Hansard, Monday, 8 May 2017

1 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) as part of the Ministry's efforts to bring SMEs to expand and venture overseas (a) how many SMEs have gone on Ministry-organised business trips over the past three years; (b) how many SMEs have succeeded in developing new markets and expanding their businesses over this period; and (c) what support does the Ministry continue to provide to these companies to help them grow in the new markets.

Madam, internationalisation is a key engine of growth for Singapore companies. To support companies in their internationalisation efforts, International Enterprise (IE) Singapore provides assistance through the Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) and the Global Company Partnership (GCP) schemes. MRA provides broad-based assistance to companies that are starting to internationalise, while GCP provides targeted assistance to companies with more established overseas presence in capability and manpower development, market access and financing. Through the MRA and GCP schemes, IE Singapore supported over 3,500 internationalisation projects for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) since 2014, 30% of which were to help companies penetrate new overseas markets and grow their businesses.

IE Singapore also partners Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) through the International Marketing Activities Programme (iMAP) to support overseas business missions. Since 2014, iMAP supported a total of 80 business missions that benefited 1,190 companies, the majority of which were SMEs. IE Singapore also supports business missions as part of strategic projects under the Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme.

Finally, IE Singapore's network of 37 Overseas Centres provides companies with in-market assistance. These centres help companies generate new business leads in neighbouring Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) markets, gain entry as first movers in markets, such as Latin America, and identify opportunities to enhance technology capabilities in developed markets.

Through its efforts to help companies internationalise, IE Singapore has assisted companies in about 99,000 cases since 2014, with SMEs accounting for about 80% of them. IE Singapore will continue to build on its existing initiatives and networks to further identify and create opportunities for SMEs to internationalise.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. There is a wide range of help schemes available. I would like to ask whether there is any further effort to publicise these schemes so that more SMEs are aware that such help is available. The second question is whether there is any plan to bring these SMEs which have ventured overseas to be onboard on government-to-government (G-to-G) projects. I have received several feedback which are, quite often, to say that for Singapore Government projects, we normally call for tender and we do not bring our SMEs along.

Madam, we are constantly looking for ways to broaden our outreach to SMEs so that they are aware of the range of assistance that is available. In fact, internationalisation is a very key strategy that has also been elaborated upon in the Committee on the Future Economy. We are doing so, first, directly, through IE Singapore's own publicity efforts. We also do a lot of this publicity through TACs because they also help spread the word. We do so also for informal groupings. For instance, the one that comes to mind is "The Bosses Network". They hold an annual learning cruise. I will be attending this event in order to help SMEs understand the full range of assistance and support schemes that are available, not limited to internationalisation, but that is obviously going to be a key one.

As for helping our SMEs take part in G-to-G projects, I suppose Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is thinking perhaps of, for instance, a G-to-G project between Singapore and China. The entire purpose of setting up G-to-G projects really is to help expand the scope of economic and trade collaboration. We hope very much that our SMEs, too, benefit. For instance, some of it may be in terms of creating a space where business can flourish. The first G-to-G project between Singapore and China, the Suzhou Industrial Park, is of this nature. Likewise, the Tianjin Eco-City. For the third G-to-G project, the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative, the scope has broadened because it is not just about township development or industrial park development. It is also about, for instance, logistics development, information and communications technology and financing exchanges. This opens up the scope for even more companies, large and small, in different sectors to participate.

IE Singapore has been facilitating the participation of SMEs in the G-to-G projects. We welcome more SMEs to take part. The challenge, very often, I think, is in reaching out to SMEs and encouraging them, for instance, to attend talks and forums organised by IE Singapore or in coming along on business missions.

2 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) given that the rise of milk powder prices in Singapore far exceeds inflation rates and the increment in other countries, whether the Ministry will work with local distributors and retailers to ensure fair pricing.

Madam, I share the Member's concern that local distributors and retailers should price milk powder appropriately. Another Member, Ms Sun Xueling, has also spoken about milk powder in her interviews with the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao over the weekend.

The Government is as concerned as Members are about the high price of infant formula. We have been monitoring the situation and taking steps to address the concerns. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and international organisations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), strongly encourage breastfeeding as it can provide the nutritional needs of infants, with the added benefits of promoting mother-child bonding. Breast milk is the best milk to meet the nutritional needs of infants. HPB recommends that, where possible, mothers should exclusively breastfeed their babies for the first six months. Between six and 12 months, babies should be given breast milk along with complementary foods. For children above 12 months of age, cows' milk, as part of a balanced diet, is adequate to meet their nutritional needs. Formula milk is not required for children beyond the first year.

We recognise that, in some cases, infants cannot be exclusively breastfed and will need infant formula as a form of supplementation or the main form of their feeding. Hence, we have food regulations which stipulate quality and safety standards for infant formula milk sold in Singapore.

Singapore's standards are similar to international standards in terms of required essential vitamins and minerals. Let me assure all mothers and Members of the House that all infant formula sold in Singapore, regardless of price, meets Singapore's Food Regulations and the nutritional needs for infants to grow healthily.

Some infant formula companies give the impression that their particular brands of milk powder can do more. The scientific evidence for this is weak. Without better information, parents should be careful about relying on the claims made by infant formula companies or be misled into using price as a proxy for the quality of the product. The Government will take steps to address this problem, including referencing the best practices in other jurisdictions.

Public awareness is important to support parents in deciding what is best for their children. HPB, together with healthcare institutions and healthcare professionals, will get the message out, especially to mothers-to-be.

Besides consumer education, the Government will also do more through these few things. First, we will do more through our maternity hospitals; secondly, to review import requirements to facilitate more formula milk options on our shelves; and thirdly, put in place stronger consumer protection by tightening advertising and labelling restrictions and regulations. Let me elaborate each of these in turn.

First, on the role of hospitals. Hospitals play an important role where healthcare professionals provide information and advice to parents, and infants have many first experiences in our hospitals.

All hospitals, both public and private, encourage and support breastfeeding. They will provide infant formula when needed, for example, if the mother is unable to produce enough milk to meet the baby's needs or for specific medical reason for which the mother should be discouraged from breastfeeding. For example, when she is on certain medications or on chemotherapy. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will work with industry players to make available more infant formula options in the hospitals.

We will also strongly encourage all hospitals providing maternity services to achieve the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) certification. All public hospitals offering maternity services are already BFHI-certified today, but private hospitals have yet to come on board. This is unsatisfactory. BFHI-certified hospitals are committed to actively encourage and support breastfeeding targets and are not allowed to enter into sponsorship arrangements with milk powder companies, given the potential for conflicts of interest. We hope private hospitals will see that this is beneficial for their patients and will come on board to support this important initiative.

The Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) recently completed a market study which examined the formula milk industry in Singapore and the nature of competition at each level of the supply chain. CCS will publish its report this week, and more details will be available then. Should there be any evidence of companies acting in concert to increase prices together, CCS will not hesitate to investigate the anti-competitive behaviour under the Competition Act.

Secondly, here are several measures that can be taken together to encourage greater price competition among brands. In Singapore, the six major manufacturers which supply formula milk have a market presence which is much bigger than the other manufacturers. This was a point also highlighted by Ms Sun Xueling in her online survey of about 2,500 respondents.

The Government will simplify and streamline import requirements, as well as remove unnecessary barriers to entry, in order to bring in more options for parents but, most importantly, without compromising food safety.

Thirdly, let me talk about consumer protection. Besides doing all these, at the same time, we should also improve consumer protection. The Government will strengthen restrictions on advertising and labelling. The Sale of Infant Food Ethics Committee, Singapore (SIFECS) Code of Ethics already restricts advertising, marketing and promotion of infant formula for infants below six months in Singapore. Nevertheless, HPB is supporting an ongoing review of the SIFECS Code which will include extending its coverage to all infant formula for infants up to 12 months of age. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) will tighten its regulations on labelling and advertising further, including prohibiting the use of nutrition and health claims and idealised images for infant formula milk. This will also discourage companies from incurring massive costs on aggressive advertising and marketing activities and passing these costs on to consumers. Taken together, the increased choices available and improved clarity of labelling should enhance the competitiveness of the infant formula market.

Madam, the Government is committed to help ensure that the basic needs of all children in Singapore are met. In this regard, ComCare provides assistance to low-income families in financial need, including families raising infants and young children. They can approach their nearest Social Service Office (SSO) to apply for ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance. The SSO will assess their needs, and families may receive cash assistance for their basic needs. Let me assure Members that the cash assistance for families with infants and young children will take into account the costs of infant formula milk.

In addition to support for low-income families, all parents of Singaporean children can tap on the wide range of support measures under our Marriage and Parenthood Package, including the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, and Child Development Account to help defray child-raising costs.

To conclude, Madam, I would like to reiterate that the Government shares parents' concern about rising prices of formula milk in Singapore and is committed to addressing them. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and other Government agencies, such as MOH, HPB and AVA, will take steps to increase consumer awareness, encourage good practices in hospitals, facilitate more formula milk options and further tighten regulations on labelling and advertising. The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) will also remind businesses to price their products fairly and look into consumer feedback on potential profiteering.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have a few supplementary questions to ask. First of all, would the Senior Minister of State be able to share why is it that milk powder is priced so highly in Singapore, compared with other comparable countries and over time? The jump is too significant, in my opinion, to be explained by operating cost increases. Also, milk powder is seen as essential for growing infants since they can only rely on milk. And a lot of young parents feel that they are held to ransom, especially for those with special medical needs. So, the price elasticity is quite low. Could that be one of the reasons driving the price increase and, if so, would the Government consider control measures, such as those implemented in countries like China, on top of introducing more competition, so that there is greater pressure to ensure that throughout the supply chain, the pricing is fairer and so that it is more affordable for young parents in Singapore?

Madam, I thank the Member for her clarification questions. In terms of setting a price for special formulas, children who have specific needs for which normal milk formula cannot fulfil, for example, specific allergies or medical conditions, will, therefore, require more expensive formula feeds because of the special formulation required. It will be quite difficult for us to restrict a particular formula for its price, because there is definitely a research and development expenditure that the company has to incur. What we can do is to make sure that we increase the choices that are available and, where necessary, put in the necessary financial support to these families to defray the cost of such formula that they require. But hopefully, these are a more restricted group of infants.

For the larger group of infants that require formula feeding, for which breastfeeding is not an option, then I think this is where we need to educate our consumers as well, that despite whatever pricing strategy that they have on the generic formula, or despite whatever claims there may be, all formulas actually fulfil the minimum nutritional requirements and are, in fact, just as equally adequate.

There is also a big range of milk formula pricing on the shelves today. Some can go for about $20-plus to $30 for a 900-gramme tin, and others can go up to about $60. So, within this range, parents do have a choice. And I think this is where education of the parents to allay their anxiety that they are not shortchanging their children by giving them the cheaper option, because the cheaper option, nutritionally, is just as good as the more expensive ones. And this is where we can introduce the much more robust and healthier competition within the market by removing the information asymmetry.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. The Senior Minister of State mentioned changing the import requirements to allow more choice, for other brands being brought into the market. May I know what is the timing that the Minister expects whereby this can be implemented because, in the short term, we still see evidence of certain pricing behaviours in the market. So, I would like to know how quickly these changes can be effected to help families in Singapore.

Madam, AVA is reviewing the import requirements and some of the regulations. And we hope that by end of the year, we would be able to make some of these changes. If there are any changes to, for example, regulations, we will also need a little bit of time to engage vendors so that they have the "go-ahead" to go and bring in some of these new products. So, by end of this year, we hope to be able to finalise some of these changes.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. It is an issue that many of my Clementi residents worry about as well. I have two supplementary questions.

Firstly, does the current consumer price index (CPI) include infant milk formula in the basket of goods to assess cost of living? As background, I note the recent CPI report mentioned milk, cheese and eggs under food, but not specifically infant formula.

Secondly, will MTI consider studying a cost-of-living index, specifically for parents with young children, so that the Government can understand better how to support young families, especially families starting with less?

Madam, the answer to the first question is yes. Milk powder for infants' full cream milk powder and other milk powder, even skimmed milk powder are already included in the CPI basket for this category of food.

For the second question, the report on Household Expenditure Survey 2012-2013 published by the Department of Statistics contains data on average monthly household expenditure by household living arrangements, such as by the age group of the head of the household, the number of children in the family, and the age of the youngest child, as well as by household income group. So, there is some data that we already have. This data can be used to study and understand the expenditure of different types of households, including households with younger heads of family as well as young children.

The Government will closely monitor the cost of raising children in Singapore using some of these data and evaluate whether there is a need to compile specific price indices for households in this segment. But let us also understand that expenditure is very much influenced by consumer choices and consumer behaviour. Therefore, this is where I go back to the point about educating our parents to understand that expensive does not mean it is better; cheaper does not mean it is worse. There should be no guilt on the parents' part about buying the cheaper brand of milk. As long as your child can get used to the milk, or they are not suffering from any allergic reaction to that particular brand of milk, there is no real reason to really pay out more when there is something that is just as good and much cheaper. This is where education needs to play a role to help households rationalise their expenditure.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Madam, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to see whether special attention can be given to one particular group, which is the babies who need milk for special allergies. I was told that it could cost $45 to $105 for two to three days, depending on whether there is tube-feeding needed for kids requiring milk powder for special allergies. And if the extensive plan from the Senior Minister of State can also look into coordinating with the rest of Government to ensure that the right support is available for needy parents who need expensive formulations.

Madam, for specific groups of children with specific needs, for example, special dietary concerns, this is where we can work closely with the hospitals to see if they can find a way of getting more options and provide some of these in a much more affordable way for the children.

Also, at the community level, there are ways we can help these families as well, outside the schemes from Government. For example, most of us would have ComCare funds we can use or even Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF) that we can also mobilise for short-term support, while the hospital tries to sort out how they can help these specific children with needs. Pre-term infants who require special formulas are a different category altogether but, fortunately, they are not the bulk of the kind of infants that we have to take care of. So, on a case-by-case basis, we can look at how to assist them.

Ms Tin Pei Ling, last clarification.

Thank you, Madam. I hear the Senior Minister of State that the regulations, if any, in terms of changes to the imports and the regulations will take some time and will be towards the end of the year. But I would like to ask if perhaps the Senior Minister of State can give an assurance that the Government will continue to work with the producers, distributors and even the retailers to ensure that the pricing will not continue to rise during this period of time.

Anecdotally, for example, which needs to be verified, residents have been telling me that over the last week, one of the brands, NAN, has increased its price by 7%. While it needs to be verified, I think it is a genuine concern and I hope that the Government can assure us that during this time where the necessary changes are being worked out, that it will continue to monitor very closely to ensure that young parents are not taken advantage of during this period.

Madam, I assure the Member that the Government is keeping a close eye on this and we will continue to watch how this price trend goes. CCS is also keeping an eye and seeing how they can ensure that there is no price fixing, that there is also fair competition in the market.

3 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) with the increase in the number of autonomous universities to six and increase in cohort participation rate to 40% by 2020 (a) how will the reduction of junior colleges from 16 to 12 affect the supply of GCE "A" level graduates for university admission; and (b) whether the number and percentage of polytechnic graduates admitted to the universities will be increased.

Mdm Speaker, cohort sizes coming out of secondary school will fall by about 20% over the course of this decade. It will affect both the number of GCE "A" level, as well as polytechnic students and graduates going to the universities. But this impact will be cushioned by the increase in cohort participation rate from 35% now to 40% in 2020.

In 2017, this year, we expect to admit about 19,000 students into locally funded universities. This will likely fall by around 10% to 12% by 2025. But there is no issue of losing critical mass in our universities and institutions, because we only have five autonomous universities, or six, if the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) Bill is passed by this House later in the day.

Because university education is more specialised, there is also less need for critical mass. The Singapore University of Technology and Design, for example, is doing very well as a university with a unique focus on design, admitting only 500 to 600 students a year.

In fact, despite falling cohort sizes, we should expect more diversity in pathways at the university level. Expanding our higher education pathways is not incompatible with decreasing cohort sizes. In fact, as our manpower and talent base decreases, it is even more important to uncover everyone's potential to the fullest through more diverse education pathways.

In addition, our universities have taken on the mandate of lifelong learning, and I expect the university landscape to become more variegated and vibrant over the years.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Minister. Talking about diverse pathways, there have been talks that the move to reduce the junior colleges (JCs) is kind of a reduction of one pathway, at least the JC pathway, in which the JC pathway becomes a little more elitist because of the closing down of neighbourhood JCs. So, to this criticism, would the Government consider if this is a preservation of the multiple pathways to the university or is this a kind of elitisation of JC education?

This is a school question, but the other Minister can also answer. Even with a reduced cohort pathway and merging of JCs, JC eligibility criteria remain the same, at 20 points. At or below 20 points, you are eligible to enter JC. The pathway of JC remains intact. I think we need to understand that when cohort sizes fall, it is relentless. It affects everyone. Every pathway will shrink accordingly but, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that it is smaller, it means that we have to put in even more effort to make sure it is more diverse, so that everyone can fulfil their potential.

You look at cinemas now. It is getting smaller and fewer. But each cinema is showing a lot more titles. So, I think it is the same logic. Falling cohort sizes and increasing diversity are not incompatible notions.

4 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider mandating the hours of work and rest for drivers in line with recommendations by the International Labour Organization, such as that of not exceeding nine hours of work daily and a break after four hours of continuous driving.

Madam, we take a holistic approach to ensuring health and safety of all our workers, including drivers. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA), employers are required to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers at work. WSHA also requires employers to provide workers with a safe working environment and adequate instruction, training and supervision to perform their duties safely.

More specifically for drivers, the Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSHC) has issued the Workplace Traffic Safety Management Guidelines to promote safe driving. These include ensuring that drivers are trained adequately to drive specific classes of vehicles and also have the right driving habits, such as wearing of seat belts and keeping within speed limits. The guidelines also provide recommendations on preventing driver's fatigue and promoting good health practices.

For example, limiting shift work to no more than 12 hours, including overtime, encouraging drivers to take short and scheduled breaks, such as 15 minutes of rest for every two hours of driving, and educating drivers on the dangers and symptoms of fatigue. Failure to comply with these guidelines can be used as an aggravating factor against employers in Court in the event of accidents and injuries.

WSHC also shares best practices, case studies and safety messages with industry through the WSH bulletins regularly. Together with the Traffic Police, WSHC also helps high-risk companies to better manage and improve their safety measures for their drivers.

While there are still unfortunate cases of work-related traffic accidents, they are on a downward trend in recent years. The number of drivers or riders killed in work-related traffic accidents has declined from 14 cases in 2013, to five cases in 2016. Nonetheless, one death is still one too many. We will continue to encourage companies to put in place measures to improve the safety and health of their drivers.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Madam, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have one supplementary question. With Singapore's investment in smart cities, innovation, self-driving vehicles and so on, can we not help these drivers by mandating the usage of technologies to enforce theirs and the public's safety?

Madam, I thank the Member for the innovative questions. Together with the Land Transport Authority and Traffic Police, we have been considering the use of suitable technologies if they can help to improve the safety of drivers and other road users. We also examine whether all these technological tools are reliable or affordable. I was told that Traffic Police will be conducting a trial on heavy vehicles this year using this technology called tachograph. A tachograph tracks and records a vehicle's speed and other driving information of the driver. Companies that are involved in the trial will also be able to track their drivers' tachograph records and improve the drivers' driving behaviour. Whether or not we will mandate this will depend on the outcome and the findings of the trial. We will only decide after the trial is completed.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry determine the frequency of its safety inspections of MRT train operators; (b) what is the expected scope of such safety inspections; and (c) whether the Ministry conducts surprise safety inspections on train operators and, if so, where can the results of such inspections be found.

Madam, to foster safe workplaces, employers and workplace occupiers must take full ownership of occupational safety and health standards. They should also take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers. This is enforced under the Workplace Safety and Health Act.

To ensure compliance and uncover unsafe practices for better deterrence, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts about 16,000 inspections every year. However, due to the large number of workplaces in Singapore to inspect, MOM has to take a targeted and risk-based approach in our inspection regime. We focus our inspections on workplaces with higher risk activities, greater safety concerns and the types of workplaces that have a higher number of injuries. In short, more inspections are conducted for higher-risk activities and fewer inspections for lower-risk activities.

Madam, the vast majority of MOM's inspections are surprise inspections. We do not go around and tell people we are going to inspect you when and how. So, it will be a surprise inspection. However, for some inspections, such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) track operations and depots, inspections have to be pre-arranged. This is to avoid disruption to train operations during commuting hours as well as the need to obtain security clearance to enter the train depots and track areas safely.

A typical MOM inspection consists of a three-step procedure: (a) a site walk-through to assess the safety and health conditions of the workplace; (b) discussion with supervisors and workers on the operating procedures; and (c) review of the companies' key safety procedures and protocols. An inspection report of any identified safety lapses will be shared with the companies for remedial actions to be taken. Depending on the severity, we may issue Notices of Non-Compliances, Composition Fines or even Stop Work Orders.

Findings and learning points from the inspections are shared with the industry stakeholders while preserving the confidentiality of the inspected companies. Sharing of the learning points is to create greater awareness and also to enable more companies to adopt safer workplace practices to improve workplace safety and health conditions.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive answers. Just one clarification. In an answer to my colleague hon Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's question last month, MOM said, "Our inspection focus on work at height activities and falling object hazards which were the main causes of workplace fatalities during that period". This is for MOM conducting workplace safety inspections of various train depots. I have also asked about what is the expected scope of such safety inspections.

Can I just clarify with the Minister of State that even the recent incident in March 2016, which did not involve work at height activities and falling objects, will MOM be increasing the scope of inspection for MRT train operators?

I thank the Member for the question, which is a very important one. In the past inspections, the MOM's team actually focused on many areas, including the safety protocols at the workplaces like depots, offices and also include tracks, and things like working at heights, storage of chemicals and some electrical issues. All those inspections had uncovered some lapses.

However, for track operations, they have been found to be quite safe and they did not have any track-related accidents in the last 10 years. Therefore, the focus of the inspections on MRT had been on some other areas which have a higher risk of dangers to workers. That was the reply given to the Member's colleague, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

However, after the March 2016 incident where it was found that the safety operating procedure was not followed strictly, we have stepped up more inspections to focus on this area. In 2016 alone, we had conducted six very in-depth inspections. We believe that, together with the MRT management, we have uncovered some unauthorised deviations from the safety procedures. From all these additional inspections, we believe that it will help to increase the safety standards in MRT operations.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will (i) consider defining domestic workers' duties and job scopes, (ii) require specialised training for domestic workers asked to perform caregiving work, (iii) link the reference channel comments by employers to the defined duties and allow domestic workers to respond to the comments in line with human resource management best practices.

Madam, I am afraid I have to answer that question. It is me again. The role of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore is already defined in our laws. The Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations stipulates that FDWs can only perform household and domestic duties. However, it is not practical to detail every task for every household as doing so would be overly prescriptive and impractical as the needs vary vastly across households.

A growing number of employers employ FDWs to assist in caring for children, sick or elderly family members. It is in the interest of employers to ensure their FDWs have the skills or are trained to perform caregiving tasks that require special training, for instance, tube feeding, in light of the dangers involved if the caregiver is not trained. Employers should ensure that the FDWs are properly trained and are comfortable with performing the task before entrusting them with the task.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care have worked with providers to put in place training courses for caregivers. In addition, MOH provides a Caregivers' Training Grant for caregivers of seniors and persons with disabilities, including FDWs, to attend approved training courses to better equip themselves.

The reference channel does not allow anyone, whether employer or FDW, to post comments. The reference channel only provides an option for employers to leave their contact details and make themselves available to provide personal references for their FDWs. A prospective employer who wishes to find out more about the FDW has to contact the former employer directly to perform the reference check. In a similar vein, the prospective employer can also interview the FDW directly to hear her side of the story before making a hiring decision.

7 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry doing to reduce the waiting time for dental treatment at polyclinics; (b) whether appointments for diagnosis and treatment can be made together with closer intervals; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider getting private practitioners onboard to relieve the manpower shortage.

Mdm Speaker, dental attendances in our polyclinics have been growing, from 149,000 in 2013 to 179,000 in 2016. Our polyclinics have expanded dental capacity, reviewed work processes and introduced measures to improve waiting times. We will continue to expand capacity to address the increasing demand for dental services. This includes building more dental facilities in the upcoming new polyclinics, such as Punggol Polyclinic, as well as expanding existing polyclinic dental facilities.

The introduction of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) in 2012 has also improved the accessibility of subsidised primary dental care through private dental clinics. Today, there are over 700 private dental clinics participating in CHAS, an increase from 290 in 2012. In 2016, there were over 500,000 subsidised dental attendances at CHAS dental clinics. Polyclinics also inform patients about availability of CHAS dental clinics, where eligible patients can also access primary dental care if they choose to do so.

Patients assessed to require immediate treatment can be attended to immediately. Most dental conditions are diagnosed and treated at the same sitting. However, a minority of patients require additional appointments for more extensive treatments. In such cases, when the next appointment is scheduled will depend on the urgency of the situation.

We will continue to monitor and meet the primary dental care needs of Singaporeans through both our polyclinics and CHAS dental clinics.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mdm Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. I was told by my residents that National Dental Centre Singapore is very shorthanded and the waiting time can be more than a year. I think a year is a little bit too long, and this is very concerning for many Singaporeans. I would like to ask what more can be done in order to shorten this period.

The second question is: can residents seek treatment at the existing dental clinics, for example, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and Changi Hospital? Or are they now designated as private dental clinics?

Third question: do the dental clinic at polyclinics provide specialised dental treatment, such as root canal treatment?

I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary questions. Only dental conditions that require specialist dental care will be referred for management at the national specialty centres.

With regard to the long waiting time at the Dental Centre Singapore, we are currently expanding and upgrading our specialty centres. The new National Dental Centre Singapore will be expanded as part of the overall Outram campus plan which will be redeveloped in phases. In addition, the National University Hospital (NUH) Dental Centre has also started accepting specialty referrals. So, not only just the National Dental Centre, the NUH Dental Centre does accept specialty referrals as well. In addition, the NUH National University Centre for Oral Health will be completed in 2019 and this will also increase the capacity of managing these patients.

Since 2011, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has put in place measures to offer root canal treatments, dentures, crowns and bridges at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital at subsidised rates limited to polyclinic referrals only. Er Dr Lee also mentioned about whether such subsidised cases can be provided at the other hospitals. In fact, MOH takes reference from recommendations on national dental services strategy, and subsidised specialist dental care is only provided at designated national dental specialty centres, which include the National Dental Centre Singapore, NUH Dental Centre and some in Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. The reason for this is that it allows consolidation of manpower as well as specialty resources for the provision of these specialty services. At the same time, we also provide training opportunities for dental students as well as specialist training.

Er Dr Lee.

I have a resident who has been receiving treatment at Ng Teng Fong General Hospital but then, lately, he was told that he cannot go there anymore because now it is designated as a private dental clinic. Is this true?

In fact, all dental services in other hospitals other than what I have described are to provide private dental specialty services to patients. I have mentioned the reasons: to consolidate manpower resources at the three designated centres and, at the same time, provide opportunities for training of our dental specialists.

8 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) from 2013-2016, what is the number of cases referred from the polyclinics to the Accident and Emergency departments (A&E) of the public hospitals; (b) how many of the referred cases are due to simple procedures that cannot be performed at the polyclinics; and (c) what are the reasons that those simple procedures must be referred to A&E.

Mdm Speaker, the numbers of cases referred from polyclinics to Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments at public hospitals were 55,000 in 2014, 57,000 in 2015 and 64,000 in 2016. Comparable figures for 2013 are not readily available.

The proportion of such referrals to total polyclinic attendances has been fairly small and constant at about 1% in each of the three years. Likewise, the proportion of such cases to total A&E attendances has been quite small and stable at about 4% over the same period.

We do not have statistics on how many of such referrals are for procedures that cannot be performed at the polyclinics. Today, polyclinics are able to attend to patients requiring minor procedures if the condition can be appropriately managed at a primary care setting. Patients with high-risk factors, or patients presenting with conditions that require more specialised assessments, treatments or monitoring would, however, need to be referred to a hospital's specialist outpatient clinic. Patients who require such services on an immediate basis may be referred to the hospital's A&E.

The Ministry of Health will continue to work with the polyclinics to build up capabilities to offer more treatments and procedures to Singaporeans at primary care settings.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Madam, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is whether there is a list of these simple or minor procedures that is available at the different polyclinics and can that be made available to the public. The second one is: if the patient goes to the polyclinic and the situation is not an emergency, can they not be referred to A&E but given the option to visit or consult a specialist at a public hospital on a later date for the procedures?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Member for the two supplementary questions. The answer to the first supplementary question is yes, the polyclinics do publish a list of minor surgical procedures that they are able to perform in the polyclinics and this information is available on the SingHealth polyclinics' as well as the National Healthcare Group polyclinics' websites. However, I would like to qualify that these minor surgical procedures may not be available in every polyclinic every day due to infrastructure and manpower constraints. Moving forward, all the new polyclinics that will be developed will have dedicated space catered for minor surgical procedures.

As to Miss Cheryl Chan's second supplementary question, today, polyclinics would conduct the necessary triage and assessment process to ensure that only urgent cases are referred to A&E. In fact, we do not encourage polyclinic doctors to refer non-urgent cases to A&E. Non-urgent cases should preferably be referred to the Specialist Outpatient Clinics instead. We have noted Miss Cheryl Chan's feedback and will continue to work with the polyclinics to ensure that patients are referred appropriately to the right care settings, taking into consideration accessibility and affordability for the patients.

9 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development since 2016 (a) whether there has been an increase in the number of BTO flat owners asking to delay the collection of keys or for a waiver of payment of holding interest because of difficulties in selling their existing property and, if so, what is the increase; (b) how many of such owners have had to cancel their BTO flats and forfeit deposits despite HDB exercising flexibility; and (c) what are the top reasons for those whom HDB have been unable to assist in such situations.

Madam, between 2016 and the first quarter of 2017, less than 2% of Build-To-Order (BTO) flat buyers invited by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to collect keys to their booked flats had asked for a deferment due to difficulties in selling their existing flats. Over this period, we have not observed an increasing trend in the proportion of such cases.

For these buyers, HDB already exercises flexibility and grant a reasonable time extension. The vast majority were able to sell their existing flats and complete the new flat purchase. However, a minority, or 45 buyers in particular, eventually opted to cancel their new flat bookings, pay the forfeiture and continue living in their existing flats. The main reasons for their cancellations include changes to the buyers' overall financial circumstances or they no longer wished to proceed with the new flat purchase for their own personal reasons.

Flat buyers are advised to exercise prudence in their flat purchase. If they plan to finance the new flat purchase with the sales proceeds from their existing flat, they should take into account possible changes in market conditions which may affect their plans and be realistic in their asking prices. In addition, they can make use of HDB's regular updates on the Probable Completion Date of their new flats to plan the sale of their existing flat.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

I thank the Minister for the explanation and clarification. Two things. I just want to clarify whether 2% of the total number of flat applications is against the total number or is it just those who purchase from a resale flat before. A number of cases I have come across were that they were all caught because of the slow resale market right now. Some have difficulty paying the cash that they have to top up. Is there a possibility for HDB to exercise more leniency because I understand that sometimes the holding costs are quite high, at a few hundred dollars? At the same time, can we also protect buyers through better credit modelling, knowing that the market could tank after a certain period because BTO flats do take some time to complete?

Madam, to clarify, the 2% refers to this: over the course of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017, we invited several thousand people to collect their keys for their new BTO flats. Two percent of the people we invited to collect their keys appealed to defer their key collection. And of that number who appealed to defer their key collection, 45 eventually opted to cancel their new flat bookings. So, that is to clarify on the statistics.

On the assistance we can provide to such people who are in difficulties, on a case-by-case basis, in fact, as I have mentioned, HDB already exercises flexibility and grants time extension. For the most part, most of them are able to sell their flats and then complete their new flat purchase transaction, but there is that minority who chose not to. Even for that minority who chose not to, if there are financial hardships, we can look at the particular case at hand and waive the forfeiture that they have to pay.

10 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons given by applicants for rental flats in the past 10 years; (b) what is the number of applicants for each reason; (c) how many of them have ultimately managed to find their own flat to upgrade and returned the rental flat; and (d) what is the current number of rental flats as compared with the total number of HDB flats.

Madam, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental flats cater to households with no viable housing options or family support. In the last 10 years, an average of 3,000 households a year were successful in their applications for rental flats. Of these, an average of 2,600 households a year decided to move into HDB rental flats, with the remainder cancelling their rental request, for example, because they have found alternative housing options.

Households request for rental flats for a variety of reasons, such as inability to afford a flat, perhaps it is a divorce, loss of employment or medical issues. It will be difficult and not meaningful to break down rental requests by reason, as a household may have multiple overlapping reasons for an application for a public rental flat.

Of these households, about 1,600 have returned their rental flats to HDB and now have their own home ownership flats.

There are about a million HDB flats, of which about 56,000 are rental flats, comprising a mix of 1- and 2-room apartments.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. May I know whether HDB would consider allowing them to buy over their existing rental flats?

Madam, is the Member asking about whether existing rental tenants can convert their rental flat into a home-owned one?

Yes.

In the past, we do have such a scheme. Today, we are hoping to encourage them to move on to, say, an established 2-room flexi flat so that we can keep the rental stock for other needy tenants.

11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last 10 years, what is the percentage change in the number of HDB flats, private flats and landed properties in relation to the total number of dwelling units in Singapore; and (b) what is the projected proportion of HDB flats to non-HDB flats for 2020.

Madam, between 2006 and 2016, the number of HDB flats increased from 880,000 to 1,011,000 units. The number of private properties, inclusive of landed properties, increased from 243,000 to 372,000 units.

Consequently, the proportion of HDB flats out of the total dwelling units in Singapore decreased from 78% to 73%, while the proportion of private properties increased from 22% to 27%. This is between the period of 2006 and 2016.

Over the coming years, the proportion of HDB flats to non-HDB flats is projected to remain stable. Our projections are that in 2020, the proportion of HDB flats out of the total dwelling units in Singapore will remain at around 72%.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Minister for the reply. Would the Minister consider keeping this ratio for the long term? I understand it used to be 80:20; now, it seems to be 70%-72%. So, is there a threshold that the Government would consider to maintain for this ratio, this proportion?

Madam, I should clarify that the ratio I indicated earlier refers to the ratio of dwelling units, not the proportion of households who live in public housing. The proportion of households who live in public housing remains at 80% today. But the physical dwelling units, as I mentioned earlier, over that period of 2006 and 2016, have varied − more private housing and, therefore, the proportion decreased from 78% of public housing dwelling units to 72%.

As I have mentioned, over the next few years, we think that this will remain stable. In the longer term, how will this vary? I think it is very hard to project what demographic trends there will be. But our commitment, clearly, is to make sure that we continue to provide stable and affordable public housing for Singaporeans.

12 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will consider implementing a compulsory induction/orientation programme covering topics, such as basic laws, social norms and security awareness, for foreigners who are residing in Singapore for a longer period, such as those on work pass, Long-term Pass, Dependant Pass and Student Pass, so as to better integrate them into the local community.

Mdm Speaker, there are a number of programmes and initiatives that seek to better integrate foreigners working or living in Singapore with the local community.

For example, upon their arrival in Singapore, all new Work Permit holders receive guidebooks that cover Singapore laws, employment regulations and social norms. In addition, all new foreign domestic workers (FDWs) attend a Settling-in Programme, and new foreign workers from the Construction, Marine, Process and Metalworking sectors attend Safety Orientation Courses, both of which cover aspects of Singapore laws and our social norms. Annually, these compulsory programmes cover close to two-thirds of all new Work Permit holders coming to Singapore.

Other pass holders can easily access online resources that help them appreciate local laws and norms. In addition, the National Integration Council also partners the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) to offer the Workplace Integration Programme which provides training on supervising multicultural teams.

Our schools, polytechnics and autonomous universities also organise numerous activities that facilitate integration of international students in our educational institutes. These include orientation programmes, buddy schemes and host family programmes. Through the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum in schools, foreign students also learn about our values and norms.

Security awareness is equally important for locals and foreigners. Through activities in the neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces, the aim is to promote widespread awareness and vigilance among all residents, both local and foreign.

The various onboarding programmes have helped foreigners better understand and adjust to living in a multicultural, multiracial and multi-religious Singapore. However, integration takes time and cannot be achieved through one-off programmes. We will need the continued support of Singaporeans and foreigners across all parts of society to work together to foster social cohesion and integration.

13 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister whether there are plans to encourage the use of financial technology (fintech) in our financial institutions given that 73% of traditional financial institutions in Singapore believe they are at risk of losing business to fintech.

Financial technology (fintech) is transforming the financial services industry in an unprecedented way. Disruption is happening and gathering pace. A growing number of fintech players are offering a range of financial services, either to take over business from financial institutions or to work together with them.

But financial institutions in Singapore are not sitting still. They have been investing heavily in developing their own fintech capabilities. At the same time, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has been strongly supporting the development of fintech and is regarded internationally as one of the most progressive regulators in this aspect. In 2015, MAS laid out a vision for a Smart Financial Centre, where innovation is pervasive and technology is widely used.

MAS does not have to choose between financial institutions and new fintech players. We take an even-handed approach, encouraging established and new players to compete, collaborate and innovate. There is a natural synergy here: fintech solutions present financial institutions with opportunities to enhance their product offerings, while collaboration with financial institutions enables fintech players to broaden their reach. In this regard, MAS promotes fintech in two broad ways.

First, update policies and provide regulation that is conducive to innovation. For example, last year, MAS issued new guidelines on the use of cloud computing services by financial institutions to give them confidence to adopt new fintech solutions hosted on the cloud. MAS has also introduced a regulatory sandbox for financial institutions and fintech players to experiment with new technologies while limiting the potential consequences of product failure.

Second, facilitate and encourage innovation and collaboration between financial institutions and fintech players. Last year, Singapore staged the world's largest Fintech Festival. Fintech companies around the world, and in Singapore, participated actively, because they wanted to collaborate with established financial institutions. Today, more than 20 global financial institutions have set up innovation labs or research centres here, specialising in areas, such as data science, machine learning, user experience and design thinking.

As our financial institutions harness new technologies to improve their services, it is important to ensure that our financial sector workforce is building competencies in tandem with these changes.

MAS is working closely with the Institutes of Higher Learning to shape curriculum and engender greater alignment between what is being taught in the institutes and the skills needed by the financial industry.

The industry is cognisant of the need for skills upgrading, too. The Financial Information Technology Academy has developed a digital transformation programme for mid-career professionals that includes topics, such as data analytics and agile development. The Institute of Banking and Finance (IBF) will also be offering new learning modules on data science, human-centric design, agile thinking and cybersecurity awareness.

Through the Financial Training Scheme and IBF Standards Training Scheme, MAS provides funding to support professionals in acquiring specific expertise and competencies in the financial sector. There are also schemes within the TechSkills Accelerator, an initiative driven by Infocomm Media Development Authority, which provides support for employers to develop their existing employees in the relevant information and communications technology skills.

What I have outlined today are just some of the examples of what is being done to embrace technology in the financial sector and enhance collaboration with fintech players. Financial institutions in Singapore are making good progress in fostering a culture of innovation and a spirit of enterprise.

14 Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what are the major factors preventing a large-scale adoption of digital ordering and cashless payment systems for small food stalls, such as those in coffee shops and hawker centres; and (b) how will the Food Services Industry Transformation Map push for greater use of such labour-saving technologies by this type of small businesses.

One of the focus areas of the Food Services Industry Transformation Map (ITM) launched last September is to reduce the industry's reliance on manpower. The use of digital services like digital ordering and cashless payments will help us achieve this.

As of March 2017, approximately 1,400 food outlets, or 20% of all establishments, have adopted some form of digital services. Most have done so recently, and we will actively encourage more to do so.

The key factors affecting the take-up of digital solutions are, first, habit; second, the cost of adoption; and third, the fact that many digital payment systems are currently not interoperable. We believe that all three factors can be addressed.

First, for greater convenience of use, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), along with other agencies, is working with payment service providers to make essential payment modes available in a single device.

Second, both the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) provide grants to offset the costs to stallholders of adopting digital service solutions. NEA is also progressively rolling out cashless payments infrastructure at hawker centres. At the same time, SPRING and NEA are working with MAS to study how to lower the cost of digital service systems by using models which do not require separate equipment or which use existing equipment. This could include the use of Quick Response (QR) codes for payment.

Third, we are looking to directly promote adoption. Last year, the Government launched two tenders for productive coffee shops in Tampines and Choa Chu Kang, which included productivity considerations in their requirements. More productive coffee shops will be launched, and we have set a target to have 100 of these by 2020.

Through all of these initiatives, our goal is to achieve 50% adoption rate of digital services across all food and beverage outlets by 2020.

15 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) whether the Ministry is tracking the recent slew of price increase announcements, such as water, electricity, transport and carpark charges, and its impact on the cost of living within a short period; (b) what is the expected impact on the Consumer Price Index in the next three years; and (c) what proportion is due to Government-influenced price increases.

Mdm Speaker, both the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) closely monitor external and domestic price developments, including movements in global oil prices and administrative price adjustments, as well as their impact on inflation in Singapore. For 2017, MTI and MAS have projected that the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All Items inflation will pick up to 0.5% to 1.5%, from -0.5% in 2016.

The main driver of the pickup in inflation in 2017 is the expected increase in the prices of electricity and other energy-related components, such as petrol, on the back of a projected rise in global oil prices. In particular, following a sustained period of decline, global oil prices started to pick up in the second quarter of 2016 and are expected to average higher in 2017. In line with this, the electricity tariff, which is pegged to prevailing gas prices that are, in turn, indexed to the global oil prices, reversed its downward trend to post an increase in the third quarter of 2016 and is generally expected to be higher in the coming quarters as compared to last year.

However, notwithstanding the increase, it should be noted that the current tariff remains around 17% lower than the peak that was reached in the second quarter of 2014. Beyond 2017, the extent to which electricity tariff and other energy-related components will contribute to inflation in 2018 and 2019 will depend on the movement in global oil prices then.

At the same time, administrative price adjustments, including the increases in water tariff and car park charges, will also contribute to a temporary increase in inflation, although I must say the impact is expected to be small. MTI estimates that the various administrative price adjustments will collectively contribute around 0.2 percentage point to inflation in 2017.

Going forward, the Government will continue to closely monitor the impact of administrative price adjustments and other price developments in the economy on households.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. Many of my residents are concerned because there has been a slew of Government announcements of price increases ranging from car park to water and, recently, on energy as well.

How can the Government help assure citizens that the impact of such Government-influenced prices will not impact long-term sustainability in terms of affordability and cost of living? I just want to check that for the 0.2%, is that after or before the Government transfers to help subsidise short-term increases, because there is a long-term implication as well, if we keep doing that.

Second, I would like to check: does the Ministry proactively monitor this and coordinate with agencies so that we can also smoothen − in anticipation of some of these potential increases that we know of, for example, the energy prices the Senior Minister of State mentioned − some of these increases as well to make it more affordable for citizens?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to reassure the Member that the Government does take this seriously and is monitoring. We will, as far as possible, smoothen out some of these increases, wherever possible. The difficulty, of course, is that oil prices and gas prices are not really within our control and we have to adjust as and when these prices start to fluctuate globally.

On the question about whether the 0.2 percentage-point increase includes some of the rebates and Government subsidies, the answer is no. Let me just explain this. There are a few ways we can help to offset some of these. One, of course, is to stagger the price increases, and as Members would remember, the water tariffs are increased over two tranches: the first tranche will be in July this year, and the next increment will be in July next year. It is broken up into two phases to offset the steepness of the increase.

The U-Save rebates are not taken into account in the CPI calculations, as these are actually given to households as a lump sum to be utilised over a few months. The rebates are treated as some form of income transfer. They do not directly reduce the price of the individual product per se, such as the water tariff, for example. Therefore, they do not get calculated as part of the CPI adjustments. Therefore, when you look at the top-line adjustments for CPI, bear in mind that hidden behind it, there is also some form of U-Save rebates, for example, that are not captured in the adjustment. So, for households that receive rebates, the impact for them will be much less than what is reported.

Mr Leon Perera.

Just a few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

Can I clarify the expected inflation rates of 0.5% to 1.5% that the Senior Minister of State indicated? Is that overall inflation or core inflation? And if it is overall, could he share the outlook for core inflation?

Next, on the analysis for the causes of the inflation and the contribution of the Government administrative charges, will that be the same for overall inflation, as opposed to core inflation and, as such, is playing a greater role for core inflation?

Mdm Speaker, the numbers that I gave earlier on the increase of 0.5% to 1.5% are actually CPI-All Items inflation. I do not have the numbers for core inflation that the Member is asking for.

16 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) over the past three years, whether there is an increasing trend of eateries that have been ordered to shut down or suspend operations due to violations of the Environmental Public Health Act; and (b) what are the preventive measures that NEA will put in place to improve the compliance level of eateries with the Act.

17 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the trend of food hygiene at food courts; (b) what are some of the contributing factors to poor food hygiene in these food courts; and (c) whether there are plans to tighten their general cleanliness and hygiene given the reports of cockroach and rat problems at some food courts.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 16 and 17 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. The National Environment Agency (NEA) currently licenses more than 37,000 food retail establishments, including restaurants, food kiosks, caterers and food stalls within hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts, to ensure that the food sold is prepared hygienically and safe for consumption.

NEA conducts regular inspections of food retail establishments to ensure compliance with hygiene standards and takes enforcement actions against establishments that do not practise proper food hygiene. Common hygiene-related infringements include failing to register food handlers, selling food that is unclean and failing to keep the premises clean or free of pest infestation. Licensees are liable for a maximum fine of $2,000 upon conviction of such offences. They are also awarded demerit points for each offence committed and, upon accumulating 12 demerit points within a 12-month period, their licences will be suspended for two weeks as an additional penalty. Recalcitrant licensees may have their licences cancelled.

In 2016, NEA carried out more than 148,000 inspections and over 3,200 enforcement actions were taken against food retail establishments, an increase from around 2,500 in 2013. About a third of the enforcement actions were taken against stalls in food courts, coffee shops or canteens. Correspondingly, the number of licences that were suspended increased from 62 in 2013 to 132 in 2016. Of the 132 licences suspended in 2016, 60 involved stalls in food courts, coffee shops and canteens, up from 14 in 2013.

Meanwhile, the food poisoning incidence rate at food retail establishments had remained low, being consistently maintained at 3.2 food poisoning outbreaks per 1,000 food retail establishments or below since 2013. This means that 0.32% or less of the food retail establishments were implicated in food poisoning outbreaks each year. This suggests that the systems put in place were effective deterrents against poor food hygiene practices. Nonetheless, we cannot be complacent and must continue to maintain our strict stance on food safety.

NEA has implemented programmes, such as the Food Hygiene Officer (FHO) Scheme for restaurants, food courts, school canteens and caterers and the Food Safety Management System (FSMS) for caterers. These programmes are aimed at ensuring that operators of food retail establishments put in place preventive measures to maintain a high standard of food and personal hygiene among food handlers, as well as to upkeep the cleanliness of the premises.

NEA officers educate operators on proper food hygiene practices during inspections. In addition, NEA carries out outreach and educational programmes, such as the "My Eatery Shines" programme in the South-West District and the "Good Refuse Management in Food Shops" and "CLEAN Food Everyday − Food Caterers" programmes in the North-West District. Through these programmes, NEA works with operators and stall owners to improve their cleaning and refuse management regimes and partners the grassroots organisations to educate the public on keeping food shops clean.

Members of the public can check the individual food retail establishments' hygiene records and suspension records by visiting our NEA website, using the myENV mobile application or scanning the Quick Response (QR) code on the licences displayed at the food retail establishments. Members of the public who come across poor hygiene practices in food retail establishments can contact our NEA's 24-hour Call Centre to provide information for NEA's investigation.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, would NEA consider arranging some form of compulsory training for stallholders and eatery operators to help improve the overall compliance with public health standards?

Secondly, given the role of the supporting staff in an eatery, would NEA consider making it mandatory for all workers in an eatery to have basic public health training? So, including the cleaning crew and those collecting the plates so that they understand the very key role that each team member has in protecting public health.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question and suggestion. First, NEA currently requires all food handlers, that is, those who prepare or handle food, to attend and pass a basic food hygiene course, as well as a refresher course to ensure sustained awareness of food hygiene practices. So, the basic food hygiene course will have courses on personal and food hygiene, proper food storage, upkeep of cleanliness of the premises and so on.

But in addition to this, NEA also regularly sends advisories as well as collaterals, like posters and stickers, to our food retail establishments, which they can then use as informational materials for their workers. Additionally, we also regularly conduct sharing, briefing sessions as well as provide newsletters to all our stakeholders, including the licensees as well as the food and beverage (F&B) associations on food hygiene practices as well as prevailing hygiene situations and so on in that industry. Again, this can be shared, not just with the operators but also with all their workers.

Additionally, as I have said earlier, we have an FHO scheme, and restaurants of a certain size as well as food courts, canteens, caterers, are required to appoint a senior staff, a supervisor or operations manager, and even the sous chef, to be trained and appointed as FHOs so that they are responsible for implementing and ensuring good food hygiene practices as well as supervision, and ensuring that their other workers also comply.

In addition, when we consider if we should mandate all workers in the food retail establishments to be trained under the Basic Food Hygiene Course (BFHC), we need to take into consideration several factors like the practicality of doing it, the effectiveness as well as the possible impact on business cost. Given the nature of the F&B industry, with high turnover, and a large number of part-time or temporary workers, it will be a challenge to require all workers to do this, not to add that there will be impact on business cost. In fact, mandating that all their food handlers must be trained under BFHC and registered before they can start work is already raised as a pain point by the F&B industry although we need to ensure that this is complied with. One of the key infringements is using unregistered food handlers.

At this point, our view is that it is not necessary to register or mandate BFHC for all other workers, except the food handlers, where there is really no direct impact on food safety as well as public health. But notwithstanding this, let me say that we will continue to ensure that we enforce strictly on infringements.

Mr Melvin Yong.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. My supplementary question relates to the cleaning arrangements at our food centres. My understanding is that table cleaning is often managed by NEA, while the cleaning of the floor is often by the Town Councils. Because of that, sometimes I hear feedback from the residents that those cleaning the tables would just sweep the items onto the floor because it is a different set of cleaners. Would NEA consider reviewing such arrangements?

Again, I thank the Member for the question and suggestion. Let me say that if the hawker centre is managed by NEA and it is not HDB-owned, the hawkers' association will work together with us in terms of procuring the cleaning contractors and ensuring the cleanliness of the area and so on.

What the Member is referring to is when it is HDB-owned and the Town Council is in charge of the common areas, including the hawker centres, and then the cleaning is procured by the hawkers' association. NEA will assist in the coordination and work closely with the Town Councils as well as the hawkers' associations to address challenges if there are two different contractors. In relation, say, in the case of a food court, which was the original question filed by the Member, then there would not be this issue.

But having said that, as I have noted, we know that every infringement is one infringement too many because it concerns food safety and public health and, therefore, we will continue to look at ways to tackle this and prevent such occurrences.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Just one more question to the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her explanation about the training process and how it is continually being improved. If not already done so, could the training also involve descriptions and updates of case studies of previous outbreaks so as to both build awareness and vigilance among trainees to avoid repeating the same mistakes?

I thank the Member for his suggestion. I would assume that under the syllabus when the lecturers do this training, that could have already been shared. But having said that, I think that it is a good idea and I will make sure this is part of the training sessions and sharings.

18 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) for the past five years, how many instances of Internet disruption lasting more than three hours have there been; (b) of these, many cases have been due to cable cuts; (c) how many users have been affected by the latest cable-cut incident in Jurong on 12 April 2017; (d) what are the lessons learnt from the latest cable-cut incident; and (e) what are the measures that IMDA have taken to prevent a repeat.

Mdm Speaker, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of any service disruptions to public telecommunications services. IMDA has put in place strict regulatory requirements to prevent such disruptions and ensure quick service recovery when disruptions occur. Based on reports made to IMDA under its Outage Reporting Code, 26 Internet disruptions lasting more than three hours have been reported since 2013. Of these, 14 were caused by cable cuts.

Madam, the cable cut incident on 11 April 2017 affected about 3,800 subscribers. Services were progressively restored over 28 hours. This incident was caused by construction works undertaken by several contractors involved in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) project in the Jurong area. IMDA's investigation is ongoing. Thus, it would be premature to share any conclusions or lessons learnt at this time.

Investigations into past cable cut incidents revealed that most incidents occurred because contractors did not follow established standard operating procedures (SOPs). These contractors were also not careful and failed to exercise due diligence when undertaking earthworks. So, to overcome these problems, IMDA has been carrying out regular dialogue sessions with relevant Government agencies and their contractors on preventive measures. IMDA has also circulated "Dos and Don'ts" in multiple languages at worksites to alert workers on the need to exercise due care and caution when carrying out earthworks.

Madam, cable cut incidents impose significant costs on operators, consumers and businesses. I am told that the telecommunications companies' (telcos') repair costs alone can sometimes exceed half a million dollars. These costs exclude those incurred by consumers and businesses. IMDA will continue to work closely with all parties involved to ensure that the number of such cable cut incidents is minimised.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Minister for the reply. Would the Minister consider asking the companies that caused the cable cut to also compensate the Internet users who are affected by these kinds of incidents?

Madam, to begin with, the company responsible for the cable cut will be investigated by IMDA and, if found guilty, will be prosecuted. As to whether the company wants to do a gesture of goodwill, it is up to them.

Mr Leon Perera. Keep it very short; we are running out of time.

Just a brief supplementary question. Thank you, Madam. Does the Minister have any data on how well Singapore is doing compared to other developed countries in terms of frequency and extent of Internet disruption? And if there is no metric that is currently being tracked, would the Minister consider tracking and publishing that in future?

I thank the Member. I do not have the answers. I am not too sure whether there is such a global metric. But by all accounts, in terms of connectivity, we are doing quite alright. In terms of availability, that is something we have to look at. At this point in time, there is a demand for faster and better connectivity for the Internet. I will take the Member's point and see what we can do.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction and First Reading of Bills.

[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.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 186 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (Mr Ong Ye Kung); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to provide for the establishment of a Home Team Corps comprising the National Police Cadet Corps and the National Civil Defence Cadet Corps, to repeal the National Police Cadet Corps Act (Chapter 199 of the 2014 Revised Edition), and for matters connected with that", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That under Standing Order 10(2), the Motion on Amendment of Standing Orders be taken before item No 1 of the Orders of the Day at this day's Sitting".

The Motion standing in my name concerns the rules and procedures of the House and I think it is appropriate that we should take it before the other items of business today.

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That under Standing Order 10(2), the Motion on Amendment of Standing Orders be taken before item No 1 of the Orders of the Day at this day's Sitting". (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee (Paper Parl 6 of 2017) be hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament".

Mdm Speaker, in March this year, Parliament directed the Standing Orders Committee to consider and make recommendations on amendments to the Standing Orders. The Committee was asked to look at (a) amendments arising from the constitutional amendments that we passed last year; and (b) updates to the Standing Orders more generally. In the process, the Committee considered submissions made by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun and accepted them where appropriate.

The Committee, comprising both Government and Opposition Members of Parliament, has completed its deliberations and unanimously agreed on a report. The report has been presented to Parliament. I thank the Members of the Committee for their work. I would also like to thank you, Mdm Speaker, for presiding over the Committee's deliberations with your usual fairness and efficiency. The Government agrees with the recommendations of the Committee and commends them to the House.

In my speech today, I will first take the House through the key recommendations made by the Committee; and, second, respond to some of the issues that were raised to the Committee.

First, recommendations related to the Elected Presidency. The Committee made two key recommendations arising from the constitutional amendments that we passed last year.

The first recommendation is for Parliament to be kept informed if the President fails to exercise his custodial powers on a measure passed by Parliament within the time limits prescribed by the Constitution. Such measures include Supply Bills and resolutions on certain guarantees and loans. The recommendation is for the Clerk to publish a notice in the Hansard and the Gazette if the President does not signify his decision on such measures within the prescribed time limit. Under the Constitution, if the President fails to make a decision within the prescribed time limit, he is deemed to have agreed with the proposed measure.

The second recommendation concerns Parliament's power to overrule the President if he exercises a veto contrary to the recommendation of the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA). The Committee has recommended that procedural machinery be put in place for this purpose. The procedures will provide that (a) the President's grounds and the CPA's recommendation must be made available two clear days before a Motion to overrule the President can be moved; (b) the Speaker must be satisfied that the President's veto was, in fact, contrary to the CPA's recommendation, as required by the Constitution; and (c) there is to be a standard form of words for Motions to overrule the President.

The Committee also made a number of recommendations relating to Bill procedure.

First, notice of amendments should be increased from two clear days to four clear days. A clear day is basically a full working day. The increased notice applies to both Government and backbench amendments and will give Members more time to consider amendments.

Second, the minimum interval between the First and Second Reading of a Bill should be increased from seven clear days to 10 clear days. In effect, this means at least two weeks must pass between the First and Second Reading of a Bill. The increased interval would avoid situations where Bills come up for Second Reading too quickly because the House is sitting for an extended period, for example, during the Budget Debates. In practice, the interval between First and Second Readings would generally be longer − Bills introduced are generally debated only at the next month's Sitting.

Third, the Second Reading of Supply Bills can be taken immediately after the end of Committee of Supply (COS) proceedings, even if the usual interval between the First and Second Reading have not elapsed. The heads of expenditure in a Supply Bill would have been fully debated by the House during the COS proceedings, and it makes more sense for the House to go to the Second Reading immediately after COS proceedings are completed, instead of diverting to some other business, or adjourning the Sitting and coming back to the Supply Bill later.

On petitions, the Committee recommended that Parliament should be able to consider a Petition together with a Motion or Bill. This would avoid a situation where a Petition on a Bill or Motion is still being considered by the Public Petitions Committee even though the Bill or Motion has already been dealt with by Parliament.

The Committee also made a number of miscellaneous recommendations to improve Parliamentary procedure. I outline the key recommendations.

First, a Member whose question has not been answered during Question Time should indicate within one hour after Question Time whether he wishes to postpone his question. This is to facilitate the work of the Clerks, who have to circulate written answers to Members who choose not to postpone their questions.

Second, a Member should be able to record an abstention in a voice vote. Currently, the Standing Orders only permit dissents to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Third, there should be a procedure for officeholders to correct any factual errors they make in a Parliamentary speech. The correction would be made by a written statement circulated to Members and published in the Hansard. The Speaker's leave must be sought within 72 hours after the draft Hansard is circulated. This procedure would ensure that factual errors on important policies and legislation in a speech are swiftly corrected, instead of having to wait until the next available Sitting to make an explanation.

Fourth, the Speaker should be able to order reprints of the Standing Orders. The powers she would have in this regard are similar to those exercised by the Law Revision Commissioners for statute law. Many parts of the Standing Orders are drafted in very archaic styles and would benefit from some revision. Of course, a reprint cannot make substantive changes to the Standing Orders. Such changes would still have to be approved by Parliament.

The Committee also received feedback and suggestions from Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun. I thank the two Members for their suggestions, which raise important issues. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the Committee's response, and add some observations of my own.

It was suggested that Government Bills should be introduced together with Ministerial Statements providing key information on the Bill. On this specific suggestion, the Committee did not think it was necessary. If a Bill is introduced with a Ministerial Statement, any clarifications that may be sought by Members on the Ministerial Statement and the Minister's subsequent responses may pre-empt the Second Reading debate. It is better that all the speeches and arguments be kept to the Second Reading debate.

But I appreciate the broader point that Members need information on Bills. May I suggest some ways in which Members can get the necessary information.

Every Bill comes with an Explanatory Statement, which will provide information on what the provisions do and the broad purposes of the Bill. To some extent, the statement is technical in nature, because it has to explain the legal provisions accurately. But as far as possible, the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) will draft the statement in plain English and in an accessible way. I encourage Members to read the statement for more information on the Bill.

For amendment Bills, I would like to inform the House that the law drafters at AGC will commence on a project in July to make available tracked amendments against the main Act. A soft copy of the tracked changes will be made available on the Members' portal. The authoritative version of the Bill will still be in today's format, but the tracked changes should make things simpler for Members who wish to go into the legislative detail. AGC will review the usefulness of this facility before making it a permanent arrangement.

Beyond the Bill itself, the general practice of Ministries is to release a press statement or fact sheet, which will contain more information about the policy background to the Bill.

And, at the end of the day, if a Member needs more information on a Bill that has been introduced, he or she can approach the relevant officeholder, before the Second Reading debate. I know my colleagues on the front bench will be happy to engage any Member before the debate to hear their concerns.

The Standing Orders Committee was also asked to consider having Standing Select Committees to consider specific issues.

Mdm Speaker, the Standing Orders already provide a number of avenues for Members to take the initiative in raising issues for Parliament's consideration. These avenues are accessible to Government, Opposition and Nominated Members alike. So, instead of looking at having new procedures and formats, I would suggest that Members make full use of the existing procedures. If Members need any advice on the procedures, they can approach the Clerks.

Finally, the Committee was also asked if Question Time could be increased. We increased Question Time back in 2004, from one hour to one and a half hours. At times, the one and a half hours are sufficient to finish all the Questions for Oral Answer. At other times, I recognise we were not able to do so. But there are only so many hours in a Sitting day, and we need to strike a balance between Question Time and the other demands on Parliamentary time. There are already instances where the House has to sit late into the night to give Members time to debate Bills and Motions. So, at this point, I do not think it is right to have a permanent increase in the length of Question Time stipulated in the Standing Orders.

What the Government will do is to ask the House to increase Question Time on an ad hoc basis if the volume of business permits. Members will recall that Parliament increased Question Time to two and a half hours last July and last October on my Motion. The Government is prepared to continue to take this approach, having regard to the number of questions and the other demands on Parliamentary time. In appropriate cases, Ministers will also make statements to the House on important issues outside of Question Time, and Members can seek clarifications on these issues. This was done, for example, during the Zika outbreak last year.

I should also remind Members that, if a Member's question is not reached by the end of Question Time, he can choose to postpone his question and request for an Oral Answer to be given at the next Sitting. Otherwise, the Member will still receive a written answer to his question. All questions filed by Members will be answered by the relevant Ministries either in oral or written form.

By way of conclusion, I should like to touch on time management in the House. I asked the Clerk to collate some statistics. We are now sitting longer hours for each Sitting. For the 11th Parliament, we sat for an average of five hours and eight minutes per Sitting day. The average for the 12th Parliament was five hours and 40 minutes. The average for this Parliament, up to April, is six hours and 23 minutes. Last month, Members would recall that we sat until 10.00 pm on 4 April.

These increases and the absolute numbers are not, in themselves, a matter of serious concern. We have more Members now, and more complex issues facing the country. It is natural that we have been sitting longer.

To some extent, we can sit longer if need be and, in fact, I would tell the House that the length of Sittings is likely to continue to increase. But in overall terms, I would prefer to have a focused, meaningful Sitting for a few days every month. I think this would be more beneficial for the quality of debate in the House. So, I urge all Members − participate vigorously in debates by all means, but keep your speeches short, sharp and to the point. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mdm Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the Standing Orders Committee for its work.

I seek some clarity on Standing Order No 54(4) which is to be deleted by way of these amendments. I would like to enquire about the original reason for this Standing Order which requires the presence of at least 25 Members who are supportive of a Motion when a debate is to be closed. It would appear that the spirit of this Standing Order is not just to ensure no infringement of the rights of the minority or an abuse of the rules of Parliament, but to ensure that there is a significant enough number of Members of Parliament who are present in the House to see through any debate and at the close of debate.

However, what these amendments could considerably do is to create a public impression that the deletion of Standing Order No 54(4) supports the presence of fewer Members of Parliament in the House when the relevant question is put, bearing in mind that the deleted Standing Order does not call for a quorum of 25 Members but the presence of at least 25 Members who were in support of the Motion, a higher requirement necessitating a sufficiently robust number of Members of Parliament in the House.

So, for example, if these amendments are approved and Standing Order 54(4) is deleted, it would permit a hypothetical Motion to pass should the matter be decided with 17 "ayes" and 9 "nos", as it would have met the constitutional quorum requirement of at least 26 Members. Even though the Constitution in Article 57(1) is silent on the specific number of majority votes required, in effect, the deletion of this Standing Order supports the presence of fewer Members in the House at the closure of debate when the question is put to Members. Going back to the illustrated example, should Standing Order 54(4) remain, the same Motion would require at least eight more Members in the House, and that is assuming they intend to vote in favour of the Motion.

To this end, some members of the public may draw an adverse inference on these amendments and there may be some risk that it will reduce public trust in the institution of Parliament as Singaporeans would expect most legislators to be present in the House at any point in time. This is notwithstanding the fact that Article 56 of the Constitution requires a quorum of one-quarter of Members to be present when the House is in session, failing which, Parliament shall be adjourned. It would be helpful if the Leader can revisit the spirit and purpose of the deleted Standing Order 54(4) in the first place and why it is this Standing Order was drafted in the first place, so as to pre-empt any adverse public opinion on this matter.

The registration of my concerns notwithstanding, I support the amendments.

I would like to make a second point, which is in reference to the Leader's speech just now with regard to questions which are postponed by Members and essentially go beyond the one and a half hours that are allotted by Parliament.

Can I get some understanding from the Leader as to whether those questions will be accorded some degree of priority in the subsequent session of Parliament, because my experience in the second half of last year was that a question on the Competition of Commissioner of Singapore and lifts, with regard to lifts that are maintained by or managed by EM Services, was repeatedly postponed month after month. So, I would like to get some assurance from the Leader that that ought not to happen in future, provided the list of questions the Government has can be reordered somewhat.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Speaker, while I am prepared to support the Motion, I would like to place on record my concern about one of the proposed amendments. This relates to the change of Standing Order 18 on petitions. In gist, my concern is that the new power to be given to the House must be used with great care and should never be seen to curtail the public petition process.

Let me explain. The proposal by the Standing Orders Committee is to amend Standing Order 18 to provide an option for the House to decide that a petition need not be referred to the Public Petitions Committee (PPC). This might be done if the Speaker is of the view that the subject matter of the petition relates to a matter being already before the House, by a way of a Bill or Motion, in which case, the petition can be considered at the same time. The Committee's report states that this is to avoid the situation where the Bill or Motion has already disposed of the matter before the PPC considers the petition, making the petition moot.

Under the current Standing Orders, all petitions initiated by the public must be brought to this House through a Member who is not a signatory to the petition. In other words, the Member is not necessarily a person who shares the concerns of the petitioners but is merely a necessary conduit through which a petition may be presented to Parliament. The Standing Order provides that every such petition must be referred to the PPC, except in very limited circumstances. I am concerned that this new power, if used routinely, would result in petitions not being given their due hearing, or send a signal that petitions are not important.

Some may ask what difference a reference to the PPC will make, since the contents of the petition can be read by Members during a debate on a related Bill or Motion. The difference to me is very significant. The PPC is a Standing Select Committee whose procedures are governed by Standing Order 103. PPC is empowered to call for witnesses, papers and records and can independently report its opinion and its observations to Parliament. Compared with the procedures of the whole House, the PPC would have more time to fully investigate the grievances of the petitioners and hear them out personally if needed, and call for relevant documents, including documents from the Government.

The public petition procedure is provided for by the Standing Orders, and it is a vital link between Parliament and the members of the public. There is a due process that should be granted to petitioners. If the petition is not referred to the PPC but is considered by the whole House during a debate of the Motion or Bill, the burden would naturally shift to the Member presenting the petition to fully convey the petitioners' concerns and grievances, which is probably expecting too much of the Member.

Madam, the recent debate on the administration of Justice Protection Bill provides a window as to what could potentially be problematic in the future. A petition of the Bill was presented through Nominated Member Kok Heng Leun but it was dealt with summarily during the debate of the Bill.

In that case, the wording of the Bill was not made public until after it was presented in Parliament for First Reading. So, it could well be said that the petitioners could not have initiated their petition any earlier. In that debate, Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun indicated his consent to have the petition heard together with the Bill and his view that this was appropriate, should be given due weight.

However, the House should be mindful that in future cases, we should endeavour to ensure that all petitions are granted their due process and hearing by PPC. The House should bear in mind that it may be in the public interest instead to do the opposite to defer the Motion or Bill, unless there is urgency, until the petition has been considered by PPC and its report sent to Parliament. Parliament might well benefit from a fuller understanding of the issue from the aggrieved or concerned persons before considering the Bill or Motion.

In summary, Madam, while the new power under Standing Order 18 is a useful power to have, my view is that it should be used most judiciously, bearing in mind the importance of the public petitions process.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mdm Speaker, first, I would like to thank you for your guidance and leadership both as the Speaker of this House and as the chairperson for the Standing Orders Committee. With your leadership, our Parliament proceedings are smooth and efficient, and Members can debate productively and robustly while adhering to strict time limits.

This report proposes several enhancements to various aspects of the Parliamentary proceedings and conduct. There are several issues which I would like to raise. First, the proposed amendments on the Elected Presidency, which are consequential to the constitutional amendments proposed last year. One of the proposals states that if the President goes against the advice of the majority of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and exercises his veto power, Parliament can override such a veto with a two-thirds majority. For this to happen, the President's grounds and Council's recommendation should be made available at least two days before a Motion is moved to overrule the President. I would like to clarify what is the legal position if the Clerk fails to publish the notification that the President did not exercise his custodial powers within the constitutional time limit?

Second, on the Bill procedures, I welcome the proposal to increase the minimum interval from seven to 10 clear days as this will give more time for further deliberation on Bills. I also welcome the increase in the notice period for amendments from two clear days to four clear days as this will strike an appropriate balance between passing legislation in a timely way, while allowing Parliament adequate time for legislative scrutiny. I look forward to the proposed tracking of changes to amendment Bills as this will help Members while going through the various versions of the amendments and keep track of the evolution process of the Bill.

On the issue of petitions, I agree that it will be beneficial for the Parliament to have the option of considering a petition together with a related Bill or a Motion, instead of sending the petition to the Public Petitions Committee. This is so that Parliament can have the benefit of considering the petition while debating the Bill or Motion. Members can then scrutinise the issues raised in the petition and a full debate can occur. Public interest will, hence, not be compromised.

When it comes to Question Time, I speak on behalf of backbenchers that we would naturally prefer more time rather than less. However, it also means that if Question Time is increased, the time spent on other matters. such as debating Bills and Motions, will have to moderate. I recognise that the Government is meeting backbenchers midway by increasing Question Time on an ad hoc basis and I hope that this can be done whenever the volume of business permits or an issue is of broad public interest. I also hope that Ministers will continue and perhaps also expand on the practice of making Ministerial Statements on significant issues of broad public interest to the House, in the spirit of accountability to Parliament. This will also give Members another avenue to ask questions on important issues and engage the Ministers on these issues.

Finally, on time management, I welcome the Leader's indication that the Government is prepared to sit longer hours to deal with increased Parliamentary business. This shows that the Government respects the important role that Members play in scrutinising and debating Government policy and proposed legislation. I understand that there are now no limits on how long Members can speak on each item of business and how long each item can be debated but, at the same time, it would not be prudent to prolong debates just because we can. It is ultimately the quality, rather than the length of the debate that matters.

A search online showed that the longest Parliament session in a single Sitting was in 1881 in the United Kingdom which lasted for 41.5 hours. Just last year, the Australian Senate sat for 28 hours before passing a Voting Reform Bill. This is one record that we might do well to avoid. For us to achieve a balanced state where important matters are sufficiently debated, I hope all sides of the House will practice self-discipline, including myself, and keep our speeches short and succinct. Madam, I support the Motion.

Leader of the House Grace Fu.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the speeches by hon Members Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and Desmond Choo.

First, I would like to make three broad points. The debate today is not about the Constitutional amendments to the Elected President (EP). The amendment process is complete. We had hearings and the report by the Constitutional Commission, a White Paper in Parliament, and a full debate in Parliament last November. The Opposition made its points and the Government responded. The amendments were passed by Parliament and came into force last month. So far as the EP is concerned, there are only two narrow procedural issues − the procedural machinery for an overruling Motion and a notification where the President does not signify his decision on a measure passed by Parliament.

Second, in amending the Standing Orders, we are refining a system that has worked well for Parliament, amended and adjusted over time to keep its relevance and effectiveness.

Third, the amendments we are debating today were unanimously agreed by the Standing Orders Committee, with both Government and Opposition Members on it. Members were also invited to make submissions to the Committee and had one month to do so. The Committee gave a considered response to the submissions by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun.

First, I would like to refer to Mr Pritam Singh who raised the issue about sequence of Parliamentary Questions. There is no rocket science involved in the sequencing. If there are a lot of questions on the topic, they get put in front. If a question concerns a topical issue, it gets put in front. A balance is struck between questions from all sides of the House. The sequence of the questions on the Order Paper is decided by the Speaker. I give my views as the Leader of the House, but the Speaker has the final say.

On Mr Pritam Singh's other issue about removing the 25-Member majority for closure of debate, I would just like to reiterate what the Committee has reported, that this requirement for a 25-Member majority is not consistent with Article 57(1) which provides that all questions proposed for a discussion in Parliament shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the Members present and voting. The requirement was laid down in colonial times. I asked the same question but we could not trace the real background. So, it must have been around for a long time and this is really a housekeeping amendment. The Government has no present intention to invoke that procedure to close debates. In any case, the Standing Order on quorum still stands and that is fixed at 25% of the total Members in the House. And that, by percentage, a quarter is more flexible. It reflects the changing number of Members in the House and, therefore, would be more relevant going forward.

Ms Sylvia Lim raised some concerns about the move to include in the Standing Order a Motion to consider petitions together with its related Bill or Motion. This amendment is a procedural one. If it is carried, the petition is considered by the House. Otherwise, the petition goes to the Public Petitions Committee. Either way, the petition will be considered. It is simply a question of how. So, there is no need for a separate debate.

In any case, I take Ms Sylvia Lim's point that as much as possible − and I am sure I speak for all my frontbench colleagues − we would like to consider all viewpoints brought to the attention of Parliament. But as Members can appreciate, there are two parallel processes that are going on. Any petition could come in on the very day that we are having a debate on a Motion or Bill and it would be advantageous if we would have the ability to consider that petition together with the Motion or Bill, as what we have done with Nominated Member Mr Kok Heng Leun's petition. This would allow us the flexibility of including the facts and the views presented in the petition while not delaying the process that has already been ongoing for the Bill or Motion. If the House feels strongly that a petition has to be considered separately by the Petitions Committee, they can always say no to this procedural Motion.

May I just wrap up by stepping back, Madam, and looking at the big picture. First, it is important to the Government that we spend time in the House to explain the laws and policies that we propose. The cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate inform the public on the important issues of the day. Accounting to Parliament is something that the Government takes seriously. The Prime Minister's open letter to Government Members of Parliament after the 2015 General Election underscored this.

Second, within the House, it is important that we strike a good balance between the different demands on Parliamentary time. Time spent on one item of business means time lost to another. Good time management means we do not have to cut off debate. Good time management means we have time to debate backbenchers' Motions like we did last month. Good time management means we can have more Question Time if need be. Good time management does not mean that Members should pull their punches or mute their criticisms of Government policy. But it does require Members to focus and deliver their key points succinctly and sharply. If anything, a succinct point is more likely to be more impactful and newsworthy than a meandering speech.

Third, we also need to balance the other demands on Members' time. Members know full well that a good debate in the House needs hours of preparation and homework outside. Members also need to remain in touch with different segments of society so that their arguments in the House are grounded in reality. Elected Members need to hear the concerns of the constituents. Ministers need to run their Ministries and formulate policies. If we sit in the House day in and day out, not only will we run out of meaningful things to say, we risk neglecting our work outside Parliament. At the end of the day, after everything is said, we must make a decision and carry on. Robust debate must culminate in decisive action. In the US, a Senator has actually gone to the extent of reading bedtime stories in the Senate to filibuster proceedings. I do not wish to see this House moving towards that state.

In this regard, I agree with Mr Desmond Choo's point that this is something that requires Members on all sides of the House to do their part. On policy and politics, we may well disagree and disagree sharply. After all, the very purpose of this House is to be an arena for a contest of hearts and minds. But as Members of Parliament, we also share a common duty to maintain the standing of Parliament as an effective and efficient institution. I hope that this is something that all Members will support fully. Madam, I beg to move.

Any clarifications? Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. A clarification for the Leader of the House. I appreciate very much her confirmation that when the House and, indeed, the Government debates any issue, it is important to look at all relevant viewpoints. My exhortation was actually to the House as a whole, that there may be a real scenario in the future where it may be more in the public interest actually to defer a Bill or Motion because an important public petition has been presented. I would like the Leader of the House's confirmation that it is conceivable in the future that this might have to happen.

Mdm Speaker, I would repeat that I think I represent my frontbench colleagues that, indeed, if there is an important petition to be considered or, indeed, if the Public Petitions Committee has yet to submit its report, for example, I am sure we will adjust our schedule for the Motion in order to take in the relevant submissions.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, just one clarification. The Leader mentioned earlier that depending on the number of Questions and the amount of business for the day, these are the criteria used to extend Question Time. Could the Leader be more specific? Say, if there are more than 80 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) or less than three Bills, then Question Time will be extended? Can she maybe clarify the procedures?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. Unfortunately, I think when it comes to sequencing Question Time, it is probably more art than science primarily because, very often, we are unable to determine beforehand the length of speeches that Members will make. We run the risk at times, as we have seen in the last Sitting on 4 April, the Sitting had had to be extended to 10.00 pm. So, it is not something that we could envisage in advance or with some scientific formula. But let us put it this way. If we find that there are Questions being piled up and if the rest of the agenda allows us to do so, we will definitely extend the Question Time, as I have done so twice last year.

[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]

[(proc text) That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee (Paper Parl 6 of 2017) be hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. (proc text)]

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

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

I shall be short and succinct. Singapore is situated alongside one of the world's busiest waterways and has one of the world's busiest ports. Ensuring safety of navigation and sustainability of the marine environment is, therefore, of utmost importance to us. That is why we are acceding to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, which was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in May 2007 and entered into force in April 2015.

The Convention provides a set of international rules for State Parties to remove wrecks in their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) that pose a danger to navigation or to the marine environment. It allows State Parties to recover the costs of locating, marking and removing wrecks from the shipowners. The Convention also requires State Parties to certify that insurance or other forms of financial security for such liability is in force for ships under their registry.

The Merchant Shipping (Wreck Removal) Bill seeks to give effect to the Convention. Let me highlight the key provisions.

Clause 8 empowers the Director of Marine of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to remove a wreck determined by him to constitute a hazard, if the owner of the wrecked ship fails to undertake the removal or if immediate action is required. Under the Bill, the Director of Marine must use the most practical and expeditious means available and take into consideration safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment when removing the wreck.

Clause 10 provides for the owner of a ship wrecked in Singapore's EEZ to be liable for the costs of locating, marking and removing the wreck.

Clause 15 stipulates that a ship may not enter or leave the port of Singapore unless it carries on board evidence that it is covered by wreck removal insurance.

Clause 16 provides for the registered owner of a Singapore ship to apply for, and the Director of Marine to issue, certificates to attest that the ship is covered by wreck removal insurance.

Clause 17 provides the Director of Marine with a right of direct action against the insurer of the wrecked ship, for the costs of locating, marking and removing the wreck.

The shipping industry has been consulted and they are supportive of the Bill. At the corridor, Mr Louis Ng told me that he supports the Bill but he gave me some feedback from one industry contact.

I assured him that there would be minimal additional administrative and cost burden for shipowners as the application process for the wreck removal certificate is similar to that of other mandatory certificates. To further reduce any administrative inconvenience, MPA also has in place processes to renew the Wreck Removal Certificate as a package, together with the statutory certificates required under other international conventions. The fee for the issuance and renewal of the Wreck Removal Certificate will be $60, similar to that for other certificates. We are targeting to introduce the relevant subsidiary legislation and fees in the third quarter of this year.

MPA has also checked with the established marine insurance providers and understands that there will be no increase in premium for ships insured with them. The limits of liability for maritime claims provided by them to their members are already in excess of the limits required under the Convention.

In the event of an incident, MPA will work closely with the shipowner and the insurer from the onset to remove the wreck. The deadline to remove the wreck will be determined by MPA in consultation with the shipowner and the insurer. MPA will only take over the removal of wreck if the shipowner and insurer abandon the wreck or if the wreck constitutes a hazard to navigation or to the marine environment. In such instances, any surplus from the sale of the wreck will be held in trust. MPA will then call for claimants to provide evidence of their entitlement and disburse the surplus to the rightful beneficiary as expeditiously as possible. Should there be competing claims, MPA will seek the Court's determination. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Dennis Tan.

Madam, through this Merchant Shipping (Wreck Removal) Bill, Singapore will finally be ratifying the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks of 2007. Madam, according to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) website, the number of abandoned wrecks, currently estimated at almost 1,300 worldwide, has increased, and the problem that the wrecks posed to coastal states and shipping generally has become more serious.

According to IMO, wrecks create various problems. One, the wreck may be a hazard to navigation, risking the safety of ships and their crew. Two, the vessel or their cargo may pose environmental risk, for example, pollution to the waters or environment may be caused by bunkers or cargo carried by the vessel. Coastal fishing may be affected. Three, the costs of marking and removing wrecks have always been an issue. Provision of compulsory insurance cover aims to deal with this issue of costs.

The Wreck Removal Convention will provide new international rules that will ensure prompt and effective removal of wrecks located beyond the territorial seas of all signatory countries. It took about seven years for the Convention to achieve the requisite number of ratifications, which was the number of 10 countries from around the world triggering the entry into force conditions. This took place on 14 April 2014. As a result, amongst the states which had ratified it earlier, the Convention entered into force on 14 April 2015.

Under the Convention, the registered owner of a ship is responsible for locating, marking and removing a wreck deemed to be a hazard in a state's Convention area. It will also provide states with a right of direct action against insurers.

Under the Convention, ships of 300 gross tonnage and above which are registered with the ship registry of a State Party to the Convention or which is entering or leaving a port belonging to a state party, will need to have insurance arrangements in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, leading to an insurance certificate or what is called a Blue Card to be issued by insurers. Ships are also required under the Convention to obtain a certificate from a state which is party to the Convention, attesting that such insurance is in place for each vessel. Such state certificate must be carried on board the vessel. The good news is that the insurance cover required has been made readily available by the key Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs within the International Group in the world, and this made for easier compliance for all ships and their registered owners, albeit adding to the costs of doing business.

Vessels registered in a state which is not party to the Convention but which perform voyages to countries which are parties to the Convention must obtain a certificate from a State Party. In fact, between 2015 and the present date, as Singapore delayed in its ratification of the Convention, MPA had issued an advisory to ships registered under the Singapore flag to obtain such certificates from other countries which have ratified the Convention earlier.

The Convention also includes an optional clause at Article 3(2) enabling state parties to extend the coverage of the Convention to wrecks within their territorial sea. May I clarify with the Minister whether we are doing that, especially given our relative proximity to neighbouring countries?

On the issue of penalties listed under sections 4, 15, 23 and 31 of the Bill, I am concerned whether the recommended maximum fines are sufficient to deter reporting or other offences.

Madam, we could have passed this Bill earlier, perhaps two years ago, when the Wreck Removal Convention came into force after 10 countries have ratified it. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any reason for the delay in implementing this Convention under our national legislation. I note from an MPA circular of 2015 that preparations were being made to legislation to implement this convention and MPA directed the Singapore-flagged ships to the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Marshall Islands, Liberia and Cook Islands for the issuance of the State Certificates. These countries had ratified the Convention before the Convention came into force. Notwithstanding the above, I am in support of the Bill.

Minister Khaw.

I thank the Member for his support for the Bill and also for helping to elaborate on my Second Reading speech. Thank you very much.

It is not unusual for countries to take time to accede to a convention. For this particular Bill, time was needed to consult the various stakeholders, and we wanted to make sure that it is something that the industry supports and owns the decision. In this instance, even though we take a few years, we are still among the earliest to have done so. I think, as of to date, less than 30 countries have acceded to the Convention, out of about 200 countries in the world, and, in Asia, we would be among the first.

As for the question on penalties, MPA have assessed them to be adequate. They have taken into account the other penalties imposed by the other sections of the Bill. There must be suitable parity involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Bill seeks to amend the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, to give effect to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.

Ballast water is water that is taken on board ships to provide balance and stability to ships. The discharge of ballast water from ships is one of the principal ways potentially invasive alien marine species are introduced into marine environments. The environmental and economic damage caused by invasive species can be substantial. The Convention seeks to prevent the transfer of harmful marine species and pathogens from one marine environment to another. This is done by establishing standards and procedures for the management of ships' ballast water and sediments.

The Convention places restrictions on the uptake and discharge of ballast water by ships and mandates the safe disposal of sediments. It was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in February 2004 and will be entering into force in September 2017. As a responsible Flag State and Port State committed to marine environment protection and sustainable shipping, Singapore will accede to the Convention. The proposed Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill 2017 enables Singapore to comply with the Convention.

Let me highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Mr Louis Ng has also separately mentioned to me just now that he supports the Bill. He also shared some feedback on the penalties and exemptions in the Bill which I will talk about shortly.

Clause 6 prohibits the discharge of sediments into Singapore waters, from any place on land, or from any apparatus used for transferring sediments from or to any ship.

Clause 9 prohibits the discharge of untreated ballast water or sediments into Singapore waters from any ship, or from a Singapore ship into any sea. Clause 9 also empowers the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) to make regulations to exempt ships from the prohibition against discharge of ballast water and sediments into our waters.

Mr Louis Ng asked me about how and when such exemptions will be given. One possible exemption could be for ships that operate exclusively within a specified area, if the risk of transfer of invasive species through the discharge of their ballast water is deemed acceptable based on IMO's risk assessment guidelines.

Clauses 5, 7 and 8 revise the penalties for the discharge of pollutants, garbage and noxious liquid substances into our waters. With the revision, the limit of fines is increased from $10,000 to $20,000, and the period of imprisonment is reduced from two years to six months. The increase in fines ensures that the financial penalty continues to serve as an effective deterrent against pollution. The reduced jail term avoids unduly penalising seafarers for pollution-related offences committed during their course of work. In this aspect, MPA's experience has been that pollution-related offences are more often a result of shipboard conditions arising from the actions of the employers, than that it is due to individual seafarers acting on their own accord. The penalties for the discharge of untreated ballast water or sediments are aligned with the revised penalties for the discharge of pollutants, garbage and noxious liquid substances into our waters.

Clause 10 increases the financial penalty limits for contraventions of regulations relating to the provision of reception facilities. The maximum jail term has also been retained. Under the Convention, terminals, including shipyards, that provide ballast tank repair, cleaning or retrofitting services, should provide for the reception of sediments from ships. The higher penalties that may be levied on reception facilities reflect the severity of the damage to the environment that their contraventions may cause.

Clause 11 empowers MPA to make regulations requiring Singapore-flagged ships and ships in Singapore waters to carry ballast water record books on board.

Clause 13 imposes a duty on land occupiers or persons in charge of apparatus for transferring sediments from which sediments have been discharged into Singapore waters, to report such discharge.

Clause 16 amends section 34 of the Act to empower MPA, with the approval of the Minister, to make regulations to give effect to the Convention.

The shipping industry has been consulted and they are supportive of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill enables Singapore to fulfil our obligations under the Convention as a responsible member of the international maritime community. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Dennis Tan.

Madam, by this proposed Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, the Government intends to ratify and bring into force the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004.

Ships have been using sea water as a ballast to stabilise ships at sea for more than a hundred years. Sea water is pumped into or out of ships to achieve safe and desirable operating conditions for the ships. It helps the ships to maintain stability and enhances manoeuvrability, especially when the sea conditions or the volume of cargo, fuel or water onboard a ship may change in the course of each voyage. Stress on the ship's hull may also be reduced accordingly with the use of ballast water.

A ship may take in seawater for ballast at a particular location and discharge the same water at a different part of the world. What this means is that the ship will unwittingly transport all micro-organisms and marine species in the sea water from one part of the world to another part of the world. Such species may include microbes, bacteria, small invertebrates, larvae, eggs and cysts of different species. Frequently, some of such species may survive and reproduce in the new environment where they have been discharged, compete with the local species and becoming effectively pests in the new environment and affecting the new environment in an adverse way.

As the volume of sea traffic grew with the rise of international trade over the last 50 years, the environmental impact of the invasive species caused by the discharged ballast water has started to pose serious ecological, economic and health issues. This is the backdrop for the introduction of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments even back in 2004. The Ballast Water Convention introduces global regulations to control the transfer of potentially invasive species. Under the Convention, ballast water will need to be treated before it is released into a new location so that any micro-organism or small marine species are eliminated before the ballast water is discharged into the open marine environment again.

Under the Ballast Water Convention, all ships must install appropriate ballast water treatment systems. Ships must have a ballast water record book, recording the occasions when ballast water is taken onboard or treated for ballast water management purposes, discharged into a reception facility as well as any accidental discharges of ballast water. The aim is to prevent, minimise and, ultimately, eliminate the transfer of harmful organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships ballast water sediments.

As Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world and sits by one of the busiest sea channels in the world, we have many vessels coming into our port waters or passaging through nearby seas. The risk of invasive species causing ecological damage to our seas and marine environment cannot be discounted.

Madam, this is one reason I support this Bill. Another reason that I support this Bill is because Singapore is among one of the top five ship registries in the world and has over 4,000 ships under its registry. The operation of our system, our Singapore flagship, does not affect only our Singapore waters but also affects the seas around the world as the vessels ply the international waters.

It has taken a while for Singapore to introduce the Ballast Water Convention into our legislation. The Convention came up way back in 2004. Yes, it will only come into force worldwide on 8 September 2017. But given the environmental concerns we have heard and given the fact that we are one of the busiest ports in the world, one of the five largest ship registries in the world and one of the leading maritime hubs in the world, if the Government is of the view that such convention is the right way forward, then perhaps we should have ratified the Convention earlier. In contrast, by way of examples, countries like Malaysia ratified the Convention in 2010 and Australia and Indonesia in 2016.

Madam, on the issue of maximum penalties listed under the different provisions of this amendment Bill, I know some of the sentences have been increased but I still have some concerns whether they are adequate, especially fines on shipowners. Madam, I support the Bill.

Second Minister Ng Chee Meng.

I thank the Member Mr Dennis Tan for his clarifications and support for the Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about the adequacy of penalties and whether Singapore should have acceded to the Ballast Water Management Convention earlier.

I have spoken earlier about the penalties set out in the Bill. But let me add that we recognise that ballast water discharges can have a significant impact on the environment. As such, the proposed penalties are commensurate with other existing environmental pollution-related offences. So, the whole set of laws is aligned and the professionals have said that these are adequate. We can always monitor and see whether they are an adequate deterrent. At the moment, as I said just now, $10,000 has been increased to $20,000, and that is a 100% increase.

On whether Singapore should have acceded to the Convention earlier, let me explain our considerations. Singapore takes the protection of marine environment very seriously. We have ratified every major IMO Convention relating to the prevention of pollution from ships, including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. As the Member has noted, Singapore has also been an early supporter of the Ballast Water Management Convention.

However, Singapore always ensures that we are able to discharge our obligations before acceding to any new convention. Hence, rather than rush into acceding to this Convention, Singapore has been working with IMO and the industry to address outstanding implementation issues that the industry has raised.

One of the main concerns has been that the IMO's guidelines for approving ballast water management systems were not rigorous enough, such that approved systems did not consistently meet the Convention's standards for discharged ballast water. IMO, therefore, revised its guidelines to make them more robust. This process took some time and was only completed in October 2016, just last year.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has built a reputation over the years as a responsible flag state and port state. This Bill seeks to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Convention and continue to keep our flag flying high.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT) was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2005. It seeks to prevent and suppress nuclear terrorism by specifically criminalising such acts and providing for international assistance in relation to such acts.

The possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in Southeast Asia is remote. Regional terrorist elements are not known to have the capability to build nuclear devices. They are also more likely to use conventional improvised explosive devices, which they are more familiar with.

However, the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has heightened the global threat of terrorism using nuclear or radioactive devices. In 2015, ISIS announced in its English language magazine "Dabiq" that it intended to attack the United States (US) with either a nuclear device or explosives. Given its access to funding and a global network of supporters, it could conceivably build a crude improvised nuclear device. As such, we cannot discount the possibility of ISIS or its supporters getting hold of nuclear material to carry out a terror attack whether against us or other countries, especially when many countries, including those in our region, use nuclear energy or are actively exploring the use of nuclear energy. In February this year, Malaysian authorities arrested eight people connected to the theft of Iridium-192, which is a radioactive material which can be used to make dirty bombs.

Given these developments, we have to treat the threat of nuclear and radioactive attacks seriously, even if the likelihood is currently remote. We are now ready to ratify, or give domestic legal effect to, the Convention by tabling the Terrorism (Suppression of Misuse of Radioactive Material) Bill now before this House.

Madam, clauses 4 to 10 of the Bill criminalise acts that are prohibited under the Convention and set out penalties for such acts.

In particular, clause 6 makes it an offence to intentionally and unlawfully use any radioactive material or nuclear explosive device with the intention to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to any individual, or substantial damage to property or the environment; or, to compel any other person, international organisation or government to do or refrain from doing any act.

Clause 7 criminalises the act of intentionally and unlawfully using or damaging a nuclear facility that causes or creates a risk of the release of radioactive material; with the intention to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to any individual, or substantial damage to property or the environment; or, to compel any other person, international organisation or government to do or refrain from doing any act.

Madam, these are extremely serious offences. We have, therefore, pegged the penalties at the same level as section 300(a) of the Penal Code, which is the offence of murder where there is an intention to cause death and where death has been caused. In such instances, the perpetrator will face the mandatory death penalty. Similarly, a person who carried out the offence in clauses 6 or 7, who intended to cause the death of an individual and who did cause death, will face the mandatory death penalty. In any other case, he will receive life imprisonment.

As required by the Convention, the Bill also criminalises other acts which can lead to the intentional and unlawful use of radioactive material or nuclear explosive devices. These include the intentional and unlawful possession of any radioactive material or nuclear explosive device and the making of a nuclear explosive device, with the intention to use such material or device to cause death, serious bodily injury, or substantial damage to property or the environment.

Madam, clause 11 of the Bill provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over nuclear terrorism offences. Any person outside Singapore who commits an act which constitutes a nuclear terrorism offence if carried out in Singapore is deemed to have committed the act here.

If taken into custody, the person would be charged, tried and punished accordingly in Singapore. This provision allows us to prosecute the offender in Singapore, if it is not possible or desirable to extradite him. It ensures that perpetrators do not escape punishment, regardless of which country they are from, and where they committed these offences. This approach is similar to that in other terrorism-related laws, such as the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act.

Madam, the Convention serves as a basis for extradition among countries who are parties to the Convention, or state parties, for offences of nuclear terrorism. The Bill gives effect to this requirement. Clause 13 includes provisions to facilitate extradition requests by countries which are parties to the Convention. Every nuclear terrorism offence will be deemed as an extraditable crime for the purposes of Parts III and IV of the Extradition Act.

The Convention also requires that state parties provide mutual legal assistance to other states parties, and Singapore will render assistance within our domestic legal framework.

Mdm Speaker, if Parliament enacts this Bill, Singapore will join 109 other UN member states which are party to the Convention. It reiterates our commitment to combat terrorism, as a responsible member of the international community. Madam, I beg to move.

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

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Madam, terrorism commands our constant attention these days. Author Van Hipp describes this very well in his book "The New Terrorism". It has taken on a completely new fate.

Singapore is not immune either. Even as we do not house large-scale nuclear plants and facilities, being open to the world still puts us at a potential risk. The radioactive and nuclear threat involves criminals and terrorists often acquiring and using these elements for malicious purposes via the following channels: one, nuclear explosive devices; two, nuclear materials to improvise nuclear explosive devices; three, radioactive materials to construct a radiological dispersal device; or fourth, dispersal of radioactivity through sabotage of installation or during transportation.

Advances in information technology (IT) and the availability of the radioactive materials have also increased the likelihood of all these attacks happening anywhere in the world, practically, in fact, made even a lot easier these days. Some of these devices, when detonated and released, can disperse the radioactive materials over a wide area, contaminating persons, environment and property with long-lasting effects and impact. Also, something else to consider. These days, terrorists use hybrid models, that is, blending nuclear and conventional devices. Thus, the need for all of us to be robust and savvy with our counterterrorism measures as well.

Madam, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), many of the significant and severe cases of misuse were perpetrated by persons with direct access to the materials or have the ability to get the licence to procure them without suspicion. And indeed, we do have some of these facilities in Singapore, such as, in the use of nuclear imaging, nuclear medicine and a few other industries. They may not be big but they are significant enough for us to be concerned about.

Thus, my queries include, firstly, does the Ministry have a listing of such facilities and industries in Singapore? Secondly, are there specific guidance on the import and export of radioactive sources, and its transport from facility to facility? Thirdly, have there ever been any breaches thus far in Singapore? Fourth, how about our control at our borders? What are our detection strategies for deployment of border monitoring equipment and counters? Fifth, have there ever been any threat of this nature in Singapore?

Sixth, in clause 11, it is stated that Singapore's jurisdiction to deal with the nuclear-related offences committed elsewhere extends even outside Singapore to a certain extent. This is an important commitment as a member of the global community. Do we have sufficient numbers of persons and expertise trained in this area to contribute significantly and meaningfully?

Seven, being a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and also being a strong advocate of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, Singapore's stand is very clear. If in the event of an occurrence of such an incident, how does Singapore share on the international platform and database? The IAEA found that one of the weakest areas of collaboration is the poor reporting and weaknesses in reporting and upkeeping a database. How is Singapore planning and training for this? Do we subscribe to any such databases, for example, the Johnston Archive or The Global Chronology?

Madam, I do support the stiff and strict penalties that have been announced with the Bill and I support the Bill.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, which some might say has been a long time in the making.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice delivered their now famous advisory opinion to a controversial question. They were asked whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances is permitted under international law. Among other things, and in a 7-7 split decision, the Court replied that it cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful under international law, in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state is at risk.

The late great Judge Christopher Weeramantry was one of the seven dissenting Judges in the 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Case, and he said that the "use of nuclear weapons contradicts the fundamental principle of the dignity and worth of the human person upon which all law must depend. It endangers the human environment in a manner which threatens the entirety of life on this planet".

Fortunately, that same year, in 1996, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General at that time, after his review of the applicable international law, concluded that there was a need to elaborate on international treaties, including on a treaty preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists.

After several rounds of treaty drafting and negotiations, the International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism was opened for signature in April 2005. The Convention does not impose any new obligations on states in their use of nuclear weapons. It covers primarily the activities by nuclear terrorists, to be exact. It requires states to criminalise these offences via national legislation and to establish penalties in line with the gravity of such crimes.

Today, more than 100 countries, as the Minister said earlier, 109 countries have ratified the Convention and passed enabling legislation to give it domestic effect. Singapore remains one of only 16 countries that have signed the Convention but have not yet ratified this Convention. It is, therefore, high time for this Bill, Madam. This House should welcome the basis for jurisdiction that this Bill sets out, which is a version of universal jurisdiction or tri-extradite, its guidelines for extraditions, the punitive measures it puts in place, and other measures it seeks to enact to prevent, deter and counter nuclear terrorism which takes place inside or outside Singapore's territorial borders.

For the sake of clarity, Madam, I would like to ask only the following questions of the Ministry. The first and perhaps the most important question is: why did we wait so long? If we signed in 2005, why are we seeking to ratify only in 2017? Perhaps, the more pertinent question is: what is prompting our move this year to look at ratification? The Minister mentioned ISIS and, certainly, that must be a concern. But are there issues or concerns closer to home, in this region, geopolitical threats that we may or should be concerned about?

Second, to what extent was the Ministry's desire to pass this Bill and to ratify the Convention, prompted by the US doing the same in 2015?

Third, going forward, how does the Ministry intend to cooperate with IAEA and the neighbouring Asian state parties which have also recently ratified this convention? Specifically, I am thinking about South Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam, which have ratified this convention in the past two to three years. How would we be working with them to secure compliance?

Finally, clause 14 contemplates the possibility, interestingly, of obtaining a public prosecutor's "fiat" or consent to prosecute. What are the reasons for this particular provision in clause 14? Will other existing Government agencies potentially have a role in investigation and prosecution of Convention offences under this Bill and, if so, which agencies would these be?

In conclusion, Madam, allow me to say that some words that were said by Judge Weeramantry two decades ago in 1996 still ring true today, unfortunately. He said that "a global regime of security which makes safety the result of terror and can speak of survival and annihilation as twin alternatives makes peace and the human future dependent upon terror. This is not a basis for world order". On that cautionary note, Madam, I support this Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, as noted by Ms Karen Tan, our Permanent Representative to the UN, the threat of non-state actors gaining access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is becoming an increasingly real threat.

This Bill strengthens Singapore's position alongside other countries in the international fight against terrorism, in particular, nuclear terrorism. I will be making some suggestions and raising two areas for clarification on the proposed provisions, as well as concerns on Singapore's efforts in combating terror threats involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) materials.

Under section 6(1)(b)(iii) and section 7(1)(b)(iii), the use of radioactive material and Convention device, and the use or damage of a nuclear facility is an offence if a person does so to compel any person, international organisation or government to do or refrain from doing any act. However, this limb is missing from section 4(b) and section 5(b) on possession and manufacture and I would like to seek clarification on this.

It is plausible that a person's intention in the possession or manufacture of these devices is not to cause death or injury to persons or damage to property or environment, but instead to compel individuals and governments to act in certain ways.

For instance, in the October 2001 US anthrax attacks, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to reporters and political figures. The intention of the senior scientist at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases who did so was not to kill or sicken anyone, but to enhance the profile of his anthrax work, to improve his own standing among colleagues and to stimulate funding for biodefense by inducing fear in the population and influencing government policy. Given the similar risk of the potentially lethal consequences, should we also make possession and manufacture an offence where the intention is to influence others to act in a certain way?

Next, the proposed section 9 makes it an offence to demand another person to make available to the offender or to give the offender access to any radioactive material, Convention device, or nuclear facility.

However, it is only an offence if the demand is made by the use of force or by threats. It is conceivable that these individuals may induce others to act through the promise of reward or gratification. Should the scope of the section be widened to cover such scenarios?

I also note that section 11 outlines the extraterritorial nature of nuclear terrorism offences, stating that any person outside of Singapore committing an act which "if committed in Singapore, would constitute a nuclear terrorism offence", would be deemed to have contravened the law. I would like to ask if this is consistent with other terrorism offences as well.

This Bill will help to bring our legislative regime in line with international law on nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism is but one of the elements of CBRNE threats. In addressing other aspects of CBRNE threats, Singapore has signed and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Domestically, the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act, Biological Agents and Toxins Act, and Strategic Goods (Control) Act are some of the pieces of legislation passed to prevent access of non-state actors to CBRNE materials and to criminalise abuse of these hazardous materials.

Whilst strengthening our legislative framework, are we also doing enough to address security risks for facilities that hold dual-use materials which could be exploited or repurposed for terrorist usage? Although Singapore does not have significant nuclear material or facilities, it is relatively easy to weaponise chemical, biological, radiological or explosive materials. All cases of theft of nuclear materials that have occurred overseas where the circumstances of the theft are known were perpetrated either by insiders or with the help of insiders.

As such, in addition to the physical security of facilities holding CBRNE materials, are there also measures in place to address insider threats which may arise from the radicalisation of personnel working in sensitive areas involving contact with CBRNE material?

Madam, I welcome this move to combat nuclear terrorism and would further urge that stronger measures be taken to strengthen our CBRNE defence by putting hazardous materials beyond the hands of would-be terrorists.

Second Minister Desmond Lee.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the three speakers for supporting the Bill.

A nuclear or radioactive explosion will claim many lives or severe damage to property. Nuclear or radioactive contamination will have serious health and environmental consequences. The affected areas would require extensive cleaning up before they are safe to live in.

Singapore's ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism will allow us to join the international community in the fight against nuclear terrorism and strengthen our ability to prevent, detect and deter a nuclear terrorist attack.

Madam, the risk of a terrorist attack in Singapore involving the use of radioactive material is, as I said in my opening speech, low. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of such a terrorist attack. Over the years, we have been preparing and developing capabilities to deal with such risks.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked what reasons prompted us to seek ratification now. After signing on to the Convention in 2006, we conducted detailed studies of the capabilities required to meet the Convention's requirements. Since then, agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) have developed the necessary operational capabilities to deal with the illicit use of nuclear and radioactive materials in Singapore. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and NEA have also been working together to tighten the security measures at the premises of licensees that are storing higher risk radioactive materials.

In 2014, we acceded to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and accepted its 2005 Amendment, which includes obligations to ensure the physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities.

We also have to bear in mind that we are operating in a framework of various criminal legislation, such as the Radioactive Protection Act, which includes clauses, such as in Part VIIIA of the Radiation Protection Act (RPA) that relates also to the misuse of nuclear material. We also have the Penal Code and other legislation, basically those that pertain to terrorist acts, such as the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act.

Altogether, the framework of laws provides an umbrella of legislation to counter and deal with acts of terrorism, whether they are in the preparatory stage, advanced in the operations or even the actual act. Bearing in mind the threat assessment that I have spoken about earlier and, having done all of this, we are now ready to table this Bill, ratify the Convention, and put in place the remaining pieces essential to protect Singapore against such threats.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked what measures are in place to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack in Singapore.

First, we have a strict regulatory regime in place to make it hard for radioactive material in Singapore to end up in the wrong hands. All local entities that possess or deal in radioactive material are licensed by NEA. These activities are regulated under the Radiation Protection Act and its subsidiary regulations, which take reference from the IAEA guidelines. NEA has also worked with the security agencies to tighten security measures at radioactive material storage sites.

On the import of radioactive material, valid permits are required for all cargo entering our port checkpoints. If necessary, the cargo will be subject to x-ray screening and radioactivity checks. Any radioactive material detected is verified against the permits, and must comply with permit conditions.

Second, we will be cooperating with IAEA and other regional State Parties, and Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about this. Singapore is a participating State of the IAEA's Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB). ITDB is an international platform for IAEA and participating States to share information as well as intelligence, to combat illicit nuclear trafficking and strengthen nuclear security. Thus far, we have not detected any breaches involving radioactive material in Singapore.

Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries are also strengthening cooperation on nuclear issues through the ASEAN Network of Regulatory Bodies on Atomic Energy (ASEANTOM). ASEANTOM is working closely with IAEA to support the establishment of a regional environmental radioactivity database and an emergency preparedness and response framework.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked what measures we have in place to prepare for and deal with an attack.

First, we have established an interagency committee to oversee nuclear safety and security in Singapore. The committee continually assesses the threat of nuclear terrorism in Singapore. Agencies validate existing plans and identify gaps through plan reviews and exercises. Interagency working groups undertake capability development to address the gaps and ensure agencies build up the necessary operational capabilities, facilities and measures to deal with these threats.

Mr Louis Ng mentioned the threat from other types of materials, such as biological and chemical materials. We would like to assure the Member that there are also interagency committees looking at the biological and chemical threats posed to Singapore, with similar structures and processes to continually review the protective security requirements for facilities that may contain such materials and our measures to deal with such threats.

Second, our agencies have developed capabilities and processes to deal with possible threat scenarios, such as the detonation of a radiological dispersive device. Should such an incident occur, MHA will coordinate a whole-of-Government response. SCDF will render assistance to casualties and contain the radioactive material, and will be assisted by agencies, such as the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), where necessary. NEA will provide technical advice to the response agencies to help mitigate the harm from the radioactive materials. The Police will take the lead in investigating these terrorism acts to find the perpetrators and take them to task. The Police will work closely with other agencies where necessary.

Third, beyond the efforts from our agencies, Singaporeans will need to be prepared for an attack which uses radioactive material. When hazardous materials, such as radioactive substances, are released into the environment, the authorities may have to evacuate people from the affected areas. Members of public may also be directed to initiate In-Place-Protection (IPP) at their homes or workplaces to reduce the risk of inhaling radioactive particles. This may include, for example, closing and sealing off gaps around all doors, windows and openings, and switching off all ventilation and air-con units that draw in air from the outside, until such time as the threat has dissipated.

SCDF trains members of the public on how to conduct IPP as part of its Community Emergency Preparedness Programme (CEPP). Participants will be briefed on the IPP procedures and have a hands-on session where they can practise on training simulators. IPP procedures are also included in the Civil Defence (CD) Emergency Handbook which is available for download on SCDF's website. Should any member of the public come across any suspected illegal possession or use of radioactive material, or any attempts to make any radiological device, he should inform the Police immediately.

Mr Louis Ng suggested expanding the offences in the Bill to include other activities. As I have said earlier, the objective of the Bill is to ratify the Convention. The acts that are criminalised in the Bill, therefore, follow those set out in the Convention. For the two acts referred to by Mr Louis Ng, these are covered under existing legislation. For example, the Member mentioned the scenario where a person may seek to gain access to material not by force but by unlawfully inducing others through the promise of reward or gratification. Depending on the actual circumstances, this could be an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, among other offences. Similarly, the possession or manufacture of any radioactive material without a licence, regardless of intent, is an offence under RPA. We will continue to monitor the types of terrorist attacks or activities carried out and consider in future if there is a need to further amend the laws.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked why we require the Public Prosecutor's fiat before prosecution of offences under this Bill. This ensures that the offences under the Bill which are very serious are brought to the personal attention of the Public Prosecutor before charges are even filed. This is a consistent approach for other terrorism-related offences, such as those in the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act.

Mr Louis Ng also had questions on the extraterritorial jurisdiction of offences under this Bill. I had spoken about this in the opening speech. The scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Bill is similar to that in other terrorism-related offences, again, such as the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act and others.

Mdm Speaker, ratifying the Convention is an important step towards strengthening the fight against nuclear terrorism, both locally and internationally. There are no immediate threats, but we take the possibility seriously. It is timely that we put in place the necessary legal framework now and join the international community to combat terrorism in all its forms, including nuclear terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) regulates public entertainment. It ensures that public entertainment is carried out in a lawful and orderly manner, in line with standards of public decency, and at suitable places.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) share the administration of the Act. MHA regulates public entertainment (PE) establishments, such as nightclubs, billiard saloons and gaming centres and public entertainment events, while MCI regulates arts entertainment, such as plays, musicals and exhibitions.

Singapore's public entertainment industry is dynamic. Consumer preferences change and business models evolve rapidly. We have to constantly finetune the public entertainment regulatory regime to stay current and effective.

Currently, about four in five PE establishments have good track records of complying with licence conditions. A small group of errant establishments breach these conditions, do not cooperate with the Police and create law and order problems.

MHA last amended PEMA in 2000 to improve the administration of public entertainment licences. MCI amended PEMA in 2014 to establish a framework for greater clarity and consistency in the regulation of arts entertainment. It is timely to update PEMA and ensure its relevancy.

MHA has reviewed its approach to regulating PE establishments and will put in place a more calibrated, risk-based regulatory regime. For the vast majority of licensees who are law-abiding, we will take a lighter touch to support the continued vibrancy of the industry. For instance, MHA will introduce licences with longer validity periods than the standard one-year licences that are issued to all PE establishments today. The Police will also work closely with the industry to promote more responsible business operations.

On the other hand, we need to strengthen regulatory levers against errant PE establishments. The Bill proposes to make the necessary legislative amendments to support this enhanced regulatory regime. As part of the review, MHA consulted the PE industry through the Singapore Nightlife Business Association (SNBA). We reached out to close to 180 nightlife establishments. SNBA and these establishments support the proposed amendments in the Bill.

MCI has also reviewed the arts entertainment-related provisions for greater consistency between the regulation of arts entertainment held at public entertainment establishments or events, which are licensable by the Police, and the regulation of arts entertainments held at other venues.

The amendments are intended to clarify that arts entertainment will be regulated in the same manner, regardless of whether it is held at PE establishments or events licensable by the Police, or at other venues.

The amendments do not entail any changes to existing arts entertainment content standards or the Info-Communications Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) arts entertainment classification and licensing processes. MCI has engaged both the PE industry and the arts community on these amendments.

Let me now take Members through the key provisions of the Bill.

The first set of amendments seeks to prevent the operation of PE establishments that are either operated by unsuitable persons or businesses or operated in unsuitable locations.

Under the current section 5 of the Act, the Licensing Officer may require an applicant for a PE licence to satisfy certain criteria and requirements. This existing provision allows the Licensing Officer to assess whether the applicant is fit and proper to carry on a PE business and prevent unsuitable persons from doing so.

Clause 6 of the Bill expands this assessment of applicant suitability to include persons who are related to the applicant, namely, the responsible officers and individuals with substantial interest in, or control or direction over the business of the applicant.

Clause 4 of the Bill defines "responsible officer" and it will cover directors of body corporates, partners of partnerships, and officers of unincorporated associations, as the case may be. This ensures that all persons who can influence the decisions of the business are duly assessed and are not working behind the scenes to operate the PE establishment.

The Police have reviewed the criteria and requirements to be applied to both applicants and their related persons, and the updated criteria and requirements will be published on the Police's website in due course.

One key objective of PEMA is to ensure that PE is carried out at suitable places.

Clause 4 creates a new provision that requires the Licensing Officer to take into account the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning considerations in approving a place to operate a PE establishment. For example, a Licensing Officer cannot approve applications for pubs and bars in a conservation area, to maintain the character of historic districts.

The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for errant operators who try to circumvent our controls and safeguards altogether, by operating PE establishments without valid licences.

Clause 20 of the Bill increases the maximum fine for providing PE without a licence or while the licence is suspended, from the existing $10,000 to $20,000. This amendment differentiates offences by licensees who contravene licence conditions or the Act, and such offences are currently subject to a maximum fine of $10,000. The offender who disregarded the law entirely has to be treated more harshly than the offender who had obtained a licence but was not fully compliant with its conditions or the Act. The maximum fine for providing PE without a valid licence will be raised to $20,000.

In cases where licensees do not comply with licensing conditions or become unsuitable to operate a PE establishment, the Police must have the powers to deal effectively with them. The second set of amendments will strengthen these powers.

The Demerit Point System, introduced in 2000, allows the Police to adopt a graduated enforcement approach against licensees who infringe licence conditions. Licensees are given demerit points for breaches, and appropriate action is taken depending on the number of demerit points accumulated over a two-year period. A licence will be suspended for one month at 21 demerit points, and cancelled altogether at 24 demerit points.

The Police impose demerit points for licensing breaches that are compounded, or for which the licensee is convicted in Court. If the licensee is charged for multiple licensing breaches, it is usual for the Court to take into consideration a proportion of the charges for the purpose of sentencing, rather than convict the licensee for all charges. Charges that are taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing currently do not attract demerit points.

Clause 11 of the Bill now allows demerit points to be given in respect of charges that are taken into consideration by the Court, since the licensee has admitted to committing the licensing breaches.

The Demerit Point System provides early warning for minor breaches and encourages the licensee to exercise self-discipline. However, the Licensing Officer may immediately suspend or cancel the licence where the need arises. The existing section 14 enables this.

Even so, section 14, subsection 1 only applies where the PE provided is problematic. For example, it does not apply if illegal acts carried out by the licensee or his employees are not associated with the PE provided at the establishment.

Therefore, clause 10 of the Bill expands on section 14, to allow the Licensing Officer to immediately suspend a PE licence, if the licensee or a relevant person of the business is charged in Court for serious crimes arising out of or in connection with any activity in the licensed establishment. These serious crimes must have a nexus with the establishment, but not necessarily the PE provided in the establishment.

This includes offences, such as drug offences, trafficking-in-persons and offences under the Organised Crime Act. The list of serious crimes is specified in the new Second Schedule to the Bill.

This will allow the Police to immediately suspend PE establishments which are being used for such serious crimes, instead of waiting for Court trials on the cases to conclude. This also deters other operators from using their establishments for unlawful activities.

The third set of amendments enhances Police operational effectiveness in enforcing the Act.

Clause 5 of the Bill allows the Licensing Officer to appoint suitably trained individuals as "authorised persons". Clause 17 empowers authorised persons to conduct inspections at PE establishments and events. Authorised persons will not be given the more specialised powers that Licensing Officer and Police officers have, for example, powers of forced entry and arrest. These provisions give the Police operational flexibility to deploy manpower more effectively or conduct more frequent checks if the need arises.

Clause 18 empowers Licensing Officers and Police Officers to enter premises, including using necessary force, if there is reasonable suspicion that offences under the Bill are being or has been committed within.

Today, appeals against the decision of the Licensing Officer are heard by the relevant Minister. Clause 15 of the Bill will set up an appeal board to hear appeals by classes of applicants or licensees that the Minister may prescribe.

The PE Appeal Board will operate like the Liquor Appeal Board under the Liquor Control Act. The Minister for Home Affairs will appoint the members of the Board. The intent is to appoint members from diverse fields, including legal, education and business. The Appeal Board will receive representations from the Licensing Officer and the appellant, and make a decision based on simple majority. Its decision on the merits of the case will be final.

On behalf of the Minister responsible for arts entertainment, I will now address MCI's proposed amendments in the Bill. The first two sets of amendments by MCI deal with the classification of arts entertainment, while the third relates to appeals against IMDA's classification decisions.

For arts entertainment licensed by IMDA under the Bill, IMDA may impose conditions as part of the arts entertainment licence. However, for arts entertainment held at PE establishments or events, IMDA will not be able to impose such conditions within the PE licence issued by the Police.

Clause 12 allows IMDA to impose the conditions as part of IMDA's classification of the arts entertainment held at PE establishments or events, thereby giving these conditions the same effect as licensing conditions imposed by IMDA.

The second set of amendments involves arts entertainment content that exceeds the maximum R18 rating under the Arts Entertainment Classification Code (AECC).

Currently, IMDA will not issue arts entertainment licences for such arts entertainment content. However, this does not apply for PE establishments or events.

Clause 13 clarifies that IMDA may refuse to classify such arts entertainment content regardless of whether it is held at PE establishments or events or at other venues. Under the Bill, an arts entertainment that has not been classified cannot be staged. This will thus ensure consistency in the treatment of arts entertainment exceeding the maximum R18 rating, regardless of whether it comes under a PE licence by the Police or a licence by IMDA.

The third set of amendments relates to appeals against IMDA's classification decisions. Clause 15 clarifies that any licensee, including those holding PE licences issued by the Police, may appeal against IMDA's classification decisions for arts entertainment. Appealable decisions refer to IMDA's classification ratings, its refusal to classify content that exceeds the maximum R18 rating under AECC and the imposition of conditions as part of its classification of arts entertainment.

These amendments will ensure consistency in the regulation of arts entertainment regardless of whether it comes under a PE licence by the Police or a licence by IMDA.

There will be no changes to existing arts entertainment content standards under AECC or IMDA's arts entertainment classification and licensing processes.

I will now touch briefly on other amendments of the Bill.

Clause 21 confers personal immunity on Licensing Officers, Police Officers and authorised persons acting with reasonable care and in good faith in the execution or purported execution of the Bill.

Clause 16 clarifies that the Ministers charged with the responsibility for PEs and arts entertainments respectively have the powers to make exemptions for their respective areas.

Finally, clauses 2, 3 and 24 of the Bill amend the title of the Act from the "Public Entertainments and Meetings Act" to the "Public Entertainments Act". The regulation of meetings, such as rallies, talks and forums, now falls under the Public Order Act, which was enacted in 2009.

In conclusion, the amendments to the Act will strengthen MHA's and MCI's regulatory frameworks for PEs and arts entertainments respectively and keep the Act relevant to today's operating environment. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mdm Speaker, I strongly support the amendments to strengthen our legislative framework and to increase the penalties against entertainment outlets involved in drugs, human trafficking, organised crime and other illegal activities. I approve of the more stringent assessments during licence applications to screen out undesirable operators and the harsher penalties proposed. These measures will greatly help to act as deterrents.

I am worried about the increasingly liberal attitude of our young people towards drugs, as found in a survey released last month by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). The survey found that those with a liberal attitude towards drugs had increased from 11% in 2013 to 16% last year. In fact, today's Straits Times' article on the increasing number of new psychoactive substances causing harm to their users is most worrying.

Entertainment outlets, such as nightclubs, are popular venues for young people to congregate, make friends and have fun. There, they are especially open to new and exciting experiences and, hence, very vulnerable to taking higher risks as they experiment with perceived "adult consumables", such as smoking, alcohol or drugs. Even those who are less inclined may give in due to peer pressure. We must ensure a safe environment for them to have clean fun and protect them from the ravages of drugs.

Numerous raids by our Home Team over the years had also unearthed vice activities upon the premises of unscrupulous operators. In addition to the crimes of human trafficking, such activities are also a threat to our health system, as sex workers may spread sexually transmitted infections.

Singapore's night scene has become quite vibrant and attracts foreigners and those who traffic in them out for a quick buck. This is clearly undesirable due to numerous externalities, such as petty crimes, organised crimes, homicides and so forth. Weeding out illicit entertainment venues will have a significant impact on reducing the cases of human trafficking.

PE venues also include Internet cafes, which can be located within or near housing estates. Again, many of the patrons of such outlets are from the younger age groups. Given the proximity of these cafes to residences, extra care must be exercised to keep illicit activities out of our neighbourhoods.

I believe that the Ministry's proposal to suspend an outlet's licence as soon as a licensee or anyone involved in the operations is charged will be quite effective in putting a stop to the illegal activities at its venue.

I would also like to laud the amendment to allow officers to break into suspected premises by force if necessary. This is one of the few ways to expedite the progress of investigations. We should provide our Police Officers more support and leeway to perform their duties and nip criminal activities in the bud.

With these amendments, I am very confident that Singapore will be in a better position to offer a dynamic night scene while reducing the sleaze and damaging effects of associated crimes. Madam, I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mdm Speaker, one of the key thrusts of the Bill is to reduce the likelihood of our PE night spots being owned and managed by those engaged in serious crime or organised crime activities. I agree that this is important, not only to promote a safe environment for patrons, but also to deny serious criminals a source of income and a means for money laundering. While I support the Bill's overall aims, I have two sets of queries on the Bill regarding PE licensing and enforcement.

First, on licensing. The licensing of PE establishments vests in the Licensing Officer. For those who wish to appeal against the Licensing Officer's decisions, the Bill proposes the setting up of a new PE Appeal Board to replace the Minister as the appellate authority in certain types of appeals. Clause 15 amends section 16 of the Act to provide for the Appeal Board to be the authority to hear appeals against the Licensing Officer's decisions if the appeal is from a specified establishment or a prescribed class of applicants or licensees. At the same time, other appeals will continue to go to the Minister. I would like to know what the general division of work will be between the Appeal Board and the Minister. Is it the intention to let the Appeal Board hear appeals which may be of a more routine nature, while the Minister retains the power to hear appeals in more difficult or complex cases? Or is it vice versa, with the Appeal Board dealing with the more difficult appeals?

My second set of queries relates to enforcement as set out in clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. Clause 17 amends the current Act significantly in terms of the right of entry and inspection of enforcement officers. The current Act empowers the Licensing Officer and Police Officers to enter premises to ascertain if licensing conditions are complied with. The Bill will include a new category of officer, called an "authorised person", who, together with the Licensing Officer and Police Officers, will be called "inspecting officers". These inspecting officers will be given enhanced enforcement powers to enter and inspect PE outlets. Earlier, in his Second Reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary clarified that, as far as authorised persons are concerned, they would not have powers of forced entry and arrests. But it is also true that the Bill gives these authorised persons enhanced powers in confrontational scenarios, such as requiring production of information, accessing computers, interviewing suspects on site, and requiring witnesses to provide explanations of documents or information found.

The category of the new "authorised persons" to be included to exercise these enhanced powers deserves some attention. According to clause 5 of the Bill, an individual may be appointed as an "authorised person" if he is "suitably trained". What does "suitably trained" mean? If the Government is referring to Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) becoming authorised officers for licensing inspections, does their training cover the necessary skill competencies to handle the confrontational scenarios envisaged in clause 17?

Finally, on enforcement, clause 18 amends section 17A to explicitly include powers of forced entry. I would like a clarification on why it is deemed necessary now to provide the Licensing Officer expressly with powers of forced entry when he seems to have managed his duties all these decades without such an explicit power.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Madam, the amendments to PEMA serve to allow a more holistic enforcement of the law and a more comprehensive set of laws on establishments that provide such PE. My concern is largely with those establishments which may create disamenities or inconveniences within their immediate community.

There are establishments within my constituency, located close to residences, which provide PE, such as karaoke singing or telecast of sports matches. While most of these establishments adhere to existing laws on PE, I have received feedback from residents about a couple of these establishments.

One feedback is on noise, especially into the late night. Another feedback is illegal parking along the roads and driveways to houses, especially those in the private landed estates. Another feedback is on activities that may create feelings of discomfort among residents living nearby, or feedback on establishments that are suspected of allowing illicit activities to take place within and around their premises.

I have a few clarifications with regard to the proposed amendments. Clause 5, amendment to section 4, mentioned that the appropriate licensing officer may appoint an individual, who need not be a public officer, but who is suitably trained as an authorised person to carry out certain functions of the Act.

For this clause, I have two clarifications. First, what is the extent of functions of the Bill that this appointed individual will be able to execute? Second, what are the criteria in appointing the individual to carry out these functions? Would these be our APOs only?

Clause 11, amendment to section 15(2), stated that demerit points may be awarded on the basis of charges against the licensee during the sentencing for offences, and not just on the basis of conviction or composition of offences. I support this.

However, I have one clarification. Is there a maximum number of demerit points that a licensee can accumulate before having the licence suspended or revoked? Would this be similar to our driving licence demerit points system? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments in the Bill.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mdm Speaker, the proposed changes to PEMA will, amongst others, introduce stricter penalties to deter PE operators from using their premises for illegal activities, and to give the authorities greater powers to control the use of such premises. These are important amendments in support of our fight against racketeering and associated criminal activities. I support this Bill.

I wish to seek clarification on the following five areas of this Bill.

First, the amendments to section 4 of the Act allows the appointed Licensing Officer to appoint trained individuals who need not be public servants as authorised persons under the Bill. My Parliamentary colleagues, Dr Intan and Ms Sylvia Lim, also spoke about this point. It appears that under the proposed amendments, these persons would be deemed as public servants when exercising their powers under the Act. This is in contrast to the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015, which only provides for APOs or Police Officers to be an approved person under that Act to carry out licensing functions. What is the rationale for allowing private sector vendors to carry out functions of the Licensing Officer under the proposed provisions? How will these private sector vendors be selected and are there other similar uses of the private sector for licensing or other analogous matters in Singapore?

Second, the proposed amendments to section 5 of the Act expands the criteria for obtaining a licence which presently only stipulates operational requirements, to include criteria and requirements relating to the responsible officer of the applicant of the licence. The explanatory notes of the Bill state that this takes into account considerations of whether the responsible officer is a fit and proper person, similar to the approach taken in the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act. May I ask if the criteria and requirements that relate to the responsible officer also take into account his character, capability and reputation, similar to the guidelines on the criteria under the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act?

Third, the proposed section 14(2A) of the Bill allows for immediate suspension of a licence if proceedings have commenced against the licensee for certain offences specified in the Second Schedule that relate to any activity at an approved place for the licence. Could the Parliamentary Secretary please clarify whether proceedings include investigations that have been commenced against the licensee even if the licensee has not been formally charged in Court with any offence yet? Would proceedings also include proceedings for a confiscation order, for example, under the Organised Crime Act, even if the licensee or the responsible officer has not been the subject of any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence stipulated in the proposed Second Schedule of the Bill?

Additionally, how would the proposed amendment to section 14 take into account foreign proceedings commenced against the licensee or the responsible officer, say, for example, a vice-related offence which has an equivalent in the proposed Second Schedule? The proposed section 14(2A) presently does not take into account such foreign proceedings. Yet, this may be relevant, especially if the licensee or the responsible officer is involved in operating similar businesses in other countries and foreign proceedings have been brought against him in that regard. Alternatively, would such considerations be instead taken into account in the fit and proper criteria to determine whether the licence should be suspended or cancelled under the proposed amendments to section 14(2) of the Act? If so, would there be a need to widen the language used in that provision to include responsible officers of the licensees and persons having substantial control over these licensees?

Fourth, the proposed amendments to section 15A of the Act allows the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer to impose conditions as he thinks fit. Could the hon Parliamentary Secretary please clarify what sorts of conditions are contemplated? Would the Ministry also be providing guidelines on how the discretion to impose conditions would be exercised? This would promote greater certainty for producers of the arts, who could then have these guidelines in mind at the outset when planning and producing their art exhibitions and performances.

Finally, in relation to the proposed new sections 16 to 16AC of the Bill providing for a consolidated appeals framework. I note now that two relevant appeal authorities have been proposed in respect of appeals against appealable decisions of the PE Licensing Officer, namely, the newly constituted PE Appeal Board for decisions involving prescribed specified establishments or a prescribed class of licensees and, in any other cases, to the Minister responsible for PE. Could the Parliamentary Secretary please elaborate on what type of specified establishments or class of licensees would be prescribed that would involve the PE Appeal Board? I believe a similar point was raised by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. In addition, what is the rationale for having an independent PE Appeal Board that deals with appeals against certain decisions involving these prescribed specified establishments or class of licensees, whilst appeals against all other decisions continue to be dealt with by the Minister?

I support our efforts to promote higher standards amongst PE operators, and to safeguard against those who misuse these premises to carry out racketeering activities. I also applaud both Ministries' efforts in engaging the stakeholders before tabling this Bill. I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

Madam, entertainment outlets, such as nightclubs and pubs, are a significant component of our services sector. They contribute to the vibrancy of our cityscape. They also form an important part of our tourism industry.

If they serve as the front for illegal activities, they will undermine the appeal of legitimate businesses. If they thrive by allowing activities on their premises that properly run establishments adhering to strict regulations refuse to accommodate, the latter could be edged out of business competition. In particular, I would like to express my concerns about unruly behaviour regularly linked to PE outlets.

Madam, in March this year, a well-known venue which hosts several PE outlets was the scene of a killing. The setting is usually the same, with the victim confronted by a group of attackers in the hours between midnight and dawn.

Unfortunately, this was hardly the first time an incident of this type occurred. On Christmas eve of 2015, an American who worked as a stuntman was killed in a brawl at a different area reportedly after he was caught up in an attack by a large group. In fact, merely going by insider accounts reported in media exposes alone would tell us that when a serious incident occurs, it is just a spillover from what happens within these establishments on a regular basis.

A report published in The Straits Times on 19 March this year which followed up on the March incident, gave accounts from three perspectives − those of the regular patrons, employees and establishment owners. They all concurred that such incidents were not one-off. Of course, some laid the blame on bad press, too, which could mean quite a lot of different things, depending on how you look at it.

Madam, to a casual observer, establishments such as nightclubs and pubs have regularly reinforced their own poor reputations in these matters not just by what happens in them, but also by what is linked to them. When incidents are reported, such as fights and even deaths, the same places/names regularly turn up. What is worse is to hear young people talk about what happens regularly that goes on unreported as though it was the most natural thing in the world on a night out.

While I support the Bill, I would like to urge MHA to take a stronger stand in addressing the negative issues that are associated with such establishments. The current Bill deals with what occurs on the premises of such establishments, but we often hear of reported incidents occurring outside. In mid-April this year, it was reported that the Police arrested a group of nine men between the ages of 20 and 30 for rioting with a deadly weapon, which caused the death of a 31-year-old man at a car park in an area different from those two that I had already mentioned above. This happens so regularly that when it is reported, I often wonder why there is no attempt to draw a link to the establishments where such incidents could have originated.

When violence peaks and serious incidents occur, it is the Police which have to be called in. At such times, the diversion of significant Police resources is more than just a cost that has to be borne by taxpayers. The drain on tight Police resources caused by recurrent incidents of this nature is a distraction from greater policing priorities.

Finally, there is another danger, which is to our youths, which several hon Members have already mentioned. When nightspots tolerate or engage in undesirable activities on their premises, young patrons are especially vulnerable. Not only could they be unwitting victims of such incidents, if they are led to think that illegal activities can proceed without effective policing, they may come to associate them as a natural part of an exciting night out.

In August 2013, in a written response to a Parliamentary Question, Deputy Prime Minister Teo, then Minister for Home Affairs, had already highlighted policing measures in preventing youth gang fights, where, I quote, "PE outlets, such as billiard saloons and amusement centres, are subject to licensing conditions which require the licensee to report unlawful activities to the Police".

Madam, the enhancements in today's Bill are important additional measures for dealing with this problem. I would like to urge the relevant Government agencies involved to continue to explore additional ways of holding entertainment outlets and their patrons accountable in ensuring that good clean fun does not cross the line. The violence and deaths which have occurred are both senseless and tragic. Beyond that, legitimate business activity suffers. The problem must be tackled through tougher legislation. Madam, I support the Bill.

Ms Denise Phua.

Madam, I rise to speak in support of PEMA. I am the local Member of Parliament (MP) in the Kampong Glam and Jalan Besar vicinity. Residents would largely welcome this Bill. Most important to many residents − not just in my area, but I think in other areas as well − the Bill will strengthen the ability of the Government to ensure that PE is not carried out in places that are not suitable to its nature.

As MPs serving residents in the city district, colleagues such as Mr Melvin Yong, previously Mr Edwin Tong and myself, have had our fair share of challenges to balance the tension between the needs of residents and the needs of PE outlets and events. Let me share a few examples from my past few terms serving my residents.