked to clarify my remarks later on that day.

I acknowledge that I could have recalled certain facts incorrectly about an exchange with Mediacorp that had occurred in February 2017, nine months earlier. I said that I would need to verify the facts with my email archive but that, and I quote, "I am sure that that will be the case when I have verified. So, I am quite prepared to accept that fact".

I would now like to definitively withdraw my earlier statements to the effect that the video had been edited with certain bits removed and that the video had been edited and only corrected after my intervention. I confirm that Mediacorp had explained this to me in February 2017 and that I had accepted that.

I would like to apologise to the House for all incorrect recollections of the chain of events in February 2017 contained in this exchange as per House conventions.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not deliberately misrepresent the facts of that incident for this House. Firstly, I did not plan to raise this incident during supplementary questions. I did so off the cuff and only in response to the request to enumerate any incident of editing that I knew of. As it turned out, my memory of the incident was inaccurate.

Secondly, I did acknowledge that my memory of the incident may well be imperfect as I prefaced it with the phrase "if my memory serves me well".

Thirdly, I stated explicitly and twice on that day that the incident had been resolved amicably and had not accused Mediacorp of partisan editing of a video clip in that incident, which makes the matter of when the clip was corrected immaterial.

I would also like to reiterate that the main thrust of my Parliamentary Question (PQ) and supplementary question had been, firstly, the nature and ownership of Parliamentary video footage which was clarified as a result of the PQ. Secondly, whether and how videos are edited, which was also clarified by the PQ in that and if there is editing insofar as that means the arrangement of Parliamentary exchanges into the clips and so on, but not verbatim editing of exchange within a particular clip. And thirdly, why "live" streaming of Parliament is not provided, an issue where Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat explained the Government's position – which is one with which I disagree – since "live" streaming would tend to remove any concern about the reflectiveness of clips of particular exchanges uploaded sometime after the event.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I apologise to the House for any mistaken impression created by my failure of memory. I agree that Parliamentary privilege is a privilege that should never be taken lightly. However, I did not deliberately misrepresent facts or deliberately mislead the House for whatever reason. Thank you.

Leader of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to clarify with Member Mr Leon Perera on his personal explanation. Notwithstanding his intention, whether he is deliberately misleading the House or otherwise, does he agree that he has, indeed, made a wrong allegation against Mediacorp?

I thank the Leader of the House for her clarification and I certainly agree that my recollections were imperfect. It had not been my intention to allege that Mediacorp had undertaken partisan editing of the clip. Having said that, I think the statements that I made contained inaccuracies. I have withdrawn them and I acknowledge that.

And would he also agree that the allegations that were untrue has, indeed, misled the House?

Thank you, again. I do agree that the statements were inaccurate and, therefore, misled the House, but it was not my intention to make an allegation against Mediacorp of having done partisan editing to that clip.

As I said earlier on, the Member's intention aside, the fact is that the Member has, indeed, made untrue allegations, and I thank him for acknowledging his misleading statements and also acknowledging his apology to Parliament.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to stress here that Members of Parliament are given Parliamentary privilege to speak freely and surface different views, but this must not be misused to misrepresent facts or mislead Parliament. I am glad that Mr Perera has clarified his statement by withdrawing his false allegations against Mediacorp and apologising to Parliament. Mr Perera has, indeed, acknowledged that he has made a mistake in recollecting his facts. I would not want to read too much into his intention whether there was, indeed, deliberate allegation against Mediacorp, but statements that were wrongly made in this House deserved to be retracted if it is, indeed, untrue in this House so that the Chamber, the Members, are able to benefit from the discussion and also to restore trust in one another's statements made in this House.

It is only in that way that we are able to have a useful and effective discussion in this House because we believe that what we say here we have a serious basis for them and that we will not make any statements unless we are very scrupulous with the facts that are backing the statements. So, I hope that this serves as a timely reminder for all Members of the House of the high standard of integrity and honesty that we expect in this House. Thank you, Sir.

[(proc text) "to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); 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 require or authorise the taking of measures to prevent, manage and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents, to regulate owners of critical information infrastructure, to regulate cybersecurity service providers, and for matters related thereto, and to make consequential or related amendments to certain other written laws", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); 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 establish the Enterprise Singapore Board, to repeal the International Enterprise Singapore Board Act (Chapter 143B of the 2002 Revised Edition) and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act (Chapter 303A of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (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 Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

The Singapore Public Service is made up of Ministries and Statutory Boards, which work together to deliver services to the public. Today, Ministries, which are led by Ministers, are responsible for setting policy directions, while Statutory Boards focus on implementation to achieve the policy outcomes.

Each Statutory Board has a constituting Act which spells out its powers and functions and the key governance requirements. These Acts provide for the Statutory Boards to be separate legal entities from Ministries, and to be governed by their own Board of Directors. This allows them greater autonomy over day-to-day running of operations, and ensure greater responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. To illustrate, Statutory Boards have broad discretion over operational issues, can exercise some flexibility over terms and conditions to hire employees, can own land and raise capital by issuing bonds.

At the same time, Statutory Boards are part of the Government and cannot be totally independent either, and Ministers are ultimately accountable for their performance in Parliament. How Statutory Boards operate must, therefore, be in line with the policy directions set by Ministers and their Ministries. They must also abide by important tenets of governance, such as standards of conduct and discipline, principles of remuneration, such as the clean wage policy, that apply to the whole Public Service.

In short, Statutory Boards are part of the Government, to be governed centrally, but deliberately constituted as separate entities for operational flexibility. Legislation must reflect that intent and that balance.

There are now 61 Statutory Boards in Singapore delivering services in respective areas listed in the Schedule of the Bill. They have been set up over the decades. The oldest Statutory Board in existence today is the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board which was established in 1955. A few were constituted only last year, namely, Workforce Singapore, SkillsFuture Singapore, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech).

Because of the considerable timespan during which different Statutory Boards were established, the key governance requirements in the Acts of our Statutory Boards are not even. The central agencies, which are the Public Service Division and the Ministry of Finance (MOF), together with Smart Nation and Digital Government Office and the Ministry of Communications and Information, recently did a comprehensive stocktake of all these Acts. This Bill will reduce and minimise this unevenness, with a view to institutionalise a clearer and more consistent governance framework for Statutory Boards.

It will, therefore, achieve three main objectives: first, standardise key governance requirements amongst Statutory Boards; second, make explicit requirements for Statutory Boards to comply with key corporate policies in human resource (HR), finance, office administration and information technology (IT), and they are already doing so by abiding the Government Instruction Manual (IM), but we should provide for formal legislative backing; third, improve the data-sharing scheme, and I am specifically addressing this governance policy because it is a more recent requirement; and finally, this Bill also makes related amendments to five Acts. Let me to go through each in turn.

Today, all Statutory Boards already follow the same practices for good governance. For example, most Statutory Board Acts provide for the Minister charged with the responsibility of the Statutory Board to approve the appointment of its Chief Executive (CE). However, for the five polytechnics, their Acts do not make this requirement, even though in practice, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) search, shortlist, interview and bring about the appointments. There is no reason for the polytechnics to be different from the other Statutory Boards in terms of legislative provisions.

This Bill pulls together and standardises four main areas of governance that are already present in most Statutory Board Acts.

One, the power for the responsible Minister to give directions to Statutory Boards on the performance of their functions, with which they must comply. Divisions 1 and 3 in Part 2 reflect this. These directions must be consistent with written laws and cannot influence any statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions of the Statutory Boards. To ensure impartiality of the Public Service, the Bill specifies that directions must not be given to achieve specific outcomes or to make employment decisions regarding a particular person or persons.

Two, personnel matters regarding the role, appointment, removal, promotion and discipline of the CEs of Statutory Boards are reflected in Division 1 of Part 3. This Division, first, clarifies that other than proper administration and management of the functions of the Statutory Boards in line with Ministerial directions, the CE also has to collaborate with the wider Public Service to deliver public value. This is important because, as our challenges become more complex, they cannot be solved by one agency alone. This change clarifies that agencies can go beyond a narrow interpretation of the functions described in their Acts to also support and seek support from other agencies, which they are already encouraged to do to achieve whole-of-Government objectives today.

The Bill also standardises the role of the Minister to approve the appointment and removal of CEs, subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission (PSC). Hence, it is a three-key system – the Board of Directors of the Statutory Board appoint the CE, the Minister approves, and PSC concurs. In cases where the President’s concurrence is also required, such as the Fifth-Schedule Statutory Boards, it is a four-key system.

Three, the requirement for Statutory Board Governing Board members to disclose conflicts of interest, as reflected in Division 1 of Part 4. This Part defines the circumstances under which a member of the Governing Board is deemed to be interested in a matter, and also the standard of disclosure. These provisions are consistent with corporate governance practices adopted by the private sector and are already in the recently-passed Statutory Board Acts, such as the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act, the Government Technology Agency Act, and the recently amended Town Councils Act.

Four, finance-related requirements relating to the preparation and adoption of budget estimates, the keeping of proper accounts, audit requirements and the presentation of the audited financial statements and annual reports to Parliament. These Part 5 provisions are basic requirements to ensure proper internal controls and governance over finance administration.

Now, let me move on to the second area: formalising today's administrative requirements to comply with key central policies.

Our Statutory Boards currently comply with a range of policies set by central agencies, developed in consultation with key stakeholders, such as the Statutory Boards themselves and public-sector unions. So, PSD issues directives on HR matters, and MOF on finance matters. The Bill empowers the Minister charged with the responsibility for the Singapore public sector to issue directions to Statutory Boards to comply with those central policies, jointly with the Minister responsible for the respective policy areas. This is reflected in Division 1 of Part 2.

Such central policies need to strike a balance between effective governance across the Public Service, and the flexibility Statutory Boards need for operational success. For example, Statutory Board salaries are benchmarked to the talent markets they compete in, and we do not expect every Statutory Board to pay exactly the same salary or to have the same salary scales. But it would be imprudent to allow Statutory Boards to have an absolute free reign in setting salary packages. Hence, we have a process where Statutory Boards must consult their Ministries and the PSD when reviewing their salaries and take their views into consideration. During this process, we will ensure that salary benchmarks are appropriately set, the Statutory Board abides by the clean wage policy and so on.

To guide the setting of central policy directives, the Bill stipulates that the relevant Ministers are only empowered to give central directions for the following purposes: (a) upholding and promoting the values of the Singapore public sector; (b) securing economies or efficiencies for the Singapore public sector; (c) improving the efficiency or effectiveness of policies and programmes; (d) ensuring business continuity in case of emergencies; (e) ensuring accountable and prudent stewardship of Singapore public sector finances and resources; (f) managing risks to the financial position of the Government; and (g) finally, supporting a whole-of-Government approach in the discharge of the Statutory Boards' functions.

Central directions by the relevant Ministers must likewise be consistent with written laws. Directions cannot affect the performance of any statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions of any Singapore public sector agency, including the Judiciary. This would mean, for instance, that the directions cannot undermine the independence of the Judiciary guaranteed by the Constitution. The Courts will continue to exercise their judicial function independently, unimpeded by any Ministerial directions, and Court orders will have to be obeyed notwithstanding any requirement contained in a direction. Directions cannot be given to achieve specific outcomes or to make employment decisions regarding a particular person or persons.

The third area that this Bill seeks to achieve is to formalise the data-sharing regime within the Public Service. The use of data has transformed the way services are conceived and delivered to bring greater convenience and faster, more seamless service to users. For example, when we drive, our location data is aggregated with the other drivers, shared with an app company to generate real-time traffic condition maps and to guide our travels. The Public Service is also using data to better serve the public, in two ways.

The first, is to better provide frontline service. One good example is the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF’s) Social Service Offices (SSOs). When a resident applies for financial assistance at an SSO, he does not need to submit various documents before receiving assistance. The frontline officers already have access to data from multiple agencies to swiftly evaluate his or her eligibility for financial assistance.

Another example is MyInfo, a "tell-us-once" platform for Government services that the Public Service is currently developing. When an individual wants to perform an online Government service transaction, such as applying for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-to-Order (BTO) flat, enrolment into polytechnics or applying for baby bonus, he or she needs to log in via SingPass, and MyInfo will automatically prefill the application form with his or her information. This is achieved by pooling an individual’s personal data from multiple agencies securely through a central platform, and the outcome is a more hassle-free and seamless online transaction process for the applicant.

Another way to improve public service is to use data for analysis and to develop policies and programmes. For example, Government agencies are using the Enterprise Data Hub (EDH), a central repository of business entity data, to better understand industries and companies, bring about better analytical insights and improved support strategies for industries and businesses. In the case of MOE, we can put together data on past education attainment, family background, jobs and careers to better understand the relationship between education and careers.

But in doing such analysis, we need to anonymise the data because it is the aggregated trend and the causal relationships that we are seeking to understand. Hence, we will set up centralised data custodians, where raw data from different sources will be matched and anonymised, before being released to relevant agencies for analysis.

Such cross-agency data sharing initiatives are already happening today because technology has made it possible. But we need to strengthen the rules which were written before we could envisage how we can leverage data to improve our work and deliver services better. There are three areas of improvement.

First, the Bill provides the bases for data to be shared between public sector agencies. Specifically, there are seven purposes supporting public interest, under which data can be shared under the direction of the Minister. This is backed up by amendments to the Civil Service’s internal guidelines to further elaborate the conditions for sharing. In gist, identifiable personal data is shared when services need to be better delivered to the individual, while non-identifiable data is shared to improve policy analysis, planning and formulation.

Second, under today's rules, there is an asymmetrical distribution of responsibility between data owning and data requesting agencies. The requesting agency is using the data, but yet the owner is responsible and accountable for the security of the data. This Bill will correct this asymmetry and make it clear that it is the user who will be accountable for the protection and safeguarding of data passed to them. So, it will actually enhance data security and safeguards.

Finally, the Bill further introduces criminal penalties for the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information, and the unauthorised re-identification of anonymised data by the user of the datasets.

For avoidance of doubt, the Bill makes it clear that sensitive data protected by legislation would remain protected. This includes data exchanged or received by Statutory Boards, which are subject to confidentiality obligations under international treaties or agreements that are provided for under any written law.

All the changes proposed in this Bill will generally apply to all Statutory Boards, except where there are grounds for exemption. Exemption is due to the function of the Statutory Board and the context in which they operate. For example, the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) is unlike regular Statutory Boards in that its main functions focus on developing the capabilities and representing the interests of the voluntary welfare sector and serving as a bridge between the Government and the sector. As such, NCSS functions more autonomously from Government than regular Statutory Boards and is exempt from the requirement to obtain PSC’s concurrence in the appointment, removal, promotion and discipline of its CE.

Another group of Statutory Boards, like the Singapore Medical Council and the Land Surveyors Board, serve mainly to self-regulate the professional standards, training and conduct of their respective professions. Their core functions relate to the exercise of professional judgement on licensing particular persons to practise as a professional in a field. The Governing Boards, therefore, comprise registered practitioners of relevant professions with autonomy to exercise professional judgement. Hence, the Minister has a smaller role to play in their work and PSC is not involved in the appointment or removal of their Registrars.

Related to this, I will later move amendments at the Committee stage to bring the treatment of People's Association (PA) more in line with that of similar Statutory Boards. The text of the Bill currently exempts the PA from: one, the power of the responsible Minister to give directions to PA; two, the role of the Governing Board and responsible Minister in appointing the PA's CE; and three, the requirement for the Chairperson to sign the PA's audited financial statements. We had originally given the exemptions due to the unique constitution of the PA where the Prime Minister is the Chairperson while the responsible Minister is the Deputy Chairperson. But we have since relooked the exemptions and decided to have consistency in PA's governance with the other Statutory Boards. The only remaining exception is that volunteers who serve on PA's committees will not be subject to the protection as well as the offences that relate to public servants under the Penal Code, for the simple reason that they are volunteers.

Finally, the Bill makes related amendments to five Acts.

One, an amendment to the Interpretation Act, to set out the longstanding practice where subsidiary legislation made by a Statutory Board is signed by the chairperson. This clarifies that the chairperson's signature is sufficient to indicate that a Statutory Board has passed that legislation in resolution without further need for all members to sign the legislation. The amendment also clarifies that where a Statutory Board is permitted by any written law to delegate the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers, this does not apply to the power to make subsidiary legislation.

Two, amendments to the Fire Safety Act and Police Force Act to remove references to the divisional status of public officers. This reflects the policy since January 2017 to stop grouping officers by divisional status to better emphasise skills and performance in the management of officers. This is in line with the national SkillsFuture movement.

Three, an amendment to the Government Contracts Act to allow Statutory Board employees on secondment to the Government to execute binding contracts on behalf of Government. This will improve the efficiency of our work processes and fairer to the officer, too.

Four, amendments to the PSC and Legal Service Commission (LSC) Act. Let me provide some background. Article 21 of the Constitution states that the President must, in exercising her statutory functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, except as provided by the Constitution. However, the text of two sections of the PSC and LSC Act is inconsistent with this because it states that the President can exercise her discretion to permit the communication, publication and disclosure of information relating to the Commissions' work, which should not otherwise be disclosed. This inconsistency exists because the PSC and LSC Act was enacted in 1956 before the Singapore Constitution was enacted in 1963. Article 162 of the Constitution requires any law pre-dating the Constitution to be brought into alignment with the Constitution. Hence, we are taking this opportunity to amend the PSC and LSC Act to remove the phrase "acting in his discretion" from two sections of the Act. This will not affect the President’s powers, and we have consulted the President’s office before proposing to streamline our statutes.

This Bill will strengthen the governance of Statutory Boards to better deliver services for the benefit of all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Bill, which I support on three counts, focused on the data section.

Firstly, the need to improve governance. Streamlining processes in the Public Service would have obvious benefits to the public and make governance more efficient and effective. Let me share some areas where I propose this can be done.

From a public perspective, it can be frustrating, and I know many residents as well as businesses are often frustrated when Government agencies lob them from department to department and sometimes even Members of Parliament (MPs) are not immune to this. To make an application or appeal, one has to go online to different websites or to different departments to get the relevant documentation because the information among the different agencies cannot be shared.

Thus, I am sure that the public will welcome this move if they can see the direct benefits that it brings them in transacting with the Government and in how they use various Government services. I hope that with the implementation of this Bill, the Government will prioritise to start with areas that can have significant social impact, especially those for the low-income, seniors and the under-privileged. I see many possibilities that data sharing can make living better for the under-privileged and those in need.

Very often, I have had residents coming to our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) for help, especially for welfare appeals, home purchases and other declarations needed, such as immigration applications, where documents and statements are asked each time they make an appeal, whether it is CPF records, income statements, certified medical certificates and so forth.

Too often, many give up on these schemes or benefits because of the long process and when data and document sharing becomes onerous. The family situation for those in need is not always so straightforward. Family members may be difficult to locate and sometimes family members are also estranged. An example involves Government assistance schemes that need salary declarations to determine household income, but the Government may already have had some salary information either through income tax declarations or CPF contributions.

I ask that officers handling such sensitive cases for welfare, housing and health subsidies be given greater access to data to make decisions more easily and, more importantly, to reduce the burden on the residents to keep providing updated statements and data every few months when assistance needs to be renewed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the sensitivities, as explained by the Minister earlier on, of allowing officers to see such salary data and declarations are, indeed, sensitive for the families. Thus, I have a suggestion. Can the Government work on a points-based system to determine the eligibility of citizens for various schemes, similar to what we do for credit scoring? So, systems can work in the background without having to reveal exact numbers to officers. So, in a sense, you go to the backend, get certain data, churn out a formula and, therefore, a score comes out to say whether a resident is eligible or not eligible.

So, officers making the assessments will see some form of points scoring to make it easier and quicker to approve one’s eligibility for a scheme. This will allow officers to make decisions without having to access actual data. For example, an agency can evaluate if an applicant’s household income exceeds the specified criteria through comparing CPF and/or Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) data, without having to be given actual details which will breach some of our laws. If the system can compute such a formula, this will help reduce trauma and difficulties by the applicant and reduce the burden on the processing for help. This way, more citizens will get help more expediently and with much lesser stress.

The second consideration is the possibility of achieving cost-effectiveness. In the sharing of data and making Government processes more efficient, would such services not become cheaper for the relevant agencies and, consequently, the public? I am not just talking about direct cost savings but also indirect savings in terms of neater allocation of resources, achieving optimal outcomes and leading to effective policy outcomes.

From the business point of view, for example, the amount of time and resources companies spend in administrative filings, whether for taxes, specific permits and licences or manpower quotas, can be drastically reduced through the sharing of data among Government agencies. So, I understand MyInfo is a good platform and I hope that more can be done, but also not in terms of pre-filling forms, when we were to carry forward some of these application data that was previously submitted.

In recent years, we have heard of many businesses attributing the low take-up rate of Government schemes and grants to complicated and long-drawn processes of such applications and reporting. Hopefully, we will see businesses more encouraged to do so now in light of easier data sharing among agencies, so they do not have to keep repeating their applications across agencies.

Last, but not least, the importance of taking concrete steps towards being a truly Smart Nation. Data and, more importantly, the insights that can be garnered from it, are proving to be critical and significant in this digital era. Companies and governments around the world are increasingly leveraging data to serve their customers and citizens better, and Singapore should leverage such capabilities to improve and enhance policymaking. After all, if we are truly driving Singapore towards being a Smart Nation, then the Public Service should be incentivised to lead by example.

I support this initiative to further our use of digital technology under our Smart Nation initiative, in areas that can better our lives, such as making our public transport services more efficient and enhancing our access to healthcare, amongst others. However, acknowledging these benefits, I would like to share the concerns I have on this Bill based on feedback gathered on the ground.

The main concern some have on this move is the perception that "big brother" is watching. How does the Government plan to assure citizens that they are not actively being tracked? While governance and transparency are areas to keep in mind, we need to be clear on whether the Government will make public on what datasets that the "directing" Minister has asked for across agencies, and what they will be used for. This is especially for datasets that will be used for proactive enforcement of citizens, if any, such as tax compliance or declarations.

My other concern is the erroneous or non-updated data on an individual or business which could work against them when used by the Government to approve applications for schemes and services. With this Bill, an outdated or erroneous data is now transmitted across multiple agencies. So, how can a citizen or a business find out whether the data that the Government has on them is actually correct and if they can self-update easily, without the hassle of checking from agency to agency?

Also, given that Government officers now have access to a full suite of data, which, put together with reasonable deduction, may lead to market or sensitive insights and the possibility of what some may call "insider trading" for use of information for personal gain. Will there be measures put in place for such officers to declare interests beyond the grade ones that the Minister shared earlier, and holdings of investment and properties? Will the Government also consider stronger penalties for breaches of data access or leaks so as to create stronger deterrents?

While the Bill covers penalties for data leaks, I do have concerns that, in recent years, we have seen Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) reports where data and systems controls remain a concern for some agencies. So, what additional measures will be put in place in terms of data security? Once data is leaked, even if we can penalise the officer, there is no retrieving the data back. So, I would like to know how the Government plans to balance security, governance and accessibility of data.

If these concerns are addressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident that the Bill brings greater convenience and efficiency to Singaporeans and the Public Service. As such, I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill makes interesting reading. According to the long title of the Bill, it seeks to provide for a consistent governance framework across the public bodies and to support the whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services. To this end, the Bill has several aspects.

On the one hand, it aims to standardise certain policies and practices that cut across the different public sector agencies, such as personnel matters, governance and managing conflicts of interests and financial administration. These are set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. More critically, Part 2 prescribes the accountability relationships between Government Ministers and the public sector agencies. These accountability provisions set out how Ministers should interface with public sector agencies which wield significant state power over Singaporeans on a daily basis, how should Ministers behave and what are the boundaries that Ministers should not cross. I shall focus my speech on this aspect of the Bill.

Sir, clause 3 of the Bill states that one of the Bill's aims is to, and I quote, "clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, their members, their responsible Ministers and the Government." As one would assume that the Government will not legislate without cause, I would ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to clarify in explicit legislation the accountability relationships between the Ministers and the public sector agencies. Are Ministers or the agencies confused about their roles? Why legislate rather than issuing guidelines on this? Is there concern from the Public Service officials that they are being subject to political pressure from Ministers?

Part 2 of the Bill talks about Ministers issuing directions to agencies. However, the word "directions" is not defined. I note that under clause 9, it is provided that the directions may take the form of a circular, instruction or order. But clause 9 says that the directions may take such a format, not that they must take such a format. Is it safe to assume then that directions have to be in writing and signed or authenticated by the Minister? Can the Permanent Secretary, for example, sign off? Is there anything prohibiting directions in the form of emails or going further, can directions even be oral?

Part 2 envisages two types of directions from Ministers – directions for whole-of-Government approach and directions to certain Statutory Boards regarding functional responsibilities.

First, directions on whole-of-Government approach. Under clause 4, directions for the whole-of-Government approach will relate only to a pertinent subject matter. These pertinent subject matters are restricted to five areas as set out in sub-clause (3). First, employment, management and discipline of employees; second, management of official documents; third, financial and resource management and accountability; fourth, use or development of IT; and fifth, data governance and sharing.

Such whole-of-Government directions are to be issued by, I presume, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the recommendation of the Minister-in-charge of the pertinent subject matter. In addition, the directions can only be issued for the purposes set out in clause 4(2), such as securing economies of scale, efficiency of public programmes, ensuring business continuity and managing financial risks. Overall, I welcome the thought process behind clause 4 and the implied reminder to Ministers that directions should not be issued for extraneous purposes.

Next, I move to directions to Group 1 Statutory Boards. The second type of directions are to be issued under clause 5 to specific Statutory Boards on the performance of their specific functions. The Statutory Boards in question are listed in the Schedule to the Bill under Group 1A and Group 1B of the First Schedule. These bodies total 50 in number and include major public functions that affect the lives of Singaporeans across the board, for example, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority and Public Utilities Board. I also understand from the Minister that he would be moving an amendment in Committee to include the Group 1C public body, namely, PA, under clause 5 as well.

Clause 5 states that such agencies' specific directions are to be issued by the Ministers responsible for those agencies. Implied here is a drawing of a line that other Ministers have no authority to give instructions to agencies not under their charge concerning the agencies' functions. In this regard, it would be important to understand the spirit behind this provision. According to the Explanatory Note, there are currently inconsistencies and this clause will help to avoid duplication of laws. Could the Minister give an illustration of this problem so that one can better understand how clause 5 will help?

Next, I move on to limits on Ministerial directions. This is contained in clause 11, an all-important clause which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies. Clause 11 provides that the Minister's directions must not be contrary to written law. A Ministerial direction is also not binding if it would impede or affect the performance of a statutorily independent function of a public sector agency or a quasi-judicial function of a public sector agency in a particular matter. To enable greater public understanding of this point, can the Minister give some examples of such functions? Earlier, I believe he mentioned the Courts, which are an obvious example. But it would be helpful if he could mention other examples.

Furthermore, should there be a doubt as to whether a direction from a Minister is contrary to law or tantamount to an undermining of that body's independence or quasi-judicial function, how will such an issue be resolved? Who should the public sector agencies complain to?

Next, clause 11(3) goes further to say that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. I have a few queries about this.

First, the clause is very widely worded as there is no definition of what sorts of acts are contemplated. Read literally, does this mean, for example, that henceforth, a Minister cannot direct a Statutory Board to scrutinise the accounts of a particular company? Does this mean that Ministers cannot instruct Ministries or Statutory Boards to issue specific media releases affecting particular persons? Next, which agencies are protected under this clause from Ministerial abuse?

Clause 11 says that Ministers cannot issue the offending directions to public sector agencies, which are defined in clause 2 to mean Statutory Boards listed in Groups 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule, a Ministry or department of Government, an Organ of State, or a public officer or person as gazetted by the Minister. Public bodies are also mentioned in clause 11 which means it protects all Statutory Boards, even those not listed in the Schedule.

To be absolutely clear, does clause 11 apply to the Public Service? We just defined to include the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Police. Are these considered departments of the Government and, therefore, public sector agencies for the purposes of this Bill? This is important because if clause 11 applies to the services, a Minister would not be able to direct them to take particular actions, for example, to direct the Police to arrest a particular person.

Third, Sir, while these restrictions on Ministerial directions are impressive on paper, they appear to me easy to circumvent. For instance, what is there to stop a Minister from speaking to a public officer on the side to get such things done, thus bypassing the prohibitions in clause 11?

Finally, Sir, according to the Explanatory Note, clause 11 is there, and I quote, "to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, does not become politicised." This sounds well and good on paper and there also seems to be an assumption that the Public Service is not politicised. But with the public sector that has known only one ruling Party for nearly 60 years, how do we entrench a culture of political neutrality of the Civil Service in substance? How do we achieve depoliticisation in reality?

For instance, buried in our Statute Books is a piece of legislation called "The People Association's conduct and discipline rules". These rules expressly state that, I quote, "Every employee shall refrain from engaging in party political activity and shall maintain complete reserve in all matters of party political controversy."

Besides this, I believe there are similar pronouncements elsewhere. But are these quotes being observed on a daily basis? Are the Ministers themselves all mindful of letting public servants do their jobs professionally and not putting them under political pressure?

Sir, let me conclude. This Bill is an attempt to entrench the relationships of accountability and demarcate out-of-bounds markers for Ministers vis-à-vis the public sector agencies. That is certainly a good thing. The Workers' Party welcomes this development, after nearly 60 years under the same ruling Party. Nevertheless, as I have said, I have some doubts and concerns about how the Bill will be operationalised and what appear to be gaps that may allow the Bill's intentions to be circumvented.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It is laudable that efforts have been made to establish a consistent system of governance across public bodies in Singapore as well as to enable a whole-of-Government approach to make policy planning and service delivery more efficient via this Bill.

Under the Bill, the Minister may give sector agencies directives to share information under the control of the sector agency with another sector agency to improve, whether directly or indirectly, the efficiency or effectiveness of policies, programme management or service planning and delivery by public sector agencies, whether by carrying out data analytics work or otherwise. This is a step in the right direction, especially as we develop Singapore into a data-centric Smart Nation.

Corporations are leveraging big data insights to improve their processes and bottom lines and spark innovation, the public sector can also tap on data to identify valuable insights which can be used to develop and enhance initiatives for public good.

As we recognise data as a valuable strategic asset, we have to ensure that data is not subject to abuse as the data residing in public sector agencies are personal data of our fellow Singaporeans. Data security must be a priority. I have a few questions arising from these concerns.

First, could the Minister share some examples of data sharing projects which are envisioned in the promulgation of this Bill, such as which sector agencies are involved in these data sharing projects, what are the objectives of these projects and the types of data that are being shared. I really hope provision of data and information can be one-stop so that we do not to provide the same piece of information or document to many different Government agencies.

Second, under the Bill, data sharing includes the sharing of information or re-identification of anonymised information under the control of the sector agency. Under what circumstances would a re-identification of anonymised information be required?

Third, are there guidelines in place to ensure that the collection, transfer and handling of data are secure, bearing in mind that the public sector is exempted from the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)? For example, data could be categorised by different levels of sensitivity and different guidelines on collecting, transferring and handling of data would apply to the different categories. Also, what safeguards are in place to ensure these guidelines are complied with?

As we embark on developing data-centric digital solutions to enhance service delivery by sector agencies, I would also like to ask the Minister if there is a framework in place to evaluate the costs, benefits and risk of data sharing projects envisioned under this Bill. What audit processes are in place to ensure that any automated processing of information and algorithms are soundly evaluated to minimise bias and error?

Are there are any guidelines for sector agencies to comply with in the implementation of initiatives which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels? Take for example, the recent Centrelink debacle in Australia. Centrelink is an Australian government organisation responsible for administering welfare services. Centrelink had launched an automated debt recovery system which used data supplied by organisations, such as the Australian Tax Office, to match information recipients gave to Centrelink. The automated system promised to be more accurate than the manual matching process and would improve the capability for the identification and recovery of debt owed to taxpayers while avoiding mistakes that would adversely affect the recipient’s payments.

While the system resulted in thousands of debt recovery notices, in a significant portion of cases, there was no debt or the amount had been over-estimated and thousands of clients had to spend many hours and days disputing debts they did not actually owe. As clients were only given a three-week deadline to repay the debt, some were forced to repay debt they did not believe they owed because they could not successfully dispute the debt before the deadline. Service delivery was worsened and this impacted people’s trust in the government organisation.

Following a probe into the system, the Commonwealth Ombudsman found that the implementation problems could have been mitigated through better project planning and risk management at the onset. This includes more rigorous user testing with customers and service delivery staff, a more incremental rollout and better communication to staff and stakeholders. The Ombudsman’s report stated that a key lesson for agencies and policymakers when proposing to roll out large-scale measures which require people to engage in a new way with new digital channels, is for agencies to engage with stakeholders and provide resources for manual support during transition periods.

This is a key lesson which we can take reference from as new or enhanced public initiatives are launched further to this Bill.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill aims to harmonise the rules governing the operation of all public bodies in Singapore in respect of dimensions, such as the relationship between a Minister and the public body, values, data protection rules and so on and so forth. On the whole, the Bill marks a step in the right direction and I cannot oppose the Bill. Before I continue, I declare that I serve as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a research and consulting firm that has, on occasion, undertaken public sector projects in the past.

My speech will focus on clause 11 which seeks to limit the Minister's powers to issue directions to public sector agencies so as to reduce the risk of the politicisation of the Public Service. Clause 11(3) states that Ministers are not authorised to direct any public sector agency or any public body or public officer to perform or not to perform a particular act with respect to a particular person or persons. This is clearly a step in the right direction and I welcome this.

Having said that, I share the concerns and support the questions raised in relation to this clause by my colleague and party chairman Sylvia Lim. I shall not repeat them here but will focus on one additional consideration.

In Singapore, we have a history of public servants moving on to take up roles in politics immediately upon leaving the Public Service, primarily by joining the ruling Party and serving as MPs or Ministers in the PAP Government with little or no break in between. There would always presumably be some public servants who possess the necessary ambition, aspiration and willingness to seek to exit the Public Service and join politics and perhaps to become a Minister or even Prime Minister one day.

So as to increase their chances of successfully joining the ruling Party and becoming MPs or Ministers, such public servants may try to second-guess what their Ministers would like them to do. Even in the absence of any explicit instruction from a Minister to do the said act, they may then just go out and do it. The intended goal of such a strategy may be for that individual public servant to be looked upon favourably not just by his or her Minister but by the leadership of the ruling Party in respect of consideration for being fielded as a ruling Party candidate in the next election.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not arguing that this necessarily happens today, but it is something that may happen in the future. My focus is on the principle and managing future risks. To be sure, there would be nothing illegal about any public servant attempting to pursue such a strategy and this law does not change that. But is it healthy for Singapore for such a culture to become widespread? After all, becoming a Minister is an attractive career option for a high performing public servant as it means taking on the role of the boss under which he or she ultimately serves.

So, the incentive for such a culture to grow is there. And if such a culture takes root in the future, it would mean that the Public Service would become partisan and eventually and inevitably be seen by the public as partisan, which would be a terrible outcome not least in terms of attracting and retaining good public servants who have no wish to be partisan or to eventually enter politics.

To be sure, the risk of subordinates second-guessing their boss and doing what their boss wants in the absence of a formal explicit instruction is not new. In fact, it is a risk that has been noted for centuries in the context of all kinds of organisations.

I will cite one famous example from history. There is a sentence attributed to a former King of England from the 12th century, Henry II. He was supposed to have said in the council of his senior advisors and noblemen, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Priest?", referring to Thomas Becket, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he had had repeated conflicts. This was not a direct order, but it is said that, upon hearing this comment, four senior knights attending the meeting then went on to kill Becket in one of the most famous political assassinations of medieval times. I cannot, of course, attest to the historical veracity of every part of the story but it is a story that has been told through the centuries to illustrate the perils of subordinates in any organisation second-guessing their boss and taking actions that they think may please their boss and even perhaps going to greater extremes than their boss would have thought necessary.

So, this problem is not a new one and not specific to any organisation or context. So, how do we prevent a culture of ambitious public servants second-guessing their bosses and take partisan but legally permissible actions which may, over time, tend to erode the reputation of the Public Service for non-partisanship?

I would like to make one suggestion here, which is to impose a mandatory time gap between when an individual leaves the Public Service and when that individual enters politics. In the debate on the Banking Act, I had asked then, coincidentally Minister Ong Ye Kung as well, if such a mandatory time gap, referred to in that context as "garden leave" or a cooling-off period, existed for Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) officers who wished to resign from MAS and join the financial institutions. He confirmed that such a mandatory time gap existed.

The analogy here with what I am proposing is not perfect. But it is useful to note that there is a precedent for such a mandatory time gap proposal. Imposing a mandatory time gap between when one can leave the Public Service and when one can join politics, say, three years, would give pause to any ambitious public servant who might seek to read their political masters' mind and do their partisan bidding unasked, so as to facilitate their chances of joining the ruling Party as an elected politician. He or she would know that they would need to find employment outside the Public Service in the private sector or not-for-profit sector for some years before joining politics.

Hence, there would be a period of time when they would need to find alternative employment and the fruit of their partisan action or actions could not be reaped immediately. And with the passage of time, the memory of their acts in the Public Service and their links to their former political masters may become more attenuated, thus further reducing the motive to commit such acts in the first place.

Imposing a mandatory time gap may send a signal to aspiring public servants that if they choose to second-guess their bosses and speed the path to a Ministerial post, the link between their actions and the hoped for results will be weaker than it is now. It may cool the ardour of such public servants to second-guess their boss and act for him or her.

Such a rule would also have other benefits than the one I have mentioned. It would ensure that future MPs and Ministers from the Civil Service would need to have private sector and/or not-for-profit sector experience prior to becoming MPs and Ministers.

The relative lack of such experience in the Cabinet has often been bemoaned by experts and commentators. In Singapore's first Cabinet, upon the attainment of self-government, the proportion of civil servants was far, far less than in the Cabinets that followed.

And the period of time during the mandatory time gap would also allow them an alternative form of employment to give them the time and space to reflect if they really do want to enter politics, so that those who eventually do take that step may prove to be more committed to that pathway. I hope that some form of mandatory time gap can be considered for ex-public servants seeking to join politics.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill's explanatory statement says the Bill is designed to improve the consistency of our governance framework for Statutory Boards by standardising and formalising several key provisions that have whole-of-Government importance.

But the spirit of the Bill was more ambitious though, particularly the use or development of IT, such as big data analytics, block-chain technology and artificial intelligence (AI).

Speaking at a technology conference last September, Deputy CE of GovTech, Mr Chan Cheow Hoe, suggested that the Government has changed its approach to delivering services in the past few years, away from a prescriptive view where "Ministries and the agencies know everything", in his words, to providing what they think "is good for the citizens, and somehow or rather people should accept it" in the past but now "the social contract has changed quite a fair bit". He says, "more and more citizens are very demanding”, and finally concluded that "it is really about understanding what people need at various moments in their life and delivering this service". I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Chan.

While I support the Bill’s intent to codify a uniform corporate governance framework for public bodies and the Public Service in the interests of consistency, transparency and efficiency, I have some concerns as to whether the Bill best furthers this aptly termed new "social contract" in public sector governance. My concerns are as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, and allow me to take them in turn.

One, provisions, such as the Obligation of the Statutory Boards to keep proper accounts and present its audited financial statements to the Minister-in-charge in a timely manner, are straightforward. Apart from being contained in the Statutory Board's constituent Acts, there should be no question as to whether or not there is an obligation to do so. The same can be said perhaps of requirements of information sharing, disclosure of certain interests, and submitting budget estimates on time. What then, Mr Speaker, has prompted the Ministries to seek to further hard-coding Statutory Board obligations which implement Government policies and deliver public services?

Two, are Ministers concerned that there may be directions that have not been complied with by Statutory Boards? Have any Statutory Boards suggested thus far that they may choose not to comply with a request or direction made by the relevant Ministry in relation to “pertinent subject matter” as envisioned by clause 4(1) because it does not have or carry the force of law?

Three, are there specific instances of public sector governance lapses regarding certain Statutory Boards, such as perhaps the Land Transport Authority (LTA), that have moved the Government to highlight the importance of standardising, formalising and strengthening regulatory oversight? Have there been recent lapses in financial auditing or reporting to the AGO or other authority that are a cause for concern?

Four, is there any clarification on the mechanism for and the scope of data sharing under clause 6 of the Bill? Will further guidance be given to both the public sector agency that requests and the one that receives the data, and will any protective measures be available to guard against unwitting data privacy breaches?

Five, could the Minister give examples perhaps to illustrate the broad point that is made in relation to clause 7(2) on when, in certain circumstances, unauthorised data sharing may not be an offence? Looking at the explanatory note, it suggests that this may not be an offence if the “sharing may have been done on the basis of the common law exception of public interest”, and there could be a further elaboration on this point.

Six, is the position of CE within each public body a new point? How is this any different from the current position inferred to the top administrator who helms the very directorate of each Statutory Board?

Seven, clause 27 appears somewhat counter-intuitive. It says that even if a member of a public body does not disclose a conflict of interest or does not abstain from being involved in decision-making that might benefit him, the public body's decision remains valid. Will that rob the duty to disclose a conflict of interest of having any real consequence? Should any decision of the consequences of the failure to disclose not be made by a Public Service administrative tribunal, perhaps even a Court?

Eight, given the importance the Bill appears to place on data sharing for big data analytics, what are the benefits that the Government hopes to reap in sectors perhaps like healthcare, and how will it insulate against the risk of data privacy breaches?

Nine, the Bill seems to be silent on an important point, which is about whistleblowers. Will whistleblowers within the Public Service be encouraged to come forward? The Bill focuses on a policy change that the Bill represents but this would be an important component of that policy change. Individuals will not come forward to volunteer information if they fear that they would attract criticism or blame. So, it is essential, in the absence of obvious or serious wrongdoing, to encourage such individuals within the Public Service that there is an "open culture" of sharing and questioning, rather than the culture of blame.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, let us move to the situation where there is serious wrongdoing. We heard earlier this morning about Keppel Offshore and Marine's (KOM's) recent cooperation with investigative agencies both in Singapore and abroad. But I must say that this comes as small comfort to Singaporeans, who fear that Singapore's image regarding anti-corruption has been irreparably tarnished. KOM pays a large fine, Singapore pays an incalculably higher one.

In such instances, as far as public sector governance goes, could there be something that Parliament can do? So, I am not talking about the legal accountability, I am not talking about criminal procedure and justice, but is there a role for Parliament to play, perhaps within select committees or Parliamentary commissions, to look at situations that could guide Government-linked companies and Statutory Boards were there ever to be a situation where they would fear that someone should come forward to speak about a point or there is a danger of a serious wrongdoing?

A critical issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, and let me end on this point, is to identify why a hazard occurred, what factors – environmental, organisational, human, cultural – were potential causative factors, and how the risk of a similar event occurring again can be reduced. This requires patience to recognise that no system will be able to prevent every adverse event from occurring, that people should work together collaboratively to ensure this does not happen again.

Mr Chen Show Mao.

This Bill gives Government Ministers powers to direct all Singapore public sector agencies relating to certain matters so as to “uphold the values of the Singapore public sector.” This includes powers to give directions relating to the management of official records.

Today, the management of public records falls under the purview of NLB, which controls and directs the National Archives of Singapore. NLB conducts a records management programme that includes the retention and preservation of public records. The Board has the authority to decide which records of the Government or another public office are of national or historical significance and should be transferred to the National Archives. No records of the Government or another public office may be destroyed or disposed of without the authorisation of the Board. Nor may any person excise, mark or otherwise deface or send out of the country any public records without the authorisation of the Board.

How would the proposed powers of the relevant Minister to direct public sector agencies or public bodies in the management of official records work in conjunction with the existing powers of the NLB relating to the retention and preservation of public records? Could the Minister clarify?

Sir, the proper retention and preservation of our public records are of great importance. Many of us tell ourselves that things may be the way they seem now. But time lends perspective and, with the proper keeping of public records and, in time, with greater accessibility to them, history can be the judge.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in reviewing this Bill, I cannot help but notice that some years ago when McKinsey came up with five main implications for the public sector moving into the future in a paper titled "Global trends affecting the public sector," there were five important and critical points which I think are relevant and I am going to share them today.

Firstly, we must radically increase the productivity of our public sector and public services; secondly, the Public Service has to evolve and change their relationship with citizens in order to address changing and increasing needs; thirdly, the Public Service has to redraw their organisation landscape in order to deliver high-quality services; fourthly, the Public Service has to achieve major cultural change that puts data at the heart of policymaking; and finally, the Public Service must find new ways to attract and retain scarce talent and thus there will be competition with the private sector. I agree that these five points serve as broad guides for us.

This Bill, Sir, aims to create a uniform governance framework across the public sector in Singapore. Many agencies currently have their own internal policies and guidelines, but this Bill will provide an overarching legislation and benchmark the standards of governance that should be adhered to. Can I please make some points?

Firstly, currently, various provisions of this Bill are already found in the constituting Acts of some public sector agencies. Examples are, disclosure of interest, proper financial record keeping, budget estimates, annual reports submission and so on. Can the Minister clarify for us whether some of these will prevail or will they be considered defunct with the new Act in place? The clarity will be necessary to ensure better compliance and adoption of this Bill.

In section 6 of the Bill, pertaining to the “data sharing directives”, can we have some more details on this? Clarification as to how it will be aligned with PDPA, where relevant, the scope of the information that will be and can be shared, and the mechanisms of sharing, such as will it be electronic, for example, and what protective measures will this be guided by? Also, how about compliance with the Protection of Secrecy Acts which Statutory Boards and Government companies have to abide by currently? Will we be seeing some changes, or will the clauses from this Act need to be incorporated into this new Bill that we are debating today?

With many steps in our processes in the Public Service involving human factors, we know there is a likelihood of errors happening. Take, the example, the recent Ministry of Education (MOE) school data leak. How can we learn from these incidences and incorporate some of the lessons into policy?

As across the public sector, there will be more handling of this big data, can the Minister share with us how all this data will be stored? Will there need to be standalone personal computers or other approved devices? Who will have access to the data? How much and which parts of the data are permissible for research purposes?

Also, moving into all these, will there need to be some informed consent, a generic one perhaps, by the public and users of the public services at some point in time?

Finally, with the better coordination and oversight this Bill has to offer, it is a strategic move forward. But who will play the coordinating role? Will it be the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI)? Or what about the the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office? So, perhaps some clarification on that as well.

I look forward to these clarifications with this important Bill. The protection against all and potential abuses and misuse are preventive steps and we have to incorporate these now at the planning stages before the final implementation of the Bill. I support the Bill.

Mr Faisal Manap.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Public Sector (Governance) Bill seeks to provide a consistent framework and practice amongst Public Service bodies. I support this Bill but, at the same time, I would like to seek two clarifications.

Firstly, I would like to request further information from the Minister on Part 5, titled Financial Administration, which contains clause 33 to clause 41. Based on my understanding, clause 33 states that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), categorised in Group 3A Public Bodies, is exempted from clauses 34 to 41. Is my understanding correct? If it is correct, can the Minister provide the reasons for this exemption?

(In English): My second clarification is regarding clause 11. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, had earlier touched on that explanatory note stating that the introduction of clause 11 was "to ensure that the public sector, like the Singapore Public Service, not be politicised". It would be much appreciated if the Minister can define and elaborate more on the word "politicised" as stated in the explanatory note and also to cite an example or two so that Members will have a clearer and better understanding of the phrase "not be politicised".

Additionally, I will share two scenarios and would like to ask the Minister to provide his views whether, in these two scenarios, the Public Service entity mentioned has more or less been politicised.

The first scenario, an individual who is a member of the political party and who contested but was defeated in the General Election who is now holding two designations at the same time – one, a branch chairman of a political party and two, as an advisor to grassroots organisation which, in fact, is a position appointed and endorsed by PA's executive board.

Second scenario, a grassroots advisor appointed by PA, a Statutory Board, conducts house visits accompanied by staff of Statutory Boards, such as the HDB, inviting residents to his MPS if residents require him to appeal on their behalf. Nonetheless, the MPS session is held in a political party branch office by the grassroots advisor who writes referral or appeal letters using a political party letterhead and signs off as the branch chairman of a political party.

As such, I seek the Minister's reply as to whether PA, a Statutory Board, which is a public service entity, is being politicised in the above-mentioned scenarios.

Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Much good can come out of it, if we use it wisely, for example, the directions on data sharing. Although the PDPA does not apply to Government agencies, I understand that there have been constraints in the sharing of personal data between public bodies due to the Government’s own data policies.

From a social service perspective, data sharing has advantages. From the perspective of a client, data sharing enables multiple public bodies serving the same client to construct a holistic profile for more timely and relevant intervention and support. Data sharing equips public bodies to anticipate the onboarding of a client, prepare the relevant support, and monitor the progress of a client or a former client. This will enable public agencies to provide further intervention and further support. It also saves the client time and effort in having to produce the same information to different public bodies at different times. These are some of the advantages from an individual's perspective.

For public bodies, data sharing enables public bodies to develop more holistic profiles of the clients and their needs, thereby informing policymaking in the planning of services and their delivery, through analytics and research. It enables public bodies to better understand the trajectory of the clients, which would improve the planning of the respective downstream and upstream services and interventions.

From that perspective, I support it. There are, however, a number of concerns, one of which being how members of the public do not fear the sharing of personal data. We are very happy to give our identity card number for lucky draws. We do not realise that the giving of such important pieces of information for not so critical functions or purposes can do a lot of harm to us. I also wish to seek a few clarifications concerning privacy and confidentiality, security, non–discrimination, consent, transparency and accountability.

First, privacy and confidentiality. I would like to request the PMO to clarify (a) the scope of data that could be covered by data-sharing provisions. I understand it is not possible to enumerate but it would be helpful if we could have some indications; (b) when disclosure could be authorised; (c) when the use of information would be considered proper; (d) the consequences of failing to ensure end-to-end encryption or failing to ensure anonymisation of data that should have been anonymised; (e) the consequences of re-identification of anonymised information by a former "relevant public official". The current provisions, as drafted, cover only abuse by current relevant public officials; and (f) the consequences of unauthorised access to data. The current provisions, as drafted, cover only unauthorised disclosure or use.

Next, security. Members of the public, some of us would be concerned with security breaches, including hacking. Would PMO address this concern? Could the Minister also address obligations to report security breaches to the appropriate Minister as well as the requirement to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation as soon as practicable?

A third consideration would be non-discrimination. Would we consider a provision regulating the manner in which shared data would be used to address concerns of possible discrimination? Anonymised shared data should be used in a manner that is not discriminatory or stigmatising to persons to whom the data relate.

Consent. I have noted the impracticalities of obtaining consent. Would the Minister clarify if there could be circumstances under which informed consent or opting out may be provided for?

In terms of transparency and accountability, these would also be a big concern. How would the Government propose to inform members of the public about the sharing, analysis, use of and access to their personal data? For example, some may be afraid of unlawful surveillance. I hope the Minister would address these concerns.

In determining guidelines for data-sharing, perhaps we could also have reference to the Caldicott principles. These are principles in the Caldicott Committee’s Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information. It is a United Kingdom committee and the report may serve as a reference for us. A few of the principles are as follows: the proposed access to, sharing of or use of the information should be justified and only allowed if it is necessary; the amount of identifiable information to be shared should be kept as minimal as possible. As noted in the earlier portion of my speech, greater clarity is requested and we hope to hear more from the Minister.

In relation to Part 4 of the Bill, given that non-disclosure of a conflict of interest is a serious matter, what is the position of the Government in this respect, and is there a particular reason why there is no specific provision to penalise non-disclosure?

In relation to section 40, I noted the Minister's comments earlier that he would be seeking an amendment at the Committee stage. I am not sure if the amendments would include section 40. If not, I would request for clarification as to the exemption of PA from the requirements of that provision.

Having sought the clarifications, Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to now make some general comments.

The long title of the Bill reads, "An Act to provide for a consistent governance framework across public bodies in Singapore and to support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts."

I am curious why the reference to a consistent governance framework in the long title refers only to public bodies and not to Singapore public service agencies as a whole.

I also note that in section 3 of the Bill, the purposes of the Bill are stated as follows: (a) to establish a consistent system of governance and accountability across public bodies in Singapore that meets high standards of accountability; (b) to clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, the members, the responsible Ministers and the Government; and (c) to require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector.

This is an important piece of legislation. I support it. It can potentially change the landscape of Public Service agencies in Singapore, creating Public Service agencies more effective and competent than many others in other countries. But if this piece of legislation is inadequately understood or executed, it will fall to be another set of compliance burden.

It is noted that the Bill does not require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services by the public sector to the public. One would have thought that in times like these, given the complexity of the issues facing Singapore, given that it is no longer possible for a single Ministry or a single public agency to adequately address such issues, the Government might wish to enshrine the principle of a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services to the Singapore public within the same piece of legislation. This would have set a very clear context for the legislation and the implementation to follow.

Somewhat disappointingly, also, this piece of legislation appears to embody the form but not the spirit of public service. It sets out a framework that is forward-looking and relevant to the complexity of issues faced by our country. It shows a clear legislative will to hold the public sector to high standards of governance and accountability, and I applaud and commend the Government and the public service sector for initiating and putting the proposed legislation before Parliament. But this is not sufficient. Public service is not about a set of regulations. It is about the people within the public service sector, and the people for whom the public sector exists.

Developing and implementing a consistent system of governance and accountability, meeting high standards of accountability are worthy aspirations, soon to be legislated. They are fundamental and integral to an effective and impactful Public Service, and they are integral to public trust. But they are not our end goals. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.

Likewise, developing and implementing a whole-of-Government approach in the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector is integral to an effective and impactful Public Service. But it is not our end goal. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.

This is an important piece of legislation. It can potentially revolutionise the delivery of public sector services and shape the public sector to come. I would submit that it should at least enshrine two cardinal principles of public service.

Firstly, that the Singapore public sector exists to serve the Singapore public.

Secondly, the Singapore public sector must, beyond strengthening its systemic integrity, be comprised of individuals with uncompromising integrity, a dedication to his/her calling, an unshakeable commitment to the good of Singapore.

The first cardinal principle, that is, the public service exists to serve the public, that principle must set the tone and context for the subsidiary legislation, policies, instruction manuals and the implementation to follow. This cardinal principle will be a constant reminder to public servants of a higher duty of accountability to the Singapore public, not just to Ministers and the Government.

The second cardinal principle is what gives humanity to our public sector. It is that which gives us hope for the future. It is that which assures us that our public sector will do that which is right and good for Singapore, regardless of political masters, regardless of vociferous demands from the public.

The means and the end are different. Without the means, the end fails. Form and spirit are different. Without the spirit, the form kills. One cannot replace the other. Each is essential to the other. Without the spirit of public service, we will be an AI administration − clean, efficient, clinical. But we know that compliance with a set of rules does not make an honest or effective public service agency. Efficiency alone will not, in every case, serve our people well. It is a scrupulous adherence to the integrity of regulations and a conscientious adherence to the welfare of our people that will make our Public Service honest and effective – human.

Let our Public Service continue to serve our people with conviction, commitment, courage, professionalism and empathy. Always fearless to do that which is right and good, yet exercising humility, empathy and kindness. Then and only then are we a public sector, a Government, able to meet the highest accountability standards to our people. I support the Bill.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. May I please, first, speak in Malay, followed by English?

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, to my understanding, MUIS is not really affected by this amendment. I support this amendment that guarantees the standards of administration and governance for each of our public agencies because it ensures that quality as well as accountability and transparency standards continue to be upheld.

At the same time, there are some suggestions within this amendment that are already familiar to MUIS, which already possesses and implemented accountability and transparency standards, which were determined by the Government under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

The appointment of MUIS' CE is still based on the MUIS Council's approval with the Minister's concurrence. This ensures that the amendment does not erode the responsibility or influence of MUIS Council members regarding the appointment of the CE that is based on the experience and expertise of each MUIS Council member.

I would also like to acknowledge the support and funding by the Government for the corporate and administrative functions of MUIS, which have allowed MUIS to channel money from donations and zakat from the Muslim community towards the community's other needs. Please allow me to continue in English.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important Bill to consolidate the different Acts governing the various public sector bodies. In principle, I support this Bill. However, I have a couple of concerns for clarification.

Like many others in this House, I support clause 6 that makes provisions and grants authority for public sector bodies to share information. This is necessary to allow greater expediency and efficiency for data and information to be shared among different public sector bodies to help Singaporeans, be it in healthcare, education, housing, retirement adequacy or social and financial support.

However, this sharing of data and information needs to be made expedient, efficient and transparent not just between public sector agencies but also within each agency, between their different departments and units. There have been instances where the different departments and units within one public sector agency do things in silo and are not cognisant of what the other departments and units within that same public sector agency are doing.

For instance, I have received feedback from residents about their experience when executing the purchase or sale of their flats, in securing housing loans from HDB, or in managing the funds related to housing through CPF Board. There have been occasions where residents lamented while they have been approved their housing loan through the housing finance department, but when executing the sale or purchase of the flat through the sales department, there seems to be a lack of information sharing between the departments. This has made the transaction experience faced by residents nothing short of frustrating and confusing.

For some residents I have met, their home loan eligibility approval or extension by the housing finance department has not been conveyed to the sales department, which then requires them to make additional CPF cash payment instead during the sale or purchase transaction for their flat. We can imagine their frustration and confusion.

Another example is the sharing of information by MOE with Institutes of Higher Learning or self-help organisations, such as the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) or the Eurasian Association (EA). Having been involved in a self-help organisation and a couple of public sector institutions, it is a common refrain heard amongst strategic planners or managers that a more open sharing of student and cohort education-related information would be useful in designing and implementing programmes or interventions by the self-help groups that can better help our students.

The sharing and use of information and data within each and across public sector agencies will make it more efficient and effective in helping Singaporeans address their healthcare, housing, education or social and financial assistance needs. However, to what extent will the sharing of information or data make this possible? Will Singaporeans find it easier to purchase a flat and secure a housing loan at the same time? Or visit their choices of doctors across different restructured hospitals and have their medical information shared? Or have access to the necessary social or financial assistance without having to repeatedly provide their personal or family information to different Public Service officers?

Nonetheless, it is understandable that there is a concern with the confidentiality and privacy of such information sharing with self-help organisations or public sector institutions. Hence, I support clause 7 that sets out the conditions and extent of the proposed law that would protect the confidentiality, privacy and use of such information.

The other concern I have is in clauses 15 and 16. I support that the appointment of the CE of a public sector agency is to be approved by the Minister, with the concurrence of PSC. However, from what I understand, the removal of the CE can be solely decided by the Minister. There seems to be a lot of power vested in the Minister to decide on the removal of the CE from a public sector agency. I would like to propose for consideration that this decision for the removal of the CE be made in consultation with the board of directors, advisors or governors of the Public Service agency as well. Sufficient consideration to be made regarding the CE's prior experience, background or contributions to the agency should be considered collectively and consultatively, rather than largely by the Minister alone.

Similar practices are carried out in the private sector where the decisions to employ or dismiss senior executives of a company are made in consultation with the board of directors or advisors of the company. Notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.

Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the changes to the Public Sector Governance Bill. It is notable that the amendments are mainly for the purpose of streamlining and standardising the corporate governance provision across the various Statutory Boards. The requirement for accountability and clear responsibility would support the greater whole-of-Government approach. Along with Smart Nation drive, citizens should have a single platform access to relevant information on Government policies. The changes to the Bill also signal a timely need to have better data control for more efficient and effective processes.

On corporate governance, generally, the public has high regard for the Singapore Public Service. It is well-known for its efficiency in terms of its rules, practices and processes. However, at times, Government agencies run into excessive bureaucracy when working with one another.

Therefore, it is important for our Public Service to keep up to date on their rules, practices and processes to continuously uphold public trust and confidence.

Secondly, as the nation drives productivity and innovation in the private sector, it is equally imperative for the public sector to take the lead in productivity and innovation. Some of the practices and processes could be irrelevant in the current context and, with a digital economy as the future, the public sector should embrace digitisation wherever possible and reflect them in their practices and processes.

On data governance, we often hear the word, "Big Data" as we move towards a digital economy. Data collected can be used to make more informed decisions and formulate policies more effectively. It is important to protect these data as they can be subjected to misuse. There should be clear guidelines on which data can be shared and which data cannot be shared among public sector institutions, for instance, in healthcare. There should also be a mechanism in place with adequate safeguards where the public sector and private sector are able to share relevant data to benefit Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole.

Financial governance is related to corporate governance and it is extremely pertinent to have proper management of financial resources. There should be clarity on who is responsible and accountable for what matters.

Statutory Boards should work closely with their respective Ministries to implement Government policies and deliver public services effectively so that public confidence is further strengthened.

In addition, there should be a strategic resource plan accompanying the Annual Budget to deter unreasonable and excessive spending. There should also be rigorous financial reporting, in compliance with the AG.

In conclusion, though I support these changes, we need to be mindful there should be a balance between standardising practices and allowing a supportive and nurturing environment for innovation and creativity to evolve. There must also be a fine balance between rigidity and flexibility, as well as simplicity, to minimise bureaucracy. Sir, notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as a country, we have come a long way and achieved many accolades and a good reputation on the international stage since Singapore was founded. These would not have been possible without the vision and the good governance from our forefathers.

Like many other young Singaporeans, I want this going for Singapore to SG100 and beyond. As the global environment changes, so has our country. Some things can no longer remain status quo. "Good" is probably insufficient at times; more often, we need more than "good". But I believe it is this changing new world and its challenges that help define us and even bring new dimensions to nation-building.

If we continue to adapt, raise the bar and challenge what we are able to achieve and be guided by good governance, both the public sector and as citizens, Singapore can continue to shine brightly.

Internationally, Singapore is reputed for good governance. For this to be maintained, we need to do more and better each time. So, what exactly is better or best in governance? I do not think there is a single definition or milestone that fully embodies what governance is. In my view, I would consider better governance as one that is strategic, forward-looking, continues to adjust or set new benchmarks befitting the circumstances and has effective ground implementation with proper accountability. This Bill has set out some aspects of this nature but I would like to highlight three areas for consideration by the Public Service.

One, encourage a more positive culture and accountability. With the many years of public service in Singapore, it is undeniable that a positive working culture does exist. Through my interactions with the agencies, I have worked with good-minded Public Service individuals who go the extra mile for the community. But we need more such individuals. Given the complexity of projects moving ahead, we need even stronger cooperation and coordination among the inter-agencies, from planning to implementation. Less silo is absolutely necessary.

For better implementation, it will be best when one of the agencies can take the lead and be responsible in any joint project. It is critical for clear accountability, and necessary should there be no revolving doors. This is also equally applicable to Government-linked companies. Public service workers should be encouraged to give their best of ways and not worry that their actions are not the usual approach. In public service, it is the results and the positive impact on the community that matter and not the process.

Increasingly, there are more challenges that we will encounter which may never be prescribed or previously documented. We need the working level in the Public Service to be empowered and supported to take such initiatives. There is no absolute right or wrong approach in the Public Service. Each needs to be tried and adapted to the needs of the target group for their purpose. This is also the spirit that we are trying to promote in schools and inculcate in our young to try and know that it is okay to fail. Certainly, there is more than a single approach or solution to every challenge, and not trying but leaving things to the status quo will make us worse off in the long run.

Let me cite a typical example of common public works where accountability, open communication and effective communication between the agencies and the community are important. I am sure many have heard that to enable a better first- and last-mile connectivity, LTA has put up covered walkways within 400 metres of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. By default, the walkways will cover the different exits of each MRT station to the immediate surrounding pathways.

What happens if one of the pathways to be covered is not a frequently used route by pedestrians? Or what if it is known that there are future works currently in planning that may require this covered pathway to be taken down within a short time after it is installed? Should the works still proceed as the contract has been awarded or should it be partially deferred for the future?

On the same note, some of the works involve various agencies as it encompasses matters ranging from underground utilities to the trees. Without proper cross-coordination in its implementation, the disamenity created can be huge and constant. With better coordinated planning and implementation among these agencies, I believe we can look forward to reducing wastage of resources. With that, I mean finance, time and workers. Additionally, this can enable the lead agency to have the ability to stop or reprioritise projects if the objectives or needs have changed. To be accountable for public services, we need the courage to pull the plug or make changes as projects progress and not continue when the final impact on the public is less than desired.

Two, data governance. The digital world has changed our lives, the lives of every common man. Has the digital world made our lives better or worse? I think it is up to us to leverage the best and harness the power of digitalisation. Every individual has their rights to decide if information should be provided and be respectfully protected. When the PDPA was introduced, I felt it was a great move. PDPA gave individuals the choice to opt out of communications they found irrelevant and what not to be shared.

However, with the advent of technology, more data are generated from the sources we interact with on a daily basis. And as reflected in some of the initiatives in collaboration with the Ministries, data has shown to effectively assist the individuals, especially the vulnerable. Take, for example, under the South-East Community Development Council (CDC), the programme that is called "Neighbours for Active Living", volunteers have been successfully matched as befrienders with vulnerable elderly who are living on their own, those who are also frequent admitters to hospitals. The regular visits by the volunteers have reduced the admission rate of those vulnerable elderly and certainly given them friends who became their friend and their "family".

As our population ages, how can we encourage more of such initiatives to assist the elderly to age within our community? For more effective outreach, there will come a point when it is difficult for the Ministries to roll out more programmes on the ground solely with internal resources, especially if it requires intense, frequent follow-up with the individuals. How then can we harness external resources, for example, the ground-up voluntary groups, the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), beyond the Ministries to assist the needy and vulnerable in our society without infringing their privacy through sharing of data, knowledge or relevant information?

With this said, I do recognise that individuals’ privacy and wishes must still be respected and honoured. Thus, any changes to enable the inter-agencies, voluntary groups and individuals and the community to collaborate must be built upon the fundamental principle of personal choice as set out in PDPA.

Three, partnership with citizens. With time, our society has become more plural and diverse. It is a fact that we have to embrace and adapt our policies to. Governance is no longer restricted to the public sector. It requires our citizens to be a part of the process. The more our citizens take an active role in it, the more effective our implementation will likely be and plausible for future changes to take place.

As mentioned earlier, Ministry-led community projects being one such example. The quantity of programmes is a poor indicator of quality and effectiveness of outreach. At times, it competes for the same pool of resources. It may also result in our inability to scale up on programmes and only having to scrap and replace with yet another programme. Thus, we should utilise the community knowledge and data-driven approach to strengthen our social safety net.

Moving forward, how can we enable our citizens to become communicators and partners of future policies on the ground? While setting major strategic directions of a country continues to be the Government’s role, our citizens can take an active role in discussion and feedback on community and societal topics. I would like to suggest a few areas to be considered and taken further from its current form.

First, increase the depth and exposure of our school-going children to our Constitution and policymaking process earlier in the education curriculum. Let them understand what the various committees represent and do, how and what the annual Budget actually means to their lives.

Second, allow more Bills with societal impact or related to family to a wider public consultation process. Provide more time for the public to provide objective, constructive views both online and offline and in in-person sessions to seek views extensively and have more thorough discussions before the Bills are passed.

Lastly, increase the current local training and communication of policies through dialogues by the public servants to the local community.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust that many Singaporeans, public servants or not, hold this country dear to our hearts and want the best for Singapore. While we are thankful for what the public servants have been doing, we need to look beyond the current. Encourage more to think out of the box, take initiatives, be comprehensive, thorough and thoughtful throughout the service delivery.

Should this mean the public sector has to change and adjust where required to meet the current times, we have to do it. If new yardsticks, new measures must be put in place to better protect and account for public funds, service interaction and so on, this must be continuously reviewed, redesigned and implemented. Likewise, we, too, hope that our citizens will play their part as we build our nation and be encouraged to volunteer, build a sense of ownership and belonging for Singapore, and fellow citizens demonstrate active citizenry and, therefore, they should have the options to embark on this journey with us sooner. This two-way process should be the mark of our continuous engagement and fundamentals of our nation-building as we progress.

With this, I support the Bill and hope the Public Service sector continues to uphold the standards and raise the bar to greater heights.

Mr Ganesh Rajaram.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on the Public Sector (Governance) Bill. Given the recent unfortunate incidents of impropriety amongst Government-linked companies, such as Keppel, this Bill provides a most timely reinforcement and strengthening of corporate governance processes across all Statutory Boards.

I stand in support of all the provisions and amendments to the Bill but would like to urge the Government to pay special attention to two key aspects which I feel are at the heart of corporate governance, which are quality of leadership and transparency in the area of accountability.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Statutory Boards are very well-run and led by strong CEOs. I have witnessed this first-hand when I served as a board member on IMDA from 2010 to 2016.

Our Statutory Board CEOs have stellar pedigrees. Yet, some are not, in my view, given the opportunity to fully test their potential in their brief stints at the various Statutory Boards. In some sectors, these CEOs – and members of their leadership teams – are rotated perhaps a little too frequently. From a Civil Service career perspective, this may be intended to expose and stretch these leaders in a variety of sectors and experiences. However, there is concern that in some sectors, a two- or three-year stint might not provide enough time for a CEO to fully understand the industry and to build a strong corporate culture and governance ethos. In certain sectors, might we consider a longer stint for CEOs? Perhaps feedback from industry and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the various sectors could be used when deciding on leadership and succession.

Indeed, there will be some leaders who will be exceptional in whichever industry they may be placed, but such leaders are few and far between, even in the corporate world. By and large, leaders need time to understand the industry, its people and culture. Leaders could spend up to three years to fully comprehend the complexities of the sectors they operate in, before they can even begin to make an impact. As we were informed late last year, the CEO of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit is still grappling with internal culture issues, this, after five years on the job!

Each time a Statutory Board CEO is rotated, it is like hitting a reset button: industry leaders would have to rebuild relationships and reorientate each new CEO, and SMEs in the industry would have to start building the relationship from scratch again. And as good as the new CEO may be, there will be industry initiatives that are left in limbo while he or she comes up to speed. For a good six months to a year, things would not move, because it is not just the CEO who is learning the ropes. It is also his or her management team, because these appointments would also be rotated, though at different times.

What we need to avoid, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a mentality that these rotating appointments are treated as a rite of passage that would lead almost automatically to bigger and better things. Breeding a culture of ambition, apathy and fleeting commitment impacts the quality of leadership in our Statutory Boards and has serious implications for corporate governance and Singapore.

Strong corporate governance stems from quality leadership. We want leaders who will observe the spirit and principles of good governance outlined in this Bill. But beyond this, we must aim to groom leaders who will shape the future of good governance, leaders who will have the industry insights, experience, relationships, perhaps some "battle scars" to speak from positions of credibility, respect and trust. And they can only do this if they have spent enough time to fully understand the business and the community they operate in.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, beyond this, there is also room to consider making the accountability of leaders more transparent to the public. Leadership begins from the top. I feel that the boards of Statutory Boards should also be made more accountable for the performance of the entities they lead. For if we are to truly embrace private sector practices – and not just borrow chunks that we might deem useful – we must also hold our boards and CEOs accountable when Statutory Boards run afoul of corporate governance.

When we have seen leaders of Statutory Boards fail to deliver, or act improperly, the Government has always been very swift in acknowledging and rectifying mistakes. However, it is not always clear what becomes of the errant leaders and Boards that were in place when these mistakes were made. This leads to unwarranted speculation that leaders are just rotated to another Statutory Board or Government position. Perhaps a little more transparency over Board and leadership appointments, as well as leadership performance, is warranted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a sign that the Government is moving in the right direction. However, it is also important that in aiming to improve corporate governance, it does not create more layers of guidelines, rules and regulations that will surely stifle creativity and growth.

Disruption and the digital revolution have shown that conventional approaches can quickly become obstacles to growth. So, while we must uphold corporate governance at all times, we should also be nimble enough to work fast and smart and be free of red tape. Billion-dollar businesses are now being hatched, as we speak, in dormitory rooms and teenage bedrooms. In staying true to the spirit of good governance, we must also be fast enough to ride these waves of innovation in areas that are unchartered.

I am hopeful that the provisions of this Bill, as well as greater attention to the quality of leadership and transparency in accountability in our Statutory Boards, will augur well for corporate governance in our public sector.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Establishing a system of governance with greater accountability and transparency in our public sector is welcomed.

I support the Bill’s objective, which aspires to remove independent vertical units, commonly known as silos, and create a whole-of-Government connected approach to delivering public services.

I have comments and queries on one fundamental aspect of the Bill. The bulk of the clauses in the Bill apply to the "Singapore Public Sector Agency", the term excludes the "Public Service", defined to include SAF, SCDF, Singapore Civil Service, Singapore Legal Service and Singapore Police Force (SPF), effectively limiting much of the scope of the Bill to cover only "Public Bodies" and "Singapore Public Sector Agencies".

As illustration, clause 4(1) confers powers on the Minister to give directions to all Singapore Public Sector Agencies. This principle behind clause 4 is to enable a whole-of-Government approach in the implementation of policy. Hence, clause 4(2)(g) specifically qualifies that such directions can only be made for purposes of supporting a whole-of-Government approach. In this case, then it seems logical and consistent to ensure clause 4(1) applies to the Public Service as well.

The exclusion of the Public Service can be seen in clauses complementary to clause 4, namely, clauses 9, 10 and 11. This exclusion is also present in clause 6 on data-sharing, and clauses in Part 4 and Part 5 of the Bill on governance and financial administration of public bodies.

Can the Minister clarify why the Public Service is excluded from the bulk of these clauses, especially since I understand that the aforementioned entities defined as Public Service in the Bill also delivers services to the public?

In fact, these entities serve very important functions and impact everyday citizens. Given the objective of the Bill is to better establish a consistent system of governance and accountability, can the Minister clarify how these objectives will be fulfilled when important agencies, such as SAF, SCDF, the Singapore Civil Service, the Singapore Legal Service and SPF are excluded?

I understand that all organisations, public or private, have a hierarchical structure and contain layers of structures. At times, one layer may be more deeply embedded, resulting in a silo structure. At times, such a silo structure is necessary for administrative purposes or for the very functioning of an organisation, such as the military's chain of command.

Applying this line of logic, I foresee a possible rationale for the exclusion of the Public Service – on justification that these five agencies exercise very specialised powers and fulfil very specific, critical functions within our society such that their constituting Act already contains provisions allowing the Minister to directly make directions, or an informal tight governance framework may currently be in place, or that these five agencies need the flexibility and autonomy to have room to exercise discretionary powers.

However, this justification would similarly apply to other Public Bodies, which similarly have constituting Acts containing internal controls. In fact, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned recently at the Public Service Leadership Dinner on 8 November last year, I quote, "the challenges that confront Singapore and Singaporeans often cannot be compartmentalised."

Keeping in mind the objective of the Bill, which is to break down intra- and interagency silos to enable a consistent system of governance, can the Minister clarify specifically how different these five agencies are defined as Public Service as compared to Public Bodies such that standard governance rules as envisioned in the Bill should not apply equally across the board? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments to this Bill as these are significant steps towards better coordination and greater efficiency across our Government Ministries and agencies.

Even though most of our data have gone digital, our vision for whole-of-Government coordination to provide a unified platform of services has only been partially realised. There are still quite a number of "walls" among our Government departments. I think some of these exist for good reasons, such as to ensure that only necessary information is shared on a "need to know" basis, for confidentiality and to protect personal privacy.

Notwithstanding, since we view Government-related services and transactions as a whole, it is better to consolidate data and information to avoid duplication, reduce red tape, boost efficiency and enhance coordination of planning and services. For example, for a family in financial difficulties, they can expect appropriate and timely allocation of assistance due to better coordination of the sources of assistance.

I note that agencies, such as HDB, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), LTA and the Traffic Police, could have maintained different records of traffic offences under their respective areas of responsibility, although there are similarities in some of the areas of responsibility. I would like to ask if the record of offences in each of the enforcement agencies and across all agencies and Ministries, such as URA and HDB parking offences, are actually consolidated and, if not, will it be consolidated with LTA and the Traffic Police's records of each individual? Similarly, will his or her records with other enforcement agencies or Ministries, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Ministry of Manpower, be consolidated?

Overcoming the challenges posed by the current walls among Government departments is one thing. How about between Government and non-Government entities? More often than not, there are many exchanges and overlaps between information and data held by Government agencies and non-Government-related bodies. These include information which have to be requested from or extracted from private entities. An example of such situations are medical records. I would like to know how the Government intends to ensure the cooperation of private entities in providing access to such information?

For example, what is the progress in getting private medical practitioners to share their consolidated patient records with the Ministry of Health (MOH), which is necessary for better health care management of patients? In addition, in situations where Government bodies have to provide information to private entities in order to enable certain transactions and the provision of certain goods and services, how would the Government ensure the safety and privacy of such information?

A recent study found that nearly half of IT professionals have sought information they were not permitted to access. The personnel guilty of this are the very ones charged with keeping the information safe – the IT staff. This can happen in both Government and non-Government entities. I would like to ask what strategies do we have in place to plug this gap in our cybersecurity measures. With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Minister Ong.

I thank the Members for their support and questions. There were quite a few questions citing specific clauses and sub-clauses, and fairly technical. I will try my best to answer them all. Let me start by addressing questions from Ms Thanaletchimi and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, who asked broader and philosophical questions about governance in the Government.

Ms Thanaletchimi is right to say that there is a balance between central control as well as getting our Statutory Boards to have flexibility and autonomy, and creativity and innovation. And this is a balance that we have to strike between effective governance, policy consistency on one hand and operational autonomy on the other hand. It does encourage innovation and creativity.

It is the same when a manager runs a department of a few people. You want to give the staff the space to take initiative, run with it, work with different people, but they are still your staff. And you meet them once in a while to give them support and direction. Every year, it is good HR practice also to do appraisal and coach them on their development. And, when something goes wrong, you still have to answer for the staff as department head. So, the same principles apply to Statutory Boards. The responsible Minister is answerable to Parliament for the performance of the Statutory Board. The powers to give directions to the Statutory Board and to approve the appointment of the CE are in line with this accountability to Parliament.

But for operational matters, it is better for Statutory Boards to have autonomy, tapping on board members. And I agree with Mr Ganesh Rajaram that Board members can do more and be more active in helping the governance and running of the Statutory Board and ensuring that the Board members are from different backgrounds, experience and skills that they can bring to the table. These are the layers that we have to put in place to make sure a Statutory Board is run well.

In answer to Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, this Bill is really not in response to any Government lapses, incidents or confusion on the part of public servants, or that there are instances where Statutory Boards refuse to comply with a Government direction. The purpose is two-fold. I have mentioned some of it in my Second Reading speech.

One, for the lack of a better word, it is really neatness, really just neatness. Today, we have over 60 Statutory Boards operating in an increasingly complex and disrupted environment, facing challenges that no single agency can tackle alone. The continued need for Statutory Boards to be governed well and work together to provide better public service is all the more pressing.

The central agencies, therefore, did a stocktake of all the Statutory Board Acts. And they found that, of the governance provisions that are important to uphold to sustain good governance, not all were uniformly present across all Acts. Specifically, on the clause for Ministers to give direction, they are present in all Acts but they are written slightly differently with different conventions. There are no good reasons why they are different, other than they were written and passed at different times in history. So, we centralise them into one central Act. It is now clear, transparent, neat and, should we find the need and justification to amend them in future, the amendment will also be transparent and more effective.

Where there are substantive changes from today, I have highlighted them in my Second Reading speech. One, is that we are making it explicit that part of the work of the CE of a Statutory Board is to collaborate with other public agencies. This is new. Not that they are not doing so now. They are already doing so. But we are now hardcoding this and, in so doing, make our direction clear. Two, is the setting up of a data-sharing regime that I spoke about.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan specifically asked if the term "CE" is a new one mentioned in the Bill. It is not new. It does refer to the CEO at the apex job within the Statutory Board.

Mr Ganesh Rajaram asked about the tenure of the CEO and whether postings are too frequent. It is a point that we constantly have to wrestle within the Public Service. It is really not part of this Bill but we do have to balance between someone staying long, having the experience and stability but, at the same time, they can get entrenched, versus bringing in somebody with new perspectives and innovative ideas. We constantly have to juggle both. And what the Member raised is a pertinent point and we will continue to consider this very carefully.

I agree with Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan that the broader point is that our system of governance must be one that allows us to constantly work together, recognise problems and improve. What we do not want is a culture of witch hunt and blame. It does not improve things. Our approach has always been to look honestly at our flaws and focus our attention on improvements. And I think this is the culture we want.

Ms Chia Yong Yong said the Public Service goes much beyond just running day to day. It is much beyond efficiency but also about service to people with kindness and humanity. So, likewise, if we want to bring about such a culture, it goes beyond legislation, but also ensuring that the ethos, the spirit, is in every single Public Service agency and that the culture and ethos are upheld. Most important of all, to uphold these are the leaders, leaders across the various levels of the Public Service, the type of people we bring in, how we make them work together, learn from one another and uphold the values. We will continue to place great emphasis on this.

Let me now move on to a topic which is better coordination across Government agencies and sometimes, even within a Government agency. This is raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Miss Cheryl Chan. Various examples were given.

I agree it is important to coordinate well amongst public sector agencies as challenges become more complex. This Bill actually sends a strong signal on the importance of cross-agency coordination. For example, the Bill clarifies how the Minister charged with the responsibility for the public sector can work with the relevant Ministers to give directions to Statutory Boards relating to central policies. And that, second, the CEs of Statutory Boards now, by law, have to cooperate and collaborate with other public sector agencies to deliver public value.

As to how to ensure strong coordination among agencies and reduce wastage, I think all agencies simply need to work harder, eyes open, ears up and be more creative, more innovative, more citizen-centric. That is a point that Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Intan Mokhtar have both raised. And we have seen many such improvement projects. For example, Master Planning Committee coordinates infrastructure projects. There is a OneMap platform. I downloaded it. It is very useful. It allows 80 agencies to come together on a single platform to provide authoritative location information and services.

We will welcome more suggestions from Members. Some of the examples that Members mentioned are coordination within the departments and they simply need to sort them out. But they are really outside of this Bill and you do not need this Bill to have them sorted out. But in my capacity as the Minister helping out with driving public sector innovation, if you observe any of these, please let me know and I will be most happy to take them up.

Let me now move on to various technical clarifications. These are raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Sylvia Lim, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Dr Intan Mokhtar.

First, the Bill does not prescribe the form of directions. It should not, as Acts that are overly prescriptive rapidly get out of date. Given the purposes for which directions may be given and the subject matter they are to cover, the form of directions will likely be in formal instruments. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned two types of directions. First, as she correctly said, are really central Ministry issues − governance issues concerning HR and finance. These typically come in the form of circulars and they are signed by the Permanent Secretaries.

Second are policy directions. I would say the Bill does not prescribe this, but the typical way the Ministries work − for many years and decades, that is how they work − is that there is brainstorming between political officeholders and staff, including Statutory Board staff, because we have to take into account implementation issues. When it is all discussed and we have certain consensus, staff papers are put up with all the views, considerations, options and recommendations incorporated and the many angles covered. Then, it goes to the right forum. It could be a Minister's staff meeting. For bigger issues, they might go to the Cabinet. Decisions are made, and then conveyed through notes of meeting, through to the Statutory Boards, and then it is followed up that way. It has been done this way for years. For those coming from the private sector, this is quite a big adjustment. In the private sector, documentation is not done so diligently. But trust me, nothing in the Civil Service is decided through WhatsApp and, worse, through emoticons.

Let me talk about clause 4. It is merely an extension of the principle in clause 5. I think a Member asked about it. Statutory Boards are already complying with the Government's central policies today, and clause 4 gives this legislative backing.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the scope of the Bill. Simply put, the Bill is written such that the provisions apply by and large to the Singapore public sector agencies, and the Singapore public sector agencies is broadly defined to include Ministries and departments, Statutory Boards and Organs of State. The Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF, Legal Service are all part of Ministries and departments. So, the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. There are many references and definitions in this Bill, so it is a bit confusing to read. I put on record the governance requirements of this Bill apply to them. Likewise, the protection under clause 11, which Ms Sylvia Lim asked about, extends to every Singapore public sector agency, too. So, the Member's reading is right.

However, for certain clauses, the Civil Service, SAF, SPF, SCDF and the Legal Service are excluded, because they are already formally subject to central policy governance requirements that are before this Bill. For example, these agencies have to comply with Government Instruction Manuals. For the appointment of the heads of Ministries, that is, Permanent Secretaries, the Constitution already provides a framework where appointments are made by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, from a list of names submitted by PSC.

Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about removal of the CE. That, indeed, is not a small matter. Although the Bill does not spell out the exact processes but, for a CE, the apex post of a Statutory Board, to be removed, that is a serious matter and, certainly, a lot of consultation, even before that, if it is for performance-related reasons, coaching, counselling, that all has to take place. That is only good HR practice. So, rest assured. Even removing a Public Service officer is a serious matter, what more a CE.

Ms Chia Yong Yong asked a specific question whether PA is to be exempted from clause 40. The answer is that the effect of the Notice of Amendment will be that PA is not exempted from it. It will apply to PA.

Mr Faisal Manap asked about finance-related provisions that pertain to MUIS in clauses 34 to 41. While MUIS is, indeed, exempted from these provisions of the Bill, it is not exempted from similar financial administrative requirements because all these requirements are currently already spelt out and covered by MUIS' constituting Act, namely, AMLA. We decided there is no need to duplicate them in this Bill.

Now let me move to the topic of clause 11. Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Leon Perera asked about this. Let me explain how clause 11 came about first. Clause 5 standardises the power of the responsible Ministers to give directions to their Statutory Boards, and clause 4 formalises the requirements for Statutory Boards to comply with central policies. And clause 11 of the Bill presents safeguards to limit the effect of these Ministerial directions. So, why is clause 11 needed now?

The legal requirement to abide by Ministerial direction is not new at all. It is found in the constituting Acts of most of our Statutory Boards. But with this Bill, we have a separate and centralised legislation to provide for this. So, it becomes necessary to have clause 11 to make it clear that Ministerial directions do not trump other provisions in the Statutory Board legislation. It is a very logical thing to do for legal officers drafting this Bill. There are a few key points to this clause.

First, the Minister's direction cannot be inconsistent with written law. For example, the Minister charged with the responsibility for Government records and archives − a point that Mr Chen Show Mao asked about − can direct Statutory Boards to comply with central policies on the treatment of public records. But these policies must be consistent with the provisions in the National Library Board (NLB) Act on the role of the National Archives in the treatment of public records. For example, the Minister’s direction to the Singapore public sector agencies cannot authorise the destruction of public documents without the authorisation of NLB, much less destroy a particular archival document. To do so would be inconsistent with the NLB Act.

Second, the Minister's direction cannot impede or affect the performance of statutorily independent or quasi-judicial functions. Ms Sylvia Lim asked for further elaboration on this. A statutorily independent function is a function which is required by law to be performed independently. The obvious example is the exercise of judicial functions by the Judiciary. But we also have Statutory Boards like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Maritime and Port Authority or IMDA. They are vested with the discretion to issue or revoke a licence based on criteria set out in their own legislation.

As for a quasi-judicial function, that is a function expected by the law to be discharged, taking into account the facts of the case. Some of our Statutory Boards have those powers. For example, a disciplinary committee constituted under the Estate Agents Act has the power to decide if there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action against an estate agent "according to the circumstances of the case".

The third area of safeguard is that the Minister’s direction should not be specific to a case. So, clause 11(3)(b) prohibits any Ministerial direction to secure an employment, a promotion or a termination of any particular employee of a Singapore public sector agency. For example, a Minister cannot direct the award of a procurement contract to any particular tenderer, because that is specific to a case or a person; or to license a particular applicant; or to employ a particular person. And for that matter, he cannot ask the Police to arrest a certain person, and I hope Ms Sylvia Lim is not suggesting that this is happening. In fact, the Police Force Act makes that quite clear. It is SPF that has the powers to apprehend offenders. So, if you look at the Skills Development Fund (SDF) fraud case that happened which I answered earlier, I am flabbergasted. I want the culprits to face the full consequences of the law, but I cannot ask the Police or anybody to arrest them. We report through SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to the Police, the Police investigate and, if they deem fit, the Police arrest them. That is the way things have been done and will be done.

Having said that, in my years of public service, I have not come across an impasse between Ministers and public servants on this point. If there is, a public servant who feels any pressure from Ministers can report to their Permanent Secretary, or to the Head of the Civil Service, even the PSC, or even the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, if the case warrants it, and I am sure they know how to follow up.

Let me just elaborate this a bit. Ministers handle MPS cases. And I would say, in a typical month, Ministers would have handled hundreds, maybe even thousands, of individual cases coming to us. Each is appealing for a licence to be given, for an Employment Pass to be given, or whatever the case may be. And the discipline all these years has been we write them down as appeal cases, lay out the facts of the cases, send them back to the Ministries, the staff still process them based on the grounds and the circumstances of the case. But ultimately, they have to run the individual appeal cases through the system to be processed.

So, clause 11 merely puts a long-standing and existing practice into law. However, let me highlight this. If a Minister comes across a case that highlights the deficiencies in a system, or an act that should be illegal turns out to be legal, then there is a flaw in the system or in the law. Then, it is incumbent upon Ministers to review and improve the system, together with the agencies under his charge.

Let me touch on a point that Mr Faisal Manap specifically raised about what is the definition of being politicised. I think for civil servants to be politicised in the context of this Bill means to be specifically put under pressure to decide on a specific case. That is being "politicised" under this Bill.

Mr Faisal Manap then went on to talk about a certain Advisor. I assume it is a constituency that the Member knows, that a certain candidate lost and then continued to operate on the ground. But, really, based on the definition I gave, this has nothing to do with this Bill. If there is any specific complaint that the Member would like to raise, he could raise it with our Deputy Chairman of PA, Minister Chan Chun Sing. He has mentioned in this House before that the role of an Advisor has to be very clear. It is to serve the community, it is to foster cohesion in the community. If they overstep into politics and the Member has reasons to believe so, then please raise it with him. I am sure he will look into it.

Mr Leon Perera gave a narrative about civil servants who have aspirations to be Ministers, therefore, they second-guessed the Ministers to be in their good books and, in the process, become partisan and, therefore, should we not impose garden leave for civil servants that decide to enter politics? I think there are many problems with what he said.

First, second-guessing is now a bit of a dirty word. But if you think about it, in all our work, we do have to anticipate what are the needs of our customers, what are the needs of the people we work with. It is very reasonable for civil servants not to be sycophantic but to understand what is the Ministerial direction, what is the agenda of this Government, how is it shaping up, what are the key priorities, and able to work with the Ministers to develop policies in those directions. Do you call that second-guessing? I mean, if the Member wants to put it in a negative sense, it is up to him. But I think there is value for public servants to do that. And for that matter, for anyone working, to do that. And I think consultants, too, have to anticipate and maybe second-guess their customers. This is what real life is. And whether they then become partisan, I hope the Member is not suggesting that civil servants are partisan, because the conduct and ethos of civil servants are articulated clearly in the IM, that they cannot be politically pressurised.

They have to act neutral and in the interest of the public. Therefore, do we then have garden leave for civil servants who then go on and maybe join politics? And the Member draws the analogy with the financial sector.

The circumstances are totally different. In the case of MAS and the financial sector, MAS is a regulator, whereas the regulatee is a commercial profit-seeking entity. So, to prevent a conflict of interest, we do not want an MAS officer to be offered a job by a regulatee while he is still at the job at the regulator. Therefore, you have a garden leave so that you minimise the chances of that happening. Garden leave is widely practised across financial regimes in the world. When we come to the Civil Service and political officeholders, neither one regulates the other, and neither is a commercial profit-seeking entity.

The Member felt that garden leave will help the civil servant think more carefully before joining politics. I think anyone, not just civil servants, joining politics today thinks very, very deeply about it, and spends a long time deliberating that with their families and friends before they are prepared to come in. It is really a calling, as the Member would know.

Let me now move on to data-sharing. Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about data-sharing, the scope and benefits. The data-sharing directive seeks to strengthen the rules that enable and govern cross-agency data-sharing within the public sector. There are two main areas of improvement. I have mentioned this in my Second Reading speech.

First, the Bill provides the bases for data to be shared and there are seven specific public purposes, as stated in the Bill. These will translate broadly into two kinds of initiatives.

One, better delivery of services to the individual. This will inevitably have to involve sharing of identifiable and personal data, and Mr Patrick Tay asked for some examples. Improving social assistance programmes or removing repeated filling of forms when applying for Government programmes. I spoke about this during the Second Reading speech.

Where feasible, as Mr Zaqy Mohamad has suggested, specific details need not be shared if they are not needed for the task. For example, when you apply for financial assistance, data can be shared between other agencies and the processing officer, and they can come in the form of whether do they meet or not meet the criteria and not necessarily tell you how much they earn. That can surely be done and it will be a good practice. It can also involve not personal data, but information that each agency holds, which, when put together, offers much better value, such as One-Map, which I mentioned earlier.

The second benefit for data-sharing is better policy analysis, planning and formulation. This will involve sharing of anonymised, non-identifiable data. For example, when deciding where to build certain facilities, we want to understand the concentration of different segments of Singaporeans. There is no need to know personal details in this instance. So, to decide whether to build a senior activity centre, for example, the relevant agency only needs to know the aggregate number of seniors living in the block or in various precincts.

It can also be about correlating data to derive deeper policy insights. There is an immense amount of work we can do here to better understand the relation, say, between family backgrounds, education experiences, careers, employment, health, social security, so that we can formulate better policies to address our challenges. However, to do so, raw data from various agencies need to come to a centre where they are matched and anonymised before release to relevant agencies for analysis. We intend to set up such centres where central oversight would mitigate the risks of failing to anonymise data.

Let me talk about a point that Mr Zaqy Mohamad raised about privacy and big brother watching. This Bill is also in alignment with PDPA. Public Service agencies belong to one Government. They need to share data and information with one another to best serve the public. This Bill will significantly improve the protection and safeguard of such shared data. Beyond the fact that there are now clear bases for data-sharing, there are four levels of protection.

First level, it allows existing data-sharing practices to be formalised, such as sharing identifiable information for service delivery and enforcement functions and using only anonymised information for policymaking and planning.

Second level, by articulating the responsibility of each party involved in the data-sharing, it ensures that the same high level of responsibility for data protection is borne by all agencies. So, it is now clear that the agency that uses the data is responsible for protecting and safeguarding it. We will be able to redress the current misalignment of incentives, where the owner of data is still responsible.

The third level is that information that is protected by specific legislation today, such as information under the Income Tax Act, the Banking Act and the Statistics Act, will continue to be protected.

Four, criminal offences for three data-related offences are also introduced in the Bill to ensure individual officers are responsible and accountable for safeguarding information. These include the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information, and, specifically, the unauthorised re-identification of anonymised data.

The Bill did provide for the flexibility for re-identification of data. That is to deal with contingencies, such as when source agencies’ data is corrupted or destroyed. When that happens, re-identification of anonymised data may be performed in order to continue to deliver services to citizens.

The purpose of the Bill is not to pave the way for a future where Government knows everything about everyone, and every misdeed everyone committed is all consolidated. I think there was a question by Mr Gan Thiam Poh. If ever there was such an initiative, it would have to be explained as to why and for what purpose and for what value. And decision-making, be it for policy, licence or grant application, is all reduced to data processing and AI algorithm. That is not the future we want. In fact, it will be quite a sad state. If that happens, civil servants will all lose their jobs because we only need computers and software.

So, in response to what Mr Patrick Tay said, yes, there are algorithms in various software – which will be tested and audited − but when it comes to decision-making, there must be human intervention, supervision and judgement all the time.

Ms Chia Yong Yong asked for greater clarity on data-sharing initiatives. I hope Members will feel assured that, today, there is a high level of transparency and public discourse in policy implementation and public service delivery in Singapore. If there is a new service to be delivered, such as recently we hear that HDB has an initiative to halve the processing time for transaction of resale flats, it will be announced, and how it will be done will be explained. And I read the whole explanation in the papers. For more significant initiatives, such as MOH's current initiative to set up a National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system, they have to do this properly. So, a separate consultation is being held, new legislation needs to be debated and enacted in this House to protect the users of this system.

There is one more question by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan. He asked when unauthorised data-sharing may not be an offence. The common law already permits sharing of information among public sector agencies where there is public interest. The Bill does not allow the data-sharing direction to displace the application of common law, nor does the data-sharing direction seek to do this. It will instead be providing the much-needed practical guidance and certainty on what circumstances would be considered public interest without being exhaustive. So, while the Bill criminalises data-sharing other than in accordance with the data-sharing direction, clause 7(2) allows a defence where sharing is authorised or allowed by "other law". That "other law" is a reference to the common law. For example, it can be shared in order to respond to, say, a life-and-death situation of an individual or in times of a natural disaster or any kind of disaster where contact tracing is required.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked about data-sharing beyond the Public Service, to VWOs, for example. This Bill covers only sharing of data within the Public Service. It does not include the sharing of data with parties outside of the Public Service, such as VWOs, healthcare providers or private and commercial entities.

But that does not mean today we do not share data with parties outside of the Public Service at all. We do so when there are clear justifications to improve the public service or to improve service to the public. For example, to help a student from a dysfunctional family, MOE has to work hand-in-hand with VWOs, self-help groups or Family Service Centres, and, inevitably, personal data has to be shared with all these partners. Or we share aggregate datasets with research institutes to conduct research and analysis for the Government.

Further, data shared with entities outside of the Public Service and designated for service delivery are bound by confidentiality agreements, with contractual terms that prescribe data protection requirements, and these entities are also bound by PDPA and the Official Secrets Act. Volunteers are also bound by strict confidentiality agreements and educated on the appropriate use of the data.

Specifically, on the sharing of medical data within the healthcare sector, again, this is beyond the scope of this Bill because restructured hospitals are not defined as part of the Public Service. MOH is embarking, as I mentioned this earlier, on the NEHR initiative, consulting the public and tabling a Healthcare Services Bill to enable it to do so, to achieve better health outcomes and yet safeguard the interest of patients.

Having said that, it is true that when this Bill is passed, the framework that governs the sharing of data within the Public Service will be improved and better than that for sharing with entities outside of the Public Service, specifically in areas, such as the responsibility to safeguard and protect data. So, the framework will be available and set up for the Public Service, but it will not be extended to sharing outside of the Public Service. This is something that we should look at and we will review and consider if further legislation is required.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked a question about data accuracy and verification. Accuracy of a citizen's personal data is critical for seamless service delivery. We will assign designated agencies to proactively verify and update specified personal data fields and share that across the Government, so that all agencies’ databases are up to date and accurate.

The Government also relies on citizens to verify their own information. MyInfo, the platform mentioned earlier, allows citizens to amend certain personal information and this information will be shared for transactional services that the Government provides. This ensures that all agencies are using accurate information on the individual based on his latest update.