Hansard, Monday, 8 September 2014

Order. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:

Ms Chia Yong Yong;

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng;

Mr Karthikeyan s/o R Krishnamurthy;

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin;

Mr Mohd Ismail Bin Hussein;

Ms Rita Soh Siow Lan;

Dr Benedict Tan Chi'-Loong;

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan Gee Kwang; and

Prof Tan Tai Yong.

On 26 August 2014, President Tony Tan, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as NMPs for a term of two and a half years with effect from 26 August 2014.

The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.

Page: 15

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below:

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Karthikeyan s/o R Krishnamurthy (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Mr Mohd Ismail Bin Hussein (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Ms Rita Soh Siow Lan (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Dr Benedict Tan Chi'-Loong (Nominated Member of Parliament);

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan Gee Kwang (Nominated Member of Parliament); and

Prof Tan Tai Yong (Nominated Member of Parliament).

I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Page: 16

1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health with regard to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the spread through flights from the region (a) what contingency plans does the Ministry have in place to deal with such virulent conditions coming into Singapore; and (b) how prepared is our healthcare system to deal with any potential outbreak of contagious diseases.

2 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there is a necessity to detect and keep vigilant for any early signs of an Ebola outbreak from incoming and outgoing passengers travelling by air, sea or land; and (b) what are the contingency plans for such an outbreak of the virulent disease.

3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health (a) what preventive measures and precautions has the Ministry been taking to prevent an outbreak of the Ebola virus in Singapore given Singapore's position as a key aviation hub in the region; (b) what is the Ministry's response and treatment plan should a person who has contracted the Ebola virus enter Singapore; and (c) what medical assistance will be provided to the person who has contracted the Ebola virus.

(for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 together?

Yes, please.

The ongoing Ebola outbreak is limited to the African region of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and, most recently, in Senegal, where an isolated imported case has been reported. A separate Ebola outbreak has been confirmed in a remote region in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is not related to the outbreak in West Africa. Our current assessment is that the risk of Ebola spreading to Singapore is low due to the limited travel connectivity between Singapore and Africa. Prior to the Ebola outbreak, the number of travellers from these countries arriving in Singapore is small, with an average of about 30 travellers a month collectively from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, and between 200 and 300 travellers a month from Nigeria.

Since WHO declared the Ebola outbreak in West Africa as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 8 August 2014, many airlines have stopped flying to Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the three countries with widespread active community transmission. The numbers of travellers from these countries to Singapore are even fewer now. In addition,

Page: 17

transmission of Ebola requires direct contact with the blood and/or fluids of an infected person. It does not spread through the air like influenza. Nevertheless, while the risk is low, we cannot rule out the possibility of an imported case to Singapore.

Hence, we have put in place measures to reduce the risk of infection to Singaporeans who travel to or are residing in affected countries, ensure early detection of cases and prevent spread in the event that we have an imported case of Ebola in Singapore.

To minimise the risk of infection to Singaporeans travelling to or residing in affected countries, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has advised Singaporeans against non-essential travel to the affected countries in Africa. For those who need to travel there, we have advised them on the precautionary measures to take, such as frequent hand washing and avoiding direct contact with blood and secretions or other body fluids of dead persons or animals. This information is available on the MOH website. In addition, health advisory posters are also displayed at our Changi Airport Departure Halls. We have also worked with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Enterprise Singapore to disseminate this information through their networks.

MOH has worked with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), Changi Airport Group (CAG), Maritime and Ports Authority (MPA) and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to display health advisory posters at all air, land and sea checkpoints, and to distribute Health Advisory Notices (HANs) at our immigration counters to inbound nationals and travellers from Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria. These passengers are advised to seek medical attention early if they develop symptoms within 21 days of arrival and to inform their doctor of their travel history. Contingency plans are in place at Changi Airport to manage passengers with signs of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). Such passengers will be isolated and transferred using a Portable Medical Isolation Unit to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for further management. MOH will also extend these measures to Senegal and the DRC to ensure early detection of suspect cases.

Healthcare staff are a key line of defence. Medical clinics and hospitals have been alerted, through professional circulars, to exercise vigilance and ensure early detection of possible suspect Ebola cases. Laboratories have also been advised of the testing procedures for Ebola.

Management of suspect Ebola cases will be centralised in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, at a dedicated facility at the Communicable Diseases Centre 2 (CDC 2). All suspect cases will be triaged at the emergency departments, and as a precaution, isolated from other patients to minimise any risk of transmission. A case that has been admitted in another hospital will continue to be managed there to minimise risk of infection during transfer. All hospitals have put in place procedures for strict infection control measures when managing a suspect or

Page: 18

confirmed case of Ebola. In the event of a confirmed case of Ebola in Singapore, MOH will carry out contact tracing and all close contacts of the confirmed case will be quarantined for 21 days from the time of last exposure.

As there are no proven anti-viral drug treatments or vaccines yet available, a patient with Ebola will be given intensive supportive treatment. Healthcare workers attending to the patient will use appropriate Personal Protective Equipment in addition to the strict infection control measures that have been put in place.

Our healthcare system will continue to remain alert and prepared to manage any potential outbreaks of infectious diseases in Singapore and our hospitals have dedicated response plans, which include plans to ramp-up resources and re-deploy staff to respond to disease outbreak situations. They have also carried out regular exercise to familiarise our healthcare workers with the contingency response plans.

Mr Alex Yam.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. Two supplementary questions. First, on 14 August, there was a brief scare. We saw a Nigerian woman who was at Gleneagles Medical Centre, subsequently placed into isolation at the Communicable Diseases Centre. The news release triggered some amount of public alarm. Can I ask what plans does the Ministry have in place to coordinate the media aspects of such a medical emergency so as to reduce and prevent undue public alarm? Secondly, it is with regard to the experimental drug ZMapp. I would like to ask if the Ministry does hold stock of such medication in case of an outbreak.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. On the question about the premature reporting of a suspected case in Singapore, I think, MOH is concerned about it. We have also written to the media to clarify with them and to ensure that in future reporting, they do check with the Ministry to prevent such false alarms.

With regard to the use of some of the unproven medications that have been reported in the media, one of which that has been widely reported in the media is the experimental drug ZMapp. It consists of three monoclonal antibodies produced in a plant and it is developed by Mapp Biopharmaceutical. It was first reported to be used in infected humans very recently in July 2014. It was administered to two American health workers who had been infected with Ebola, and both appeared to have positive results and have recovered. However, ZMapp was also administered to a 75-year-old Spanish priest with Ebola, who died eventually and three other Liberian health workers, who showed improvement, although

Page: 19

one of them eventually succumbed to the disease.

We have been informed by the manufacturer that there is a shortage of ZMapp at this point in time. We want to let Singaporeans know that while we monitor the situation very closely, ZMapp is not the mainstay of treatment for any patient infected with Ebola. Intensive supportive treatment is still the mainstay. We will continue to monitor the research that has been going on in ZMapp and we will use it when appropriate.

Mrs Lina Chiam.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether there are any volunteer healthcare workers from Singapore working in the Ebola-stricken areas such as Nigeria, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone in West Africa, and if there are Singaporeans working there, what precautions would MOH take when they return to Singapore after their stint as volunteers and caregivers?

I would like to thank the Member for that question. Currently, we do not have any volunteers that are working in the affected areas, but we also do not prohibit or discourage volunteers from taking part in relief efforts in these affected countries. As a precautionary measure, MOH will keep very close track of these volunteers. Volunteers who have direct contact with patients will be monitored and put on phone surveillance for at least 21 days upon their return.

4 Dr Janil Puthucheary asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how many Singaporeans are there living or working in countries currently affected by the Ebola virus; and (b) what steps are taken to ensure that they will be given support, should they need to evacuate or leave the country they are in.

(for the Minister for Foreign Affairs):Mdm Speaker, the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak afflicting West Africa is of concern, both in terms of the number of confirmed cases and the disease's mortality rate. The confirmed cases have been limited to Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, and a small number of cases in Nigeria.

On 8 August 2014, World Health Organization (WHO)'s Emergency Committee regarding the EVD ascertained that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The WHO has since recommended that EVD-related health advisories and information be provided to the general public and to

Page: 20

travellers to the affected and at-risk areas. States have also been advised to be prepared to detect, investigate and manage Ebola cases.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) issued a health advisory on EVD on 31 July 2014. In line with MOH's advisory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also issued a travel notice on 1 August 2014 concerning the Ebola situation and advised Singaporeans to postpone non-essential travel to the affected areas.

On the hon Member's query, there are currently 12 Singaporeans in Nigeria and one Singaporean in Liberia. They are all registered with MFA. MFA is in regular contact with the Singaporeans residing in Nigeria and Liberia and has urged them to consider returning to Singapore, especially if they do not have essential matters to attend to, so that they minimise their risks of potential exposure.

The WHO has not placed a general international travel ban on the affected countries but has advised that any person with an illness consistent with the EVD should not be allowed to travel unless it is part of a medical evacuation. This applies to both EVD cases and individuals who have been traced to have had physical contact with individuals infected with EVD.

Should there be an overseas Singaporean who has shown symptoms of EVD or is a confirmed EVD case, MFA will work with the local authorities, employer and next-of-kin of the Singaporean, as well as with our MOH to facilitate the repatriation. However, the Singaporean must be medically certified to be fit for travel before evacuation arrangements can be made.

Our High Commissioner in Pretoria and Consulate-General in Lagos are monitoring developments closely and remain in contact with the local authorities. MFA, together with its overseas missions, stand ready to assist any Singaporean who requires consular assistance.

5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower with the current policy to encourage those reaching 62 years to be offered re-employment (a) what checks are in place to protect those nearing 62 years from being retrenched as some employers may not wish to continue retaining them; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider more incentives to encourage employers to hire and retain older workers.

Page: 21

(for the Minister for Manpower): The Retirement and Re-employment Act, which came into effect in 2012, protects older workers from being dismissed on the grounds of age below 62, and from unfair denial of re-employment from 62 to 65. In situations where such workers feel that they have been unfairly treated, they can take up the matter with their union or the Ministry.

Nevertheless, we also appreciate that there might be legitimate reasons where businesses need to restructure or are just not able to keep some of their older workers. The Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Workers give employers some flexibility in re-employing their older workers. For example, employers can re-employ employees with some modifications on re-negotiated terms. Where employers are unable to offer re-employment to eligible employees, they should offer such employees a one-off Employment Assistance Payment. In the unfortunate event where retrenchments are necessary, employers should carry out retrenchment responsibly and in consultation with the union, if the company is unionised.

Over the years, the Government has introduced several incentives to encourage the hiring and retention of older workers. We provide generous funding under WorkPro to help employers redesign jobs and the work environment to adapt to the ageing workforce. We also have the Special Employment Credit and Workfare Income Supplement to support employers and employees respectively to raise the employability of older low-wage Singaporeans.

We have seen positive outcomes from our efforts. The employment rate of older residents aged 55 to 64 has increased significantly, from 47% in June 2004 to 65% in June 2013. Re-employment rates have been high, with 99% of private sector local employees who turned 62 in the year ending June 2013 offered re-employment.

The Government will continue to monitor the situation to consider if further incentives are needed.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Recently, I have seen several cases of residents not offered re-employment when they reached 62. I saw that the reason given, when I appealed, is poor performance. I would like to ask: can such cases be referred to the Ministry and what will the Ministry do for such cases?

Next, in order to encourage employers to re-employ older workers, would there be more incentives like tax rebate for the companies?

Page: 22

Under the Retirement and Re-employment Act, employers are required to offer re-employment to workers turning 62 up to 65, taking into consideration two criteria. The first criterion would be satisfactory work performance and the second criterion is medical fitness for further employment.

There have been some cases, since we implemented the retirement and re-employment legislation in 2012, on re-employment disputes. Most of the re-employment disputes pertain to performance or dispute over re-employment terms. These cases would be referred; they can approach a union – if the company is unionised – or directly to the Ministry. We have about 34 cases so far since the re-employment legislation started [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 9 September 2014, Vol 92, Issue No 13, Clarification Section.] Most of these cases would have been resolved through conciliation. For the remaining cases, they are still undergoing conciliation.

With regard to further incentives, as I have said, since the implementation of the re-employment legislation, as at June 2013, 99% of private sector employees who have reached the age of 62 have been offered re-employment. In fact, 96% of those who have taken up the re-employment offers did not have their basic wage cut.

So, we think that the implementation of the re-employment legislation has been relatively smooth. In fact, because of the re-employment legislation, as well as the several incentives that we have already implemented in terms of the Special Employment Credit, Workfare Income Supplement, and generous funding to WorkPro, our employment rate for older workers has increased, as I have noted earlier, from 47% in 2004 to 65% as at June 2013. This 65% was the target that we set to achieve for the employment rate for older workers in 2015. So, we have actually achieved the target ahead of the timeframe that we have set for ourselves.

That does not mean that we will rest on our laurels. I would like to inform Members that this employment rate of 65% for older workers is comparable or even better than in some countries like South Korea and the United States, and quite near to the employment rate of older workers for Japan, which was at 65.4% in 2012. It is still lower than that in Sweden, but generally because the employment rate of our female workforce, the older women, is lower. It has improved over time but we need to catch up on that.

So, as I have said, we will continue to monitor and see if further incentives are needed.

Thank you, Madam. I just want to thank the Senior Minister of State for the fact that the participation of seniors has increased to 65%. I am more concerned as to what the Ministry is doing to reach out to the employers to ensure that there are fair

Page: 23

re-employment contracts for these workers. And with an ageing population and more feeling fitter these days, will the re-employment age be moved in the near future?

I thank the Member for his question. I think he has been very consistent in asking the question about extending the re-employment age.

First, let me say that we have undertaken a very proactive tripartite promotional approach to engage employers to encourage them to adopt fair employment practices. Just this year in June, through the Tripartite Committee on the Employability of Older Workers, we have launched a promotional campaign entitled "Tap on the Wealth of Experience" to highlight and promote the invaluable experience of our older workers to the employers, and to encourage the employers to tap on the wealth of experience of older workers, to hire and retain them, through a series of publicity efforts which are still ongoing.

With regard to the extension of the re-employment age, I think we have said that the Tripartite Committee is in discussion to consider the extension of the re-employment age from 65 to 67. On when we will do it and how we will do it, we are working to wrap up discussions and we will announce the outcome of the discussions soon. In the meantime, I want to encourage employers to continue to offer employment to the older workers beyond the age of 65, as long as they are able and willing to continue to work.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State this: while numbers are important and while we have achieved our target of 65% employment rate, but what is the quality of the employment? Are we doing any studies or looking in terms of the quality of the employment provided to the senior citizens, as well as whether they are happy with it, and what else can we do to improve that?

I thank the Member for his question. As I have said, we are not resting on our laurels. We have reached 65% in June 2013 but as I have noted earlier, we are continuing to proactively engage employers through various means, as well as through publicity campaigns. We will continue to look at how we can encourage employers to retain, as well as hire older workers.

Given the tight labour market situation, you would find that many employers are coming forward to say that they are willing to employ older workers as long as they are able and willing to work. Through WorkPro, for instance, we are helping the employers to re-design their jobs as well as work environment to adapt to the ageing workforce.

Regarding the quality of work, yes, we are very concerned. We want to make sure that Singaporeans will have access to good quality and good-paying jobs, and that is why our

Page: 24

focus has been on lifelong learning and we invest heavily on Continuing Education and Training (CET), so that our workers can continue to upgrade their skills and remain relevant and employable. In fact, Workfare Training Support Scheme is one avenue through which we provide incentives to the low-wage older workers to upgrade their skills, so that they can enhance their employability, as well as get better jobs and better pay, and we will continue to see what we can do.

There has been a recent report saying that 35,000 older workers earn less than $1,000 a month. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry is concerned whether our older workers are being paid unfairly compared to those doing the same job but who are younger?

My apologies. I did not quite get the Member's question. Could I ask the Member to repeat it?

There is a recent report that says that 35,000 older workers today earn less than $1,000 a month. I would like to ask whether the Ministry is making sure that our older workers who are employed or re-employed are not being paid unfairly compared with those who are younger but are doing the same job.

There are several initiatives that we have undertaken. I think one of the key ones would be the Progressive Wage Model that NTUC is working on for various sectors. For instance, we have identified the cleaning sector and the idea really is to upgrade the skills of the workers so that they would be paid higher pay based on productivity and ability. We have actually legislated that for the cleaning sector. We are now looking into the security industry and we will also be looking into the landscape industry.

Regarding fair pay for the older workers, as I noted earlier, if we upgrade their skills, they are relevant, and they have the skills that are appropriate to the employers, then the employers ought to be paying them fair market rates. I do not have the details of the 35,000 workers that she has quoted. If she likes, she can submit another Parliamentary Question.

6 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) how prevalent are short-term rentals spanning less than six months of private properties that are regulated by MCSTs; (b) whether there are current measures in place to regulate these practices and, if so, how are they enforced; (c) what types of complaints have there been against short-term lessees; and (d) how many complaints have been received to date.

Page: 25

Mdm Speaker, under the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) guidelines, residential premises should not be rented out for a period of less than six months. If so, it will be considered an unauthorised change in the residential use of the premises, which is an offence under the Planning Act.

Since 2013, URA has received about 520 complaints regarding the alleged rental of individual strata-titled private residential properties for less than six months. Complainants have cited privacy and security concerns resulting from the presence of transient guests, and their use of common facilities which are intended for residents.

URA investigates all complaints received. If URA determines that an offence has been committed, it will take enforcement action to compel the offender to cease the unauthorised use. Offenders may be liable to penalties prescribed under the Planning Act.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have one supplementary question. Does the Government have any plans to review the regulatory framework that governs short-term rentals for both the public and private property market, in view of the rise of sharing economies service firms like Airbnb, for example?

Portals like Airbnb and many others promoting sharing of resources in an open economy is an emerging trend, and many of these websites or portals do have disclaimers which state that for people who are either offering their services or booking their services, they have to comply with the local laws and regulations. I think in this context of renting out properties for less than six months, clearly they are in infringement of our Planning Act. So, the necessary action will be taken. But going further in the long term, we have to study the implications of promoting or sharing of such resources in an economy, which, in itself, is positive, but then again, it is at the expense of existing regulations that tend to protect both consumers and service providers. Because we also do not want to see a situation where people sign up and are promised certain services or products, but, in the end, services are not delivered to them. So, I think we have to look at both the interest of the larger public, as well as the appeal or attraction of such form of resource sharing.

7 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether setting aside 40 places for registrants in Phases 2B and 2C of the Primary 1 Registration Exercise has met the objective of the Ministry; and (b) whether higher priority for Primary 1 places will be given to registrants who live near the primary schools.

Page: 26

Mdm Speaker, starting from the 2014 Primary 1 (P1) Registration Exercise, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has reserved 40 places in every school for registrants in Phases 2B and 2C. This is to ensure that our schools, especially the popular ones, remain open to children with no prior connections to the school. As a result of this change, five schools balloted in Phase 2A2 this year, but without the reservation of places in Phases 2B and 2C, there would have been fewer than 40 places in each of these five schools that are open to students without prior connections to the school. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Education", Official Report, 8 September 2014, Vol 92, Issue No 12.] In addition, without this 40 reserved places policy, some schools may in the future run the risk of not having any access at Phase 2B and 2C.

Home-school distance is already one key consideration during the allocation of P1 places, with priority for those who live within one kilometre of the school, followed by those who live between one kilometre and two kilometres from the school. As the number of children seeking admission in a particular year and the population in the area changes, we seek parents' understanding that even as we attempt to plan the location of schools and the number of vacancies carefully, it is not always possible to meet the changing number of students who will register within a particular school in a particular year. In addition, there needs to be a critical mass of students in an area before it is feasible for us to start a new school. But there will be sufficient places in schools that are within a reasonable distance of their homes. Our assessment is that the current criteria have met the needs of most parents well, and making further changes at this point would not be meaningful.

What is most important is that every pupil receives a good quality and holistic education, regardless of which school he or she attends. Therefore, we have been resourcing all our schools with well-trained teachers, high-quality education facilities and rigorous school programmes and will continue to do so. This is part of our commitment to make every school a good school, so that we can meet the educational needs of all children in Singapore.

Our ground feedback has been that the recent changes in our P1 registration framework and our outreach to parents on the programmes of schools in their neighbourhood have been met with good response from parents. We are pleased to see more parents taking the time to visit schools during open houses and to understand the programmes of the schools. They take the effort to see for themselves the quality of education provided in these schools. So, let us continue our efforts in this direction.

Mdm Speaker, every year, I have about 10 to 15 children all living within one kilometre of a school which are balloted out and they complain and say, "Well, look, I live near a school and I believe that the school is a good school. But yet, I can't get into the nearest school to my home. In contrast, they have parents who live further away, driving their children all the way to the school, also believing that that school

Page: 27

is a good school." So, may I ask the Minister, what is MOE's stand to encourage children to study at a school near their home? Secondly, would MOE consider a policy to require parents to send their children to a school within, say, three to five kilometres of their home, so that their children do not have to travel very long distance, and that would give them adequate rest and sleep, and cut down on their travelling journey? Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

I thank Mr Lim for his supplementary question. Indeed, we do encourage parents to try and send their children to a school near their homes. And the planning is done in such a way that allows us to do so, within a reasonable distance. But the current framework of P1 registration has evolved over many years and taking into account many different needs of various parents. I think it has evolved in the right direction. As to his question as to whether we will encourage parents to send their children to a school within three to five kilometres of their home, so that the children do not have to travel a long distance, indeed, we hope that parents will do so, but I think we have to encourage parents to see the value of the schools in their neighbourhood, and this is exactly what we have been trying to do. To see the value of the schools in their neighbourhood, I am very encouraged that many more parents are doing so, taking the time and trouble to see for themselves what are the programmes that are being offered.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would consider abolishing Phase 2B, given anecdotal evidence that many of the parents or grassroots volunteers ceased to provide services to the school or community once the child has been admitted to the school.

For every such case, I also hear many other cases where parent volunteers, for instance, have gone on to continue to volunteer many years of their lives in the school. So, I think a careful balance needs to be struck. As I have said, the system has evolved – and I think we are evolving in the right direction – let us do what matters most, rather than to try to think about how do we cut the lines further and how do we make further demarcations. Let us focus on the essential and the essential is to make every school a good school and to encourage parents to see for themselves what kind of school can best meet the needs of the children. So, let us not diffuse our effort into many different directions; just focus on doing this one thing well.

8 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main reasons for the delay of the opening of the 700-bed Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (NTFG) by six months; (b) whether the delay will cause a deterioration of the hospital bed crunch situation in Singapore; and (c) whether other hospital projects are on track as planned.

Page: 28

Madam, first, let me assure Members that besides Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, the other hospital projects under construction are currently on track.

The key reason for the delay of the Ng Teng Fong General Hospital was due to a delay in the building's exterior works. Let me explain. The building's exterior works, or referred to as the façade, comprise the functional elements such as windows, glass panels, air vents and cladding. These functional elements need to be installed so that the building is protected from the wind and the rain to allow internal building works and installation of critical equipment to proceed without the risk of damage by weather.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) and Jurong Health Services, which are overseeing the project, have been monitoring its progress since construction of the hospital started in 2012. Earlier this year, they detected that the progress of the exterior works had fallen behind schedule. The façade subcontractor had experienced problems with the production of façade components in its factory in Thailand. Jurong Health Services initiated discussions with the subcontractor to address these problems. Unfortunately, the curfews imposed in Thailand in June this year, did not help. This has created further disruption to the production and installation of the facade.

To put the construction back on track, Jurong Health Services had worked with the main contractor and façade subcontractor to assess the production status, and made plans for the contractors to re-schedule their production to meet the project timeline. Unfortunately, despite the additional measures taken, the overall construction programme has been delayed and this has affected the progress and delivery of the project.

Since the start of the year, a task force led by Assoc Prof Benjamin Ong, our Director of Medical Services (DMS), has been working with public health clusters to actively manage the demand and supply of hospital beds nation-wide. To mitigate the impact of the delay, I have asked DMS and his task force to ensure that our bed capacity is sufficient to meet our needs, especially during this period of delay.

Several measures have been implemented. Firstly, Jurong Health Services will continue to operate the 330-bed Alexandra Hospital until the new hospital is ready. In addition, another 150 beds from National University Hospital and Singapore General Hospital will be added to cope with any surge in acute care demand. The new Changi General Hospital-St Andrew's Community Hospital Integrated Building will also progressively open from December this year, as scheduled. These measures, along with other ongoing capacity-related initiatives, will add about 400 acute and community hospital beds to the system this

Page: 29

year.

Separately, MOH continues to work with the hospitals to improve the processes of care delivery to facilitate timely discharge of patients to return home or to other appropriate care settings, including community hospitals or nursing homes. For example, the short-stay observation wards at Emergency Departments allow suitable patients to be managed and safely discharged once their condition stabilises, without the need for admission.

We have also put in place programmes to provide support for patients post discharge, such as the Interim Caregiver Service (ICS), which provides temporary help for patients who are fit to go home but whose discharge may be delayed because their families need time to work out their long-term caregiving arrangements. Over 400 patients have benefited from this service since January this year. In addition, some 800 homecare places have been added since the beginning of this year and we will also be adding new nursing home capacity in the next few years.

We have also stepped up efforts to encourage patients to visit general practitioners (GPs) for non-emergency conditions, so that Emergency Departments can focus on those who really need emergency care. For example, the Eastern Health Alliance (EHA) launched the GPFirst initiative in January this year, where EHA works with GPs in the east to encourage the public to tap on GPs to manage non-emergency cases. Almost 160 GP clinics are now participating in the scheme.

The MOH will actively work to ensure that the overall capacity in the national system is adequate to meet our needs.

I thank the Minister for the reassurance. I have three supplementary questions, Madam. Can the Minister share more on the progress and outcome of the collaboration with the private sector to increase bed capacity? Will this be a long-term solution? Will there be enough resources – doctors, nurses, therapists – to cope with this increase in bed capacity, as well as the provision of home-based medical services?

Madam, during my speech in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I had mentioned that we are in the process of developing a collaborative framework with the private sector. This takes several forms. With regard to the GPs, we have enhanced Community Health Assist Schemes (CHAS) over a period of time progressively and now, the GPs are participating very actively in our CHAS programme.

On the hospital side, we are also collaborating with several private hospitals. We are still in discussion with some private hospitals. Therefore, because we are still in discussion, I

Page: 30

will not be able to share some of the details of the discussions. But I can share with Members some of the collaborations that are already ongoing.

For example, the National University Hospital has a collaboration with the West Point Hospital to provide additional beds for patients who are stable and are recovering from their illnesses and may require rehabilitation. So, they are now located in the West Point Hospital. Tan Tock Seng Hospital has also been working with a private hospital to explore the possibility of managing some of the patients. Changi General Hospital has a collaboration with Parkway East Hospital to look after some of its patients to provide additional bed capacity to Changi General Hospital. We are, as I have said, continuing our discussion with various private-sector operators on additional collaboration.

These are pilot in nature for the time being because we are venturing into a new collaboration. Once the details are worked out, once they are able to be sustainable, we do intend to see how we can work out a longer term relationship. This is to ensure that the private sector service providers will continue to play an important role in delivering healthcare as part of a national system. Although we have a public healthcare system and a private sector system, at the end of the day, it is one integrated system. We do intend to continue to find ways to tap on the capacity that is available in the private sector.

With regard to the Member's question about availability of manpower resources, this is a factor that we will take into consideration as well when we develop collaborations with the private sector to see where there is available capacity in the private sector, and we will tap on them. In some collaborative framework, we tap primarily on their bed capacity and the public hospitals provide the manpower. In other collaborations, we also tap on the manpower resources of the private hospitals. So, these models are quite flexible and adaptable, and we will look at the resources available to optimise the balance.

Mdm Speaker, in the Minister's reply just now, he did not mention anything about Khoo Teck Puat General Hospital. I would like to ask whether there is anything that can be done to reduce the waiting time for those patients waiting for a bed. According to my residents' feedback, some of them have to wait for more than 24 hours and some waited for more than 48 hours to have a bed. So, is there anything that can be done in a shorter time while waiting for the building of new hospitals?

I thank the Member. It is an important question. For the hospitals, whether it is Khoo Teck Puat Hospital or other public hospitals, they work very actively in the Emergency Department to manage the patients proactively. So, even while they are waiting for the allocation of beds, care is not compromised. The doctors work in teams to manage

Page: 31

their condition and to deliver timely care and treatment.

At the same time, many hospitals, including Khoo Teck Puat General Hospital, have also been working proactively with the community, with patients, especially those who are known to have frequent admissions, to manage them in the community so as to reduce the need for attendance at the Emergency Department as well as to reduce the need for admission.

We need to work at this issue with a multi-prong approach, not just creating more beds, but also to improve the process and minimise the need for admission and for hospital beds. If we are able to keep our patients healthy, for a start, if not, even with conditions, we try to minimise the progression of their conditions so that their conditions are better managed to reduce the need for admission.

For some patients who have fall risks, we will also work with the community and the therapists to make sure that these patients are trained to be able to manage themselves to minimise the fall risks. And with the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme introduced by HDB, we are able to modify the homes to render the home safer for some of these patients who are recovering from illnesses to minimise the need for admission.

I just want to ask the Minister to answer the last part of my Parliamentary Question on whether the other hospital projects are on course – the Yishun, as well as Jurong Community Hospitals. Are they on track for 2015?

Madam, as I said at the beginning of my reply, other than the Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, the other hospital projects under construction are currently on track.

Minister Heng Swee Keat.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to make a clarification. Earlier on in my reply, I mentioned that five schools balloted. [Please refer to "Sufficiency of 40 Places for Phase 2B and Phase 2C of Primary 1 Registration", Official Report, 8 September 2014, Vol 92, Issue No 12, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

The correct number should be four. My apologies. Thank you.

Page: 32

9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the Police's plan to reduce online scams; and (b) how is the Police cooperating with IDA to spread the awareness of online scams.

10 Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how can the Ministry encourage victims of online credit card fraud, unauthorised access to email accounts, phishing scams and identity thefts to report such crimes; (b) whether the Ministry will set up a national fraud reporting and Internet crime reporting centre; and (c) whether efforts can be stepped up to raise the awareness on how individuals and businesses can protect themselves against cybercrime.

(for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I take the questions from Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Irene Ng together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. For the six-month period between January and June 2014, there were 787 reported online cheating and cyber extortion cases. In the same period in 2013, there were 187 such cases. The rise in the number of police reports could be partly due to greater public awareness and willingness to report such crimes.

A key strategy to reduce the number of online crimes is to raise public awareness and vigilance. To this end, the Police have worked with the community and key stakeholders to increase public education of online crimes through mainstream and social media. For example, Police have highlighted cases of online purchase and identity theft scams in the upcoming episodes of CrimeWatch this year. The Police and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) have jointly developed public education collaterals pertaining to online crimes for display on bus stop panels, at MRT stations and over the Internet, including online forums and shopping sites. Police are also working with major financial institutions to feature crime prevention advisories on their Internet banking websites by end-2014.

Members of the public are encouraged to contact the Police immediately should they become victims of any crime, be it online or otherwise. This can be done through existing crime reporting channels, such as the Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) and Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs), as well as Police's online reporting portal.

Page: 33

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. With more people using the Internet, including the vulnerable elderly, it is quite understandable that more online crime could be expected. At times, online crimes call for a different computer skillset to trace the culprit and collect online evidence, and some of the current investigating officers may not have the skill-set. So, what kind of training plans do the Police have to equip Police officers with such cyber skills to crack cybercrimes? Is there a plan to set up a dedicated cybercrime unit in the Police Force? For cyber criminals who are based overseas or use overseas websites, how are the Police enlisting the help of Interpol to crack such cross-border cybercrimes?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Firstly, certainly, this is a very new phenomenon in our society, where because of the "ubiquitousness" of the Internet, multimedia devices are all over the place, sometimes even at our dinner table, this is now a means and access for criminals to perpetrate their crimes. Therefore, our own forces in the Police have had to upgrade themselves to understand the nature of these crimes and how they are perpetrated, including working with their foreign counterparts. As the Member rightly pointed out, this is not a crime just perpetrated within Singapore. Indeed, most of them have been perpetrated overseas. Therefore, we have to work regionally as well as internationally, including with INTERPOL, who have just set up their INTERPOL Global Complex for Innovation (IGCI) recently in Singapore. With INTERPOL and all these regional counterparts, we hope to address these issues together.

Thank you, Madam. On a regular basis, many Internet users face phishing attacks from cyber criminals who seek to steal personal credit and banking information, and some fall prey to the scams. Not all victims report it because of the perception that our law enforcement agencies can do little, especially if the phishing attacks seem to come from overseas accounts. I have three supplementary questions.

First, are our existing laws and our investigative processes evolving fast enough to deal with cybercrimes that cross national boundaries, and is the Police actively gathering data and transforming them into actionable intelligence that can lead to the capture of cyber criminals?

Second, can the Ministry encourage victims to report cybercrime not only through the regular channels available now, but also by providing a central point of contact for information on Internet fraud – where they can go to, to report on any attacks that they may have on the Internet and to also provide updates on the latest phishing websites and scams so as to warn online users?

Finally, is the Police enlisting the help of Internet security experts to tackle this threat of cybercrime and to work with institutions that are often targeted, such as the banks, online

Page: 34

trading platforms and the various organisations, to better protect themselves against cyberattacks?

The first question on whether existing laws are adequate, yes, they are. We do, however, need to continue monitoring and updating them, as these kinds of crimes do evolve over time. In the past, there was no such crime of extorting people through the Internet. But now, there are such crimes. And the victims may be in Singapore but the perpetrators may be overseas. Certainly, the best approach is prevention. The victims themselves are the people who are using all these media. They must be always aware that they can be victims of cybercrime.

Are there efforts to collect data and transform them into actionable plans? Yes, there are. This is continual, as I have mentioned before. We work together with international organisations like INTERPOL to make sure that we have a bigger global view of the issue, and not just what is happening in Singapore.

Should we have other channels to allow people to make reports? Well, we are mindful that we do not want to create more channels even though it may be particularly for online scams or Internet cybercrime. There are already existing ones through our NPCs, through our NPPs; even online reporting that our citizens and our visitors can assess.

Do we work with experts? Yes, we do. In fact, they regularly come to advise us, we also invite them to run workshops with our regular police forces, as well as to involve other police forces in other countries to ensure that we are working together and on the same page. It also heightens our awareness of the vulnerability of our citizens to this new crime.

And then, there is a cybersecurity awareness alliance which comprises 21 representatives from the Government and private enterprises, including even trade associations and non-profit organisations. What they are doing is they are trying to promote and enhance awareness to adopt essential Infocomm Security practices so that it is not just being done at the individual basis but also in companies, in any other set-ups that involve the use of IT. Currently, this is co-chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive and Director-General (Telecoms & Post) of Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and the Vice-Chairman of Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation. The Police is part of this initiative.

11 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for National Development what is the basis by which HDB determines the value of the lease under the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme

Page: 35

when it purchases the lease back from flat owners.

Madam, the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) proceeds is the market value of the flat with its full remaining lease, less the value of the first "X" years of lease retained by the household and any outstanding housing loan. So, there are two components. First, what is the market value of the flat with its full remaining lease; and secondly, how many years of lease that the owner would like to retain and what is the value of that portion of the retained lease?

First, a professional valuer from the Housing Development Board (HDB)'s Panel of Private Valuers will assess the market value of the flat with its full remaining lease after a physical inspection of the flat and then refer to recent comparable market transactions.

Second, the value of the lease to be retained by the owners is, in turn, determined from the market value of the flat based on established industry-accepted standards and valuation practice. Adjustments are also made to reflect the restrictions placed on the LBS flat, namely no subletting of whole flat and no resale.

I would like to first thank the Minister for the very comprehensive enhancement to LBS to make it accessible for more elderly households and also making the scheme more flexible. I have two sets of supplementary questions for the Minister, specifically to how you calculate the value of the lease sold back to HDB.

First, even when the duration of the lease sold to HDB is equal to the duration of the lease retained by the owners, why are the sales proceeds to owners lower? How does HDB calculate the depreciation in determining the value of the lease that they purchased? Would they vary the depreciation rate depending on the years of lease retained? So, how is the calculation done?

The second question relates to the market value which Minister just spoke about. LBS proceeds are calculated based on market value. So, how can HDB mitigate against the volatility of property prices so that flat owners will not need to worry about short-term property cycles when exercising the option of using LBS to monetise their long-term asset?

Madam, first of all, assessing property value is a professional piece of work. As for how property values vary across the lifespan of a property, there are established ways of doing that kind of computation. It is certainly not a straight line. Using the example that the Member quoted, it does not mean that the value of the first "X" years of a lease to be retained will equal that of the tail end of the lease that the owner is selling to HDB. It is not a straight line. In fact, it tends to be an inverted "C". There are two reasons

Page: 36

for it. One is time value for money. A thousand dollars today is worth more than $1,000 in 35 years' time. Secondly, properties with very short outstanding lease tend to depreciate faster than properties still with very long lease.

So, the end result is, if I may use the example the Member gave, the valuers are likely to value the first part of the lease which will be retained by the owner at about 60%. So, instead of a 50-50 split of the full value of the lease, it will be roughly a 60-40 split. In other words, the lease that they are selling is probably worth about 40% of the market value of the entire lease today.

How do we handle volatility? We have yet to find a way to eliminate volatility in property prices. At my age, I have lived through several property ups and downs. And I can guarantee you over the next 30 years, there will still be many property up-and-down cycles. At whichever time of the property cycle, it will affect all the monetisation options, whether it is lease buyback or right-sizing or sell your property to move to a Studio Apartment, all will be impacted.

The key is to make sure that there is proper counselling so that the owner or the potential participant in the Lease Buyback Scheme, or any other monetisation options, is fully aware of the various options and, specifically, how it would impact him or her so that he or she can then make a very informed, careful decision. He or she should not rush into deciding on whether right-sizing is the right option or the Lease Buyback Scheme is the right option. Think it carefully, discuss with your financial planner or your Member of Parliament, and seek proper expert advice and then make a careful decision because this is a long-term decision, whether you decide to opt for 30 years or 35 years. Not as long as a marriage, but same thing too when you decide on your mate, think carefully, otherwise you may regret halfway through the process.

I would like to ask the Minister if someone decides to go on the LBS, does it mean that to maximise the LBS value, it would probably be better for him to sign up at a high end of the property cycle rather than a lower end? Does the timing affect the value of the lease and hence, the payout?

I should not overplay my role. I am not a financial planner. Let us say we are at the high end of the property cycle, as I have said, it impacts all the various monetisation options. If you sell today to right size, and because you are at the height of the property cycle, you can sell high. It also means that when you buy your Studio Apartment, it will also be priced high.

Page: 37

So, likewise, for LBS, if it is at the height of the property cycle, then the lease that you will be retaining will also be priced high. Likewise, the tail end of the lease. So, 60-40 share of "X" which will be large as compared to "Y", let us say, when it is at the low end of the property market. So, it will be a 60-40 share of "X" versus a 60-40 share of "Y".

It is very hard to play the market, to be able to judge the timing when "Yes, you find the exact sweet spot to make a decision". When you consider all the various options, think it carefully. The best outcome, as I have said before, is that you do not have to monetise it through Lease Buyback. The best outcome that we prefer is that your children are good and they ask you to stay with them so that you can rent out your flat which you continue to own, and every month collect a monthly rental. That, I think is the best outcome for the family, for the children, for the parents and for society at large.

I would like to ask the Minister why is there a requirement that the minimum lease to be sold to HDB must be 20 years. Does it mean that for those who want to sell a lease of 18 years or 19 years, they would have to make an appeal?

That is a fine print, a technical requirement in the scheme. In fact, it has no practical value at this point in time because all properties can meet this requirement because there is still substantial outstanding lease. But it is an important technical requirement of the scheme because we also want to make sure that the LBS proceeds would be of some significant value. As we have just discussed, if the outstanding lease is too short, the value is so little that when you convert into annuity or into upfront cash proceeds, it may not be too meaningful for the owner.

12 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the HDB Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) (a) what options does the flat owner have if he outlives the 30-year lease; (b) how can HDB provide greater assurance that these options will be honoured 30 years later; (c) what will happen if a flat under LBS gets selected for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme; and (d) whether the flat owner will receive the full proceeds in a lump sum should the flat owner's CPF Retirement Account meet the Minimum Sum.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Under the current Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS), owners retain a 30-year lease. Those who outlive the lease will not be left homeless. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) will look into the circumstances of each case to work out an appropriate housing arrangement, taking into account the elderly's health condition, financial status and the availability of family support. From April next year, we will enhance the LBS to offer a 35-year lease option. So, this will

Page: 38

practically bring the age limit to about 100. Those who are concerned about outliving their lease can take up this longer lease option. Any unconsumed lease will be refunded to the estate.

LBS flat owners whose flats are selected for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) will receive compensation based on the balance lease of their flat at the time of the SERS announcement. They will also receive SERS re-housing benefits, which include an option to buy a new replacement flat with the same balance lease as their LBS flat, or a fresh 99-year lease, at a subsidised price.

Owners can retain LBS proceeds of up to $100,000 in lump-sum cash, after they have topped up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Accounts. Currently, all owners top up to the age-adjusted prevailing CPF Minimum Sum (MS). From April next year, we are relaxing the CPF top-up requirement for households with two or more owners to require each owner to only top up to half the age-adjusted prevailing MS. They can then retain any remaining proceeds in lump-sum cash.

Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister this: no one really knows exactly how long one will live. The case-by-case consideration that the Minister had mentioned may not really be assuring enough for people, when they are planning for their own accommodation to last until the end of their lives. The option of staying with families or at nursing homes may not be something that we want to think through at length in our 90s. I would like to ask whether HDB could, at the onset when the flat owners sign up for LBS, determine the value of lease extension, perhaps on an annual basis, based on the lease value calculated by HDB at the point in time it buys over the balance of the lease? And it is written down on the contract, so that at least, the flat owner knows, "If I need to extend by a year when I outlive the lease, this is the amount I have to pay." That gives a very clear option that flat owners can consider.

The next question I would like to clarify is for those flat owners on LBS affected by SERS, is the Minister saying that the new replacement flat could be offered to the flat owner with a shorter lease based on the lease that they have remaining on their old flat, and therefore, they pay a lower value to get the replacement flat?

On the second question, on SERS re-housing benefits, yes, it will be taken into account in the offered re-housing flat. And depending on the length of the lease, it will be valued as such. At the Ministry of National Development (MND) and HDB, we are not only a compassionate organisation, we are also a very fair organisation. Our

Page: 39

commitment is that nobody will be left homeless. If somebody is now 100 years old, I am quite sure the whole society and the Government will try very hard to ensure that this 100-year-old or 101-year-old elderly Singaporean will be well taken care of. The case-by-case situation crops up because what is unpredictable or uncertain is the health status of the person. At that point in time, if he or she is not independent, let us say, bedridden, then his or her need may not be a flat. His or her need is a place in a nursing home, in which case, therefore, the Government, as represented by HDB, will work very closely with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to make sure that this elderly Singaporean will be well placed. The option then depends on whether the children are available and are they able to look after the now-no-longer independent senior. That is why the HDB commitment is worded that way.

The Member's suggestion of whether we can commit to a specific value to the lease – in this case, to be applied in 35 years' or 30 years' time – is very difficult. We are committing ourselves to something that is so uncertain. I cannot even tell next year what exactly would be the state of the property market. I have some idea, I have some goal to work towards, but it may not be what I project or plan for it to be. What we can commit as a Government is that nobody will be left homeless. For those who are very concerned about this, we now have this enhancement of an additional five years lease extension, so that instead of 30 years, you can opt for 35 years, which, as I have said, will cover up to age 100.

There is another possibility which we are studying – insurance. There are market solutions to such things. You can buy an insurance policy, so that if you outlive the committed lease, the insurer will take over to make sure that you will continue to be able to stay there and pay for your additional lease. But insurance cuts both ways. If you pass on before the committed lease, then you also lose the benefits. Whereas right now, under our LBS, whatever is not consumed will be refunded to the estate. So, the insurance scheme is not so straightforward. The upside is clear for a very small minority of the beneficiaries of the scheme, but the downside can be very negative for the majority and they may not like it.

Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Mdm Speaker, thank you very much. I would like the Minister to clarify this: is the option to extend the lease already an option that the owner can consider, apart from relocating to a nursing home and so on?

Regarding the SERS compensation, given that the Minister has said that the front end of a new lease is probably more valuable than the tail end of a lease, can the Minister assure that the compensation for the SERS flat will be enough for the flat owner to purchase the new flat, same flat type in the offered precinct? So, that means the compensation is enough for them to pay for whatever lease duration that the replacement flat is being offered to the

Page: 40

flat owner.

There can be lease extension. It is something for which we can take the cue from the Studio Apartment scheme. Studio Apartments are placed on a 30-year lease. HDB made a commitment for such an extension, if you outlive the 30-year lease. This is possible because many Studio Apartment buyers come in at younger ages, at 55 years. HDB commits to a 10-year extension at market value. The quantum depends on what is the prevailing market value. We can take the cue from the provisions under the Studio Apartment scheme.

For SERS and the Member's comment on what happens if the value of the outstanding lease is less than the assessed value of the flat at the point of the SERS announcement. Let us say, you are now on LBS, and you have committed to 30 years. You have lived 10 years in it, another 20 years left to go and suddenly, there is a SERS announcement. As I have said, the HDB will assess. We will compensate you fairly. If you are in a sold flat, we will assess what is the market value of your flat at the time of the SERS announcement, and we will compensate you and also offer you some re-housing benefits. That is for sold flats.

Likewise, if you happen to be on the LBS, we will also assess what is the market value of your LBS flat at that point in time, and then, we will compensate you accordingly. In fact, because you are already on LBS and your retained lease has already been assessed a few years before when you joined LBS, HDB's arrangement is that should the remaining value of your lease be less than the market value of your property at the time of the SERS announcement, we will offer an ex gratia to top up. We are a very fair organisation.

13 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development for the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme, whether HDB will consider relaxing restrictions on (i) the sale and subletting of the flat; and (ii) the minimum occupation period.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): If they have spare bedrooms, they can sublet them after taking up the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS). Those who wish to move out and sell, or sublet their whole flat can already do so without the LBS. We do not have plans to relax the minimum occupation period which is applied to the purchase of all Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

I brought up this question because someone said, "If I sell my lease of x number of years to HDB, and then, the remaining part of the lease should still belong to the owner. Why is HDB putting a lien on the remaining part of the lease?" All HDB flats' sales will go through HDB, so you will know. Someone cannot just offload the flat

Page: 41

somewhere else. So, why can I not have a say over the remaining part of the lease, like whether I want to sell or I want to sublet the whole unit? Is there a particular reason why there is a restriction?

Madam, when I answered the Member Ms Foo Mee Har's question just now, I simplified the explanation because it is highly technical. I try not to go into these technicalities, but I may have to do so now. The earlier example mentioned by Ms Foo Mee Har is that your property today still has 70 years of lease, but you decide to take half – 35 years. And so, you sell the tail-end 35 years. If it is a straight-line depreciation, it would be a 50-50 split. But I said no, because time-value-for-money and so on, it is actually about 60-40. It is not actually 60-40; if it is straight computation, it is 75-25. The tail-half of your lease is a lot less than the front-end of the lease which you are retaining. If you work on that basis, the cash proceeds under LBS will be much less than what we are offering today.

That is why HDB, quite rightly, introduced some conditions which are also practical conditions – you cannot sell, you cannot wholly sublet although you can sublet some rooms if you want to. And because of those restrictions, when valuers value the front-end of the lease to be retained, they take that into account and discount it. That is why instead of a 75-25 split, it ends up with a 60-40 split. So, 25 to 40 is a very significant improvement in the value which is now being sold back to HDB. That enables the LBS to be a lot more attractive and to be a lot more meaningful to the owners.

Mr Hri Kumar.

Thank you, Madam. I appreciate the Minister's explanation on net present value of cash and it is quite complicated. Could I ask whether MND will publish not only the methodology, but the figures they use in ascertaining the net present value of cash, because one can discount on different basis and by applying different percentages, their results could be quite different? So, if MND could publish the workings and the methodology, that may help explain things.

How valuers value properties is not secretive. As I have said, it is an established practice and there are tables which are published by valuers. If you are a valuer, you would know what to do. And the Singapore property market is a very mature, sophisticated market. We have leases of various lengths, various types, and transactions are going on all the time for decades, both in the public sector and in the private sector, whether it is en bloc in a private sector, or SERS or acquisitions and mergers by companies which involve properties. At every one of those transactions, there will be properties which are affected and have to be valued. And there are professionals who are being paid to do those computations properly. In the case of HDB, there is a due process too. If you do not like the value or you object to the value, you can appeal. And there will be an appeals board, which

Page: 42

will be formed, again by experts who know the subject. They will see whether you have a case or you do not have a case. That is the way we have been doing it, and we have been doing it for decades, actually.

Order. End of Question Time.

[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.]

Page: 43

"to regulate remote gambling and remote gambling services affecting Singapore and to make related amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Business Registration Act (Chapter 32 of the 2004 Revised Edition) so as to provide for the registration of persons carrying on business in Singapore »and their business names, to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws and for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Page: 44

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Chapter 257 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Education Endowment and Savings Schemes Act (Chapter 87A of the 2009 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Heng Swee Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Page: 45

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

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

Madam, our road safety situation has improved over the years, with a 13% decline in the number of fatal accidents since 2009. Nonetheless, accidents on our roads can and should be prevented. We introduced the Safer Roads Singapore (SRS) action plan in 2013 with the three-pronged approach of education, engagement and enforcement. The SRS is a continuation of Traffic Police's (TP) long-standing efforts to inculcate responsible road use for all road users. I am glad to see our partners, such as the Singapore Road Safety Council, actively supporting the SRS objective of engendering a culture of safe road use in Singapore.

As part of this effort, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reviewed the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to ensure it remains relevant and that we continue to have the necessary enforcement and regulatory powers to ensure that our roads stay safe. The proposed amendments will (i) strengthen the TP's enforcement powers, (ii) enhance competency of drivers, (iii) clarify the expected behaviour of vehicle owners and motorists on responsible road use, and (iv) streamline administrative processes. I will address each of these four areas in turn.

First, we intend to strengthen TP's enforcement powers to ensure that TP can deal effectively with errant behaviour on the roads.

MHA first introduced the offence of driving while using a mobile telephone, or more commonly referred to as "handphone driving", in 1999. This prohibits a driver from holding a mobile telephone and using it to communicate with another person while the vehicle is in motion. The number of violations for this offence has risen by almost 25% over the last five years from 2,867 violations in 2009 to 3,572 violations in 2013. In recent years, with technological advancements, smart phones can, among other things, be used to surf the Internet, check email and play games and not just make phone calls. There has also been a proliferation in the types of communication devices, such as tablet computers, that can be just as distracting to the driver.

Page: 46

As such, clause 14 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 65B to expand the scope of the offence for driving while using a mobile telephone. First, the proposed amendments will clarify that the offence will cover the use of all "mobile communication devices", which includes devices, such as tablet computers. Second, the definition of "use" will be broadened to cover any function of the device, including Internet-surfing, the checking of email or the playing of games. It will be an offence, as long as the device is held in at least one hand, while the vehicle is in motion.

Enforcement alone is not sufficient. Motorists must possess the necessary skills to drive safely and exhibit proper behaviour on our roads. As such, the second set of amendments seeks to enhance the competency of motorists, both local and foreign, on our roads. I will start with two key changes we intend to make to the licensing regime for foreign vocational drivers, before addressing the competency of general motorists.

Madam, I think it might be useful if I first sketch our current licensing requirements for foreigners, including vocational drivers who drive for work. Today, foreigners are allowed to drive in Singapore using their foreign licences for up to 12 months from their date of last entry into Singapore. They need to obtain a local driving licence to continue driving thereafter. To do so, foreign drivers have the option to convert their foreign licences to local ones, after passing the requisite tests. Today, TP allows a person to convert to motorcycle and Class 3 or 3A licences, which are for lighter models of motorcars and other motor vehicles, by passing the Basic Theory Test.

We will make two changes to this licensing regime. First, we will repeal and re-enact section 38 of the RTA to require work pass holders, who drive as part of their job, to obtain a local driving licence within six months from the date of issue of their work passes for all licence classes. We have provided for the six-month period after studying the practices of other jurisdictions and taking into account the views of industry stakeholders. These changes will come into effect on 1 January 2016 to give the industry sufficient time for adjustment. However, I encourage all employers to start sending their foreign drivers to obtain local licences prior to that. Fleet operators also have a responsibility to keep our roads safe and, in fact, they should send their foreign drivers to obtain local licences before they are deployed on our roads. I understand that fleet operators do this, like Bok Seng Logistics. I encourage all employers to do the same.

Second, we will raise the licence conversion requirements for Work Permit and S Pass holders who drive Class 3 vehicles. The Class 3 licence category allows holders to drive motorcars, light goods vehicles and small buses. They will now be required to pass the Practical Driving Test, in addition to the Basic Theory Test, to convert to a local Class 3 licence. At the same time, we will amend the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licences) Rules to introduce a new Class 3C licence category from June 2015. This licence class will allow the

Page: 47

holder to drive all Class 3 vehicles, except light goods vehicles and small buses. To convert to this licence class, the holder needs to pass the Basic Theory Test only.

Madam, we have consulted industry associations, such as the Singapore Logistics Association and the Singapore Transport Association, on these changes. To facilitate this transition, existing Work Permit and S Pass holders who hold converted Class 3 licences will, upon application, be issued with Class 3C licences upon the expiry of their current licences. Those who drive light goods vehicles and small buses will be required to take the Practical Driving Test when renewing their licences and they will be given sufficient time to do so. They will then be issued with a full Class 3 licence. These changes will better ensure that these drivers are competent and familiar with driving on our roads.

Put together, these changes will ensure that foreign vocational drivers are competent when they drive on our roads. Let me illustrate these changes with an example. A Work Permit holder is hired to drive a light goods vehicle. Prior to the policy changes, he would have been able to drive, with his foreign licence, for up to 12 months upon entering Singapore and then take the Basic Theory Test to convert his foreign licence to a local Class 3 licence. Following the policy changes, he will now have to pass both the Basic Theory Test and Practical Driving Test within six months of obtaining his Work Pass to convert to a local Class 3 licence.

Madam, I will now move on to competency for general motorists. TP will introduce a voluntary Safe Driving Course (SDC) in the second half of 2015. The SDC will be offered to eligible drivers who have accumulated half or more of their maximum allowable demerit points. However, the SDC will not be offered to probationary drivers who have just obtained their driving licences as we expect new drivers to be more careful on the roads. The SDC also allows for earlier intervention so that we can correct unsafe road habits. To encourage motorists to take this course, those who pass the course will have three demerit points deducted from their record. Clauses 4 and 9 amend sections 35A and 45 respectively to provide the Minister with the power to make rules regulating the disregarding or cancellation of demerit points. This will allow the introduction of the SDC.

Madam, everyone has to play a part in ensuring road safety. The third set of amendments will clarify the expected behaviour of vehicle owners and motorists on responsible road use.

Clause 20, section 81, introduces a rebuttable presumption regime for selected compoundable and driver-related traffic offences specified in the new Part I of the Third Schedule as amended by clause 26, such as speeding and red-running. Under this regime, the vehicle owner is presumed to have committed the principal offence if he fails to provide TP with the particulars of the driver who had committed the offence. For example, if a vehicle

Page: 48

is caught speeding by a speed camera and the owner does not provide the driver's particulars, TP will be empowered to take action against the vehicle owner for the speeding offence. However, the owner can also rebut the presumption by proving that he was not the driver at the time of the offence, such as by showing proof that he was overseas.

This amendment reinforces the duty of vehicle owners to ensure responsible use of their vehicles, and to assist with the administration of justice. It will also enhance TP's effectiveness in enforcement, especially for camera-enforced offences where the identity of the driver cannot be ascertained from camera-footage alone.

Next, clause 22 amends section 84 to clarify the expected behaviour of drivers involved in accidents. Currently, a driver involved in an accident where damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle, structure or animal, has to stop. He is then required to provide his particulars, if requested to do so by other persons at the scene of the accident. The amendments retain the requirement for the driver to stop, following an accident. However, they add an obligation on the driver to take reasonable steps to provide his particulars to the owner even when no one is around to request for such information. For example, if a driver hits a car in a carpark, the driver should leave a note on the damaged car with his particulars. In addition, the driver must report the accident to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and within 24 hours unless he is first contacted by the owner.

Drivers who fail to take these actions shall be liable for the offence of hit-and-run. Overall, the proposed amendment will facilitate restitution for victims of accidents.

Finally, Madam, I will briefly state the other amendments in the Bill that seek to streamline TP's internal processes.

Clause 13 amends section 62A to allow the Minister to prescribe in subsidiary legislation the upper age limit for driving heavy vehicles. Clause 15 amends section 70 to enable TP to require suspected drink-drivers to provide blood specimens to doctors within Police stations, instead of only at hospitals. This will relieve TP of the need to escort arrested persons to the hospital to have their blood specimen taken. To streamline processes, clauses 16 to 19 and 23 to 25 amend the RTA to vest various technical and operational powers, such as the power to approve types of motorcycle helmets and seat belts, in either the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Registrar of Vehicles, instead of the Minister.

Clauses 12 and 27(a) also amend the RTA to designate the Commissioner of Police (CP), instead of the Minister, as the authority to assess appeals relating to the DCP's decisions on driving licences and driving instructor licences, while the Minister will continue to hear appeals related to driving school licences. This amendment will better calibrate the type of

Page: 49

appeals reviewed by the Minister, depending on the degree of public impact.

Several other amendments update and clarify TP's regulatory powers related to driving licences. Clause 5 amends section 35C to clarify that a person whose driving licence has been revoked is allowed to drive again if he is issued with a new driving licence. Clause 6(c) amends section 36 to remove the requirement for learner motorcycle riders to complete a circuit training programme before obtaining a provisional driving licence. Clause 10 amends section 47C to give the DCP the powers to immediately suspend the licence of a driver involved in a traffic accident who is being investigated for the offence of causing grievous hurt under section 338 of the Penal Code. This gives the DCP broader powers to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, even as investigations are taking place.

Madam, in summary, the proposed amendments will strengthen TP's enforcement powers, enhance driver competency, clarify the expected behaviour of vehicle owners and motorists, and update administrative processes to enhance TP's responsiveness. However, individual responsibility is just as important. Motorists need to acquire the necessary skills, hone the right habits and adopt a safety-first mindset. If we all play our part, we can engender a culture of safe and courteous road use, and help reduce the number of accidents on our roads. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I shall focus my speech on the old section 65B dealing with the use of mobile communication devices.

There has been much debate around the world on how best to regulate the use of mobile and other electronic devices while driving. Different countries have different solutions. Some jurisdictions, like the UK, have banned the use of all hand-held mobile devices. Others, like Ontario, Canada, have extended their legislation to include not just wireless communication devices, but electronic entertainment devices as well. Yet others, like the US state of California, have different rules, depending on the experience of the driver.

Here, in Singapore, there is a need to step up our game against irresponsible and unsafe driving habits. A review of section 65 is certainly timely because a recent survey commissioned by Samsung showed that a whopping 83% of Singaporeans surveyed admitted to using their mobile phones while driving. I think I can safely venture that most of us in this House, if not all, have all seen people using their phones while driving.

Page: 50

Everyone knows that using phones while driving is not safe. So, we comfort ourselves by saying that we can use hands-free devices. But there are many studies which claim that using hands-free devices is equally dangerous as using hand-held devices. This is because the real distraction is the phone conversation and it matters less that you have both hands on the wheel. Therefore, the real message we should send is that people should not use their mobile devices at all while driving.

But such a blanket restriction is not feasible, and it will be a rule more honoured in breach. The Bill, therefore, reflects a compromise. While we cannot make driving while using mobile devices 100% safe, we can and should impose laws to make our roads safer for everyone.

Let me now move on to the specifics of the Bill. The proposed section 65B expands the scope of the offence of using a mobile device while driving. The offence can be broken down into three elements. First, use of the device. Second, the device must be a "mobile communication device", and third, this use must take place while the motor vehicle is in motion. I will comment on each of these elements in turn.

First, section 65B(3) states that the "use" in relation to a mobile communication device means "to hold it in at least one hand while operating any of its functions". It appears that the intention behind this definition is to get drivers to either place their devices in holders or to use hands-free tools. If this is the case, why not just say so in the provision? The offence can easily be drafted as a ban against the use of mobile communication devices, subject to the two aforementioned exceptions. The present drafting is problematic, I think, as it potentially allows drivers to place the device on their laps or on the dashboard. A further problem that arises is that the definition permits the use of devices placed in holders. A literal reading of the provision allows drivers to watch videos and read text messages and emails if such device is placed in a holder. It even allows drivers to play a game, text or surf the Internet by tapping on the screen of a device placed in a holder. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether such cases are meant to fall outside the scope of the offence?

Second element – a mobile communication device refers to a mobile telephone and any other hand-held device with a "communicative function", which is defined in section 65B(3). My concern is that the range of devices contemplated by the provision is too narrow. What about iPods or MP3s or DVD players? Or hand-held game consoles like the Nintendo 3DS? Using these devices while driving is clearly dangerous, but they appear to fall outside the scope of the offence. One solution could be to adopt the position taken in Ontario, Canada, where the restriction includes both hand-held wireless communication devices as well as hand-held electronic entertainment devices. However, this still leaves open the problem I mentioned earlier, of drivers being distracted by the mounted screens of these devices, such as watching a video or reading an email. Ontario's legislators have dealt with this problem

Page: 51

by banning display screens of televisions, computers or other devices visible to the driver that are unrelated to the driving task. And I think we should consider adopting a similar approach.

The third element involves using the device when the car is "in motion". On this, I seek a clarification. The express wording of section 65B implies that it is not an offence for a driver to use a mobile communication device when the motor vehicle has stopped at a traffic light or where he is in a traffic jam. May I ask if this is the intended effect of the provision? If so, then it is not a satisfactory situation, in my view. The restriction should apply to the entire driving process. Drivers should remain alert to road conditions and any other road users until the car is safely parked. This is a better approach that many other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have adopted.

I would like to raise another general clarification. There appears to be no exceptions to section 65B in the Bill. So, what happens when a driver's violation of section 65B is arguably reasonable or defensible? Let us say the driver needs to make an emergency call to the police, fire department or an ambulance, but it might not be practicable or safe for him to pull over or stop the vehicle. How will such cases be dealt with? Will it be entirely a matter of prosecutorial discretion?

Mdm Speaker, as this Bill deals with responsible driving, I have a personal appeal to the TP. Driving while distracted by mobile communication devices is the mischief one provision of this Bill addresses. But there are other irresponsible habits that we need to crack down on. One of my bugbears is seeing children without seatbelts on or not in their safety seats. This contravenes the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules, but it happens all the time. The sight of parents cradling their babies while seated in the front passenger seat or of children jumping around in the back is far too common. I am sure many of us have seen that as well. People forget that children who are not strapped in, become projectiles in a sudden stop. And we really need to do more to educate the public about this.

While the road traffic situation may have improved in Singapore in recent years with fewer fatal accidents, there is still much more I think that the Ministry can do to deter errant drivers and cultivate safer and more responsible road use. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, road safety involves everyone using the road, regardless whether one is a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian.

Page: 52

TP's Safer Roads Singapore tagline is – "every life matters". And, indeed, every life is precious, too. Hence, it is incumbent on everyone using the roads to ensure that they obey the traffic rules. One careless act by any user of the road may have tragic consequences to others and can cause loss of life or injuries to body or limbs.

The TP website says that there has been an increase in the number of traffic violations from 316,214 violations in 2011. This has increased to 367,496 violations in 2013. This means that over the past two years, the number of traffic violations has gone up by more than 51,000 violations. This should be an area of grave concern as it suggests that motorists are disregarding safety whilst on the roads.

One constant feedback which I receive from residents is the lack of TP presence on the roads. Many of my residents frequently complain about drivers of sports cars driving at reckless speeds along two-lane roads in residential areas like Tanjong Rhu Road and Meyer Road. They say that, despite many complaints to the Traffic Police about cars speeding along the roads on weekends, the speeding and the resultant noise continues unabated as if there is no enforcement.

Thus, whenever Police presence is not felt, drivers tend to speed or drive recklessly, thinking that they can get away with it. My experience as a driver is that if one drives along roads with speed cameras or where there is a TP patrol car, you tend to see more road discipline amongst the drivers. Take, for example, the traffic along Nicoll Highway. If there is no TP on patrol, then you will see cyclists riding dangerously in the middle of the road, or you have motorists who try to cut across double white lines or motorists who refuse to observe lane discipline and then they try to cut into other driver's lane dangerously.

To deter such flagrant violations of traffic rules, I would suggest the following.

First, rely on more technology to deter drivers who speed. Install more traffic speed cameras; in that way, traffic officers stationed along pedestrian overhead bridges can then be re-deployed.

Next, enlarge the TP department and deploy more TP officers on the roads to promote safe driving.

Third, have stricter enforcement of traffic rules at school zones.

Fourth, bring road safety campaigns to the heartlands and the community and do more educational outreach to the elderly who are vulnerable pedestrians.

Page: 53

Fifth, conduct more road safety programmes for youngsters and students. Educate them that they have a shared responsibility for safety on the roads. Warn them of the danger of being distracted on the roads if they are pedestrians and they are talking on the phone, listening to music or watching videos and with earphones plugged into the ears. They may have the right of way but may still face the danger of being hit by careless drivers.

Lastly, make it compulsory for drivers who have accumulated 12 demerit points to attend a road safety course. In other words, do not wait until the driver is due to be suspended before asking the driver to attend a safety course. Catch hold of the driver and counsel him early before he commits more traffic violations. We should do more to educate all road users on the importance of being socially responsible for road safety.

Turning to the proposed Bill, I support the provisions contained in the Bill. I do have some queries for the Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, let me thank the Senior Minister of State for elaborating on the intent of clause 4(a), which is the Safe Driving Course (SDC). But may I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the intended signal for TP? Would it not be better to make it legally compulsory to attend safety classes without offering any incentives? What if the offender had accumulated demerit points after an accident involving injuries to pedestrians? Would the TP still be minded to give a discount of the demerit points despite the injury even though the traffic violator had attended the SDC?

Next, may I ask the Minister to clarify clause 8 – whether a holder of a foreign driving licence who is in Singapore but not working as a driver; is he allowed to occasionally drive a pick-up ferrying workers if he does not do so for hire or reward? Under this clause, it seems that such a driver with a foreign driving licence is allowed to ferry passengers or goods if he does not do so for hire or reward. If so, would it not circumvent the intent of the law to ensure that drivers who take on the task of ferrying passengers or goods are properly licensed to drive safely on Singapore roads?

Clause 14 – I support the intent to make it an offence for drivers not to concentrate on the roads whilst driving. Drivers have no business trying to speak on the phone or sending SMS or emails whilst they are driving. These acts are inconsiderate and put other road users at risk. However, I would like to ask why the Ministry wishes to restrict the offence to using communication device with communicative functions. What if a reckless driver feels that he can play games on his tablet whilst driving, or he decides to read a book on his Kindle which he had downloaded earlier and which is not a communicative device?

Page: 54

What about a driver who decides to send an SMS or email whilst the phone is not in his hand but fixed to a phone stand? He is not using the mobile communication device because he is not holding it in one hand. Nevertheless, he will be distracted from his primary task of concentrating on the roads. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify?

Finally, on clause 20, I have received feedback that, sometimes, TP takes several weeks to issue a Notice of offence to owners of vehicles and this has made it difficult for the owners to recall who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of violation, especially if the vehicle is shared by several users.

Could the Minister indicate what would be a reasonable time for TP to issue such notices of traffic violation? Otherwise, if such deadlines are passed, how would the owners of vehicles be expected to recall the driver at that time of the traffic violation? I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify the concerns. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which I support. Nonetheless, I seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on clause 14, in particular.

Clause 14 of the Bill re-enacts section 65B to cover all handheld devices which are designed or capable of being used for a communicative function. This extends an offence to the use of a device's non-communicative functions, such as surfing on the Internet, visiting social media platforms and downloading videos. The new laws are envisaged to apply to devices, such as tablets, computers and any communicative device, not only mobile phones. The proposed law does not explicitly ban the use of such devices if they are mounted on the dashboard or windscreens of vehicles or if they are used at traffic junctions. Some motorists have remarked this would mean it would not be illegal to type out an email on a device which has been mounted on the vehicle's dashboard while driving along a busy road.

As far as the Bill stands, a driver could conceivably type out an email while driving as long as the device is mounted and he would not fall foul of section 65B. I am not sure whether this is necessarily a better way to reduce the number of distractions a driver can fall victim to, especially if Members consider the fast pace of life in Singapore and our increasingly crowded roads. To this end, a part-time taxi driver was quoted in The Straits Times, musing, "What is the difference between holding the phone and mounting it in a holder? I have a holder and when I touch the phone on the holder, I am not concentrating. It is not an offence but it is still a distraction."

Page: 55

While the taxi driver's concerns are valid, a motorist could nonetheless fall foul of another section, namely, section 65 of the Act which metes out an offence of driving without due care and attention and without reasonable consideration. However, for an enforcement officer, in view of the broad "catch-all" ambit of section 65 of the Road Traffic Act, it would appear that it would take an egregious violator to result in a successful prosecution.

To this end, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: how many motorists have been summoned under the "catch-all" section 65 last year and the in first half of this year, with specific reference to being distracted by mobile devices, including tablets, for example?

Secondly, according to the National Safety Council in the United States (US), 23% of all crashes each year involve handphone use. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry keeps similar statistics on the local situation and if he could share them with the House.

Mdm Speaker, while I welcome the clarity and updating of section 65B, this clause could have been more emphatic about the dangers of being distracted by communicative devices of any nature while driving a vehicle. Numerous local media reports since the Bill was first read in the House have noted that Singaporeans regularly use mobile phones and devices while driving, especially when waiting for the lights to change at traffic junctions. The President of the Automobile Association of Singapore, citing a 2013 American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and the University of Utah report, was quoted in The Straits Times noting that the use of mobile devices could distract drivers in two ways. Firstly, through inattention blindness, where drivers fail to visually process or remember what their eyes see; and, secondly, through tunnel vision where drivers gaze centrally ahead instead of scanning their surroundings.

Foreign jurisdictions, in view of the danger surrounding the use of mobile devices while driving, host clearer laws with less ambiguity. It makes enforcement less subjective and more straightforward as well. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), it is illegal to drive using a handheld phone or similar device even if one has stopped at the traffic lights or is queuing in traffic. A driver can, nonetheless, use a hands-free kit, two-way radio or a satellite navigation device, but is nonetheless liable to be stopped and penalised if the Police think the driver is distracted and not in control of the vehicle. The laws are broadly similar in Australia. More fundamentally, under the re-enacted section 65B, an offence is only meted out if the motor vehicle is in motion, akin to current legislation under the same section.

It would appear that this section's re-enactment could have afforded the Ministry a better opportunity to send a stronger signal to the public on the dangers with regard to the

Page: 56

use of communicative devices on the road per se.

To this end, I would like to enquire from the Senior Minister of State what deliberations took place in the Ministry when determining the amendments to section 65B on this point, especially when compared to the laws in foreign jurisdictions. What differences are present in foreign jurisdictions, as compared to the local situation, which merit our laws allowing the use of mobile devices and communicative devices now at traffic stops and junctions? Does this not encourage the continued use of the device should the signal change, perhaps just to type out the final line of an SMS or an email on a tablet mounted on the dashboard or, worse, send out an email while driving? If so, how effective is the law really in changing the behaviour of motorists on the road?

In conclusion, I certainly hope the amended section 65B arrests the prospect of errant drivers and, as a consequence, reduces the number of summons Singaporeans receive under section 65B. However, an approach targeted at behavioural change may well be more useful in getting motorists to improve their driving habits with the view towards better road safety and, separately, more straightforward enforcement as well. I hope the Ministry considers this going forward.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Since 2002, our national mobile phone penetration rate had doubled from about 77.8% to 156% in 2013. This implies that about one out of two persons in Singapore possesses two or more mobile phones. With the rapid advancement in technology, mobile phones have evolved from the once nostalgic simple device with a monochromatic display into a highly advanced multi-functional pocket computer that allows its user to check emails, update social media, take a selfie perhaps, and make online purchases on the move. As a result, the use of mobile phones has been deeply integrated into our daily living and activities. I believe that many of us would have at least once felt "withdrawal symptoms" when we forgot to bring or lost our mobile phones. So, in tandem with the exponential growth in mobile device ownership, the use of mobile devices by motorists has also become increasingly rampant.

In 1999, this House passed the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, introducing the prohibition of the usage of mobile phone while driving. However, we still observe motorists egregiously using their mobile devices while driving at the same time. In a recent poll conducted by The Straits Times, about seven in 10 Singapore motorists admitted to using their mobile phones without a hands-free kit while driving, even though they are aware of it

Page: 57

being against the law and that enforcement officers can confiscate their devices.

One top reason for this behaviour is because they feel complacent about their driving abilities. It has been reported that, for the whole of last year, TP issued a total of 3,572 summonses for the offence, compared to 2,938 the year before.

Although I have not, and I do not want to, come across a fatal accident occurring in Singapore due to mobile phone usage, we should not treat this lightly. Reacting after an accident will be too late. Recently, in the UK, two toddlers were killed at a pedestrian crossing, because the driver was talking on her mobile phone while driving. Similarly, in Sydney, a young woman died when she lost control of her car that crashed into a tree. The reason for the loss of control was that she was distracted as she was trying to answer a call on her mobile phone. The two examples highlighted the potential danger that brief moments of inattention or distraction could bring while driving.

Hence, this Bill provides a timely update in keeping pace with our society's proliferative use of mobile devices. The broadening of the existing scope makes it an offence to operate any function of a mobile communication device while holding onto the device and driving. I support the amendments in the Bill, and I would also like to suggest enhancing the penalties of using mobile phones while driving, potentially matching the penalties for drink-driving, especially in near-accident instances. Driving while being engrossed or distracted by his/her mobile devices is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. In a 2009 study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, it showed that five seconds is the minimal time period for the motorist's attention to be diverted from the road to result in a traffic accident. Text messaging, for example, makes a crash up to 23 times more likely to happen.

At this point, I would like to add one more point on bus fleet operators, especially for the private bus fleet operators. I hope that the Ministry would work closely with the operators and the Association to look at the compensation framework that is being used by the operators today. I think any compensation that is linked to, say, the number of trips that a bus driver can make within a certain time period, can drive very dangerous behaviours.

A bus, given its larger mass, would mean that it has higher inertia. Given its mass, any impact that it makes on a pedestrian or anyone on the road can cause very serious damages and injuries to the person involved. And given its capacity, any accident that it is involved in, the passengers that it is ferrying, the number of them would definitely increase and, therefore, potentially multiplying the tragedies that can happen on the road.

On this note, I would like to urge the Ministry to work closely with the bus operators. It is not something that is unfamiliar to us; we hear about bus drivers feeling pressured on the

Page: 58

road because they are trying to make more money and therefore, trying to pack more bus trips within a short time span. And because of this pressure, it can definitely drive dangerous driving behaviours on the road.

I believe that each life is precious and we all know that we only live life once. One can always try again after losing the driving licence, one can always try again or try something else after losing a driving job, even if that can be really, really tough. There is no doubt about that. But one can never recover a life lost once it is lost. A life lost is lost forever. No amount of fines or remorse can console the anguish of the family who survived the victim. We need to deter errant driving behaviours in a proactive manner and not wait for a tragedy to happen before we react to it.

Hence, legislation and enforcement are necessary. Apart from enhancing penalties, I believe proactive education is also critical to cultivating safe driving behaviours. On this, I wish to commend the introduction of the voluntary SDC. This is a useful and critical complement to the enhancement of penalties, enabling repentant motorists to reflect, refresh and relearn safe driving behaviours. Besides the voluntary SDC, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to also share with the House what other preventive measures are being put in place to educate motorists and our population at large about road safety. Notwithstanding that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, there were 6,426 fatal and injury accidents on our roads last year. While this is down from a high of 8,625 in 2010, every serious accident is one too many, because they each impact the lives of not just the victims, but also their families. Statistically speaking, our daily commute on the roads is often our most dangerous activity each day.

Because of this, road safety is a matter that warrants serious attention by both policy-makers and citizens, drivers and pedestrians. I, therefore, support any measures to enhance safety on our roads.

This Bill enhances regulations on several road safety and licensing issues, but there are some which I feel could be tightened further. I will focus on two aspects of this Bill today: the use of mobile communication devices while driving, and the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits.

First, on mobile communication devices. I was recently rear-ended by another car while I was stuck in traffic. While the driver claimed that she was not texting while driving, there

Page: 59

must have been something that distracted her to cause her to crash into my stationary vehicle.

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal, a driver is 4.9 times more likely to get into an accident when holding and using a mobile phone while driving. Even using a hands-free accessory is not much safer. It has been found to increase the risk by about 3.8 times. The UK's Department of Transport said that reaction times for drivers using a phone are about 50% slower. Even careful drivers can be distracted by a call or text, and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.

While there are many studies with varying conclusions, one thing is clear: driving a car requires high levels of attention and concentration, and the use of mobile devices is a distraction which could result in serious accidents and even deaths. Ideally, no one should be allowed to use their mobile devices while driving. However, we do not all live in Road Safety Park. Our people lead busy lives, and multi-tasking is the order of the day, sometimes even when driving.

At a minimum, we should have a regulatory regime where the most risky and distracting activities are clearly banned, while, at the same time, the authorities constantly remind drivers through public education of the dangers of using their mobile phones while on the roads.

Our message to the drivers should be clear: realise that all use of mobile devices will distract you from driving safely. If you choose to use your mobile device while driving, be aware that certain particularly risky activities will attract heavy penalties.

Clause 14 of the Bill replaces section 65B and attempts to clarify the law by changing "mobile telephone" to "mobile communication device", so as to encompass not just phones, but also tablet computers. It prohibits using any of the device's functions while the vehicle is in motion.

However, there are some situations in which it appears that this Bill does not cover. For example, if the device is mounted on a holder, the driver could be checking emails, watching videos or playing games, while the vehicle is in motion.

Introducing a definition of "communicative function" in the Bill could unintentionally limit the scope of prohibited devices. With a very fast-changing technology landscape, the scope of "communicative functions" of mobile devices could render this definition obsolete soon. There is a new breed of emerging technologies called "wearables", like smart-watches, which, essentially, function like portable computers, but do not need to be held in the hand.

Page: 60

Were these considered when drafting this legislation?

Members may know about Google Glass, which is a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display developed by the Internet giant Google. It is worn like a pair of spectacles with a small LCD screen attached, which can display maps, text or videos within a user's field of vision. It can also snap pictures and record videos. The device is voice activated, so there is no need to "hold" the device to operate it.

Some regulators and lawmakers around the world have raised safety concerns about Google Glass, which was introduced last year. The UK's Department of Transport has indicated that it is "not acceptable" under existing regulations for motorists in the UK to wear it. In West Virginia in the US, a state legislator introduced an amendment to ban the use of Google Glass while driving.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two questions. One, what is the Government's position on the use of the communicative functions of a mobile phone while the vehicle is in motion if the device is mounted and not held in the hand? This includes using normal phone functions or GPS navigation software, whether installed on the phone or on a third-party device. Second, could the Senior Minister of Sate clarify whether using "wearables", including Google Glass or smart-watches, are prohibited while the vehicle is in motion?

I would now like to raise some concerns about the recognition of foreign driving licences and driving permits. Clause 8 seeks to tighten section 38 to require that Work Pass holders, who need to drive as part of their job, must now obtain a local driving licence within a "prescribed period" from the date of issuance of their Work Passes. From MHA's press release on 4 August 2014, I understand this prescribed period is six months.

This is shorter than the 12 months that are currently allowed for all holders of valid foreign driving licences who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore. However, I believe that the regulations may not be tight enough.

Six months are a long time for someone who does not have a valid Singapore driving licence to be driving around on our streets. In fact, it only takes a few minutes for a serious accident to happen – and, indeed, such accidents are more likely to happen within the first few days for a driver who is new to our roads, than several months later when he is more familiar with driving in Singapore.

A foreign driver who is new to Singapore will tend to be unfamiliar with our roads – our street signs, our road markings and our driving culture. In many cases, they may be used to

Page: 61

driving on the opposite side of the road that we drive on.

In addition, there is a risk that even "valid" foreign driving licences may not mean that the person is sufficiently trained and competent to drive. In some countries, corruption plays a big part in the issuance of driving licences.

A research study which appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, which is published by Harvard and MIT, found that 71% of people who obtained a driving licence in New Delhi did not even take the licensing examination. Equally worrying is that 62% were deemed not competent enough to drive after taking an independent test organised by the researchers just after they obtained their licences.

The study found that the average licence applicant paid about 2.5 times the official fee to obtain a licence. Most of these extra-legal payments are not outright bribes to officials but fees to "agents" who "assist" individuals in the process of obtaining their driving licences without taking a test. This is corroborated by a report in Bloomberg Businessweek, which gave an account of how dozens of men stand outside the front gate of the Road Transport Office of a certain Indian city, swarming around prospective licence applicants, offering "shortcuts through the red tape for just 3,000 rupees", or US$65.

Madam, it is not my intention to single out any country, as many other countries have similar corruption problems in their bureaucracies. But I am very concerned that many of these unqualified drivers may be on our roads right now as we debate this Bill. They could be driving through our school zones or housing estates, posing a danger to pedestrians, other drivers, their passengers and even themselves.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Police satisfy itself that a foreign driving licence is legitimately obtained when allowing a foreigner to use it to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence? Why is there a need to give a six- to 12-month window for foreigners to drive in Singapore without a valid Singapore driving licence?

I note that the Senior Minister of State said in his speech earlier that this is based on the practices of other jurisdictions and the views of industry stakeholders. Can I ask who these stakeholders are and do they include drivers and pedestrians who do not employ foreign drivers? Would it not be more prudent, and in the interest of public safety, for all foreigners to take and pass the theory and practical driving tests in Singapore before being allowed to drive?

I understand there are other categories of foreigners besides Work Pass holders who may need to drive. These include visiting forces and tourists. But can we be more selective

Page: 62

about the countries from which we recognise foreign driving licences, just like we do for foreign university degrees in certain professions? Many countries do operate clean bureaucracies that ensure that only drivers who have legitimately passed driving tests are issued licences.

Mdm Speaker, with thousands of fatal and injury accidents on our roads each year, closing every gap in our legislation that allows less-than-competent drivers to ply our roads could save lives and limbs. I urge the Government to consider these suggestions to further enhance road safety and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's responses.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.58 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this amendment to the RTA which, among others, aims to make our roads even safer from drivers who use mobile communication devices while driving. However, there are some issues regarding the use of mobile communication devices on which I would like to seek clarification.

Firstly, can this Bill allow special exemptions to use mobile phones to make emergency calls when the vehicle is in motion? Secondly, I also feel that this Bill needs to be enhanced to ban the usage of mobile communication devices by driving instructors who are teaching students in a moving vehicle because they can also be considered as co-drivers.

Finally, I also note that this law bans the usage of mobile communication devices in a moving vehicle. I think that this Bill may need to be further enhanced to disallow the usage

Page: 63

of mobile communication devices even when the vehicle is not moving, for instance, at traffic stops or during traffic jams, in order to avoid delays in moving the vehicles again.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, apprehending a driver who is using a mobile phone while driving is not easy. In Victoria, Australia, the Police have even implemented a camera system to nab motorists who refuse to put on the seat belt or use mobile phones while driving. In Canada, the police even go undercover as homeless people to be able to get close to and catch motorists using phones while driving. I would like to know how the Ministry would ensure effective enforcement of this new Bill.

With the increased traffic on Singapore roads, we cannot afford to condone irresponsibility on the road which may cost lives and break families. There is not much difference between a driver who decides to drink and drive and a driver who chooses to distract himself with a mobile device – they are both showing disregard for the safety of other road users. I hope this Bill can reduce drivers' distraction behind the wheel and instil responsible driving habits to make the roads safer for everyone.

Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day I think it is important that we reiterate the message told time and again by the TP, "The best gift you can give to your loved ones is to return home safely". I support the Road Traffic Amendment Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I shall start with the repeal and re-enactment of section 65B as this is the amendment which has attracted the most feedback from the public and my constituents. Under this new section, any motorist who holds and operates any function of a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion is liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $1,000 or to imprisonment of up to six months, or to both. For a repeat offender, the penalties are doubled.

I strongly support this amendment, though I feel it has not gone far enough. The lines between phones, tablets and laptops have blurred and merged. Hence, we must close the loophole in our current Act which only targets calls and texts on handphones, and send a strong, clear message to all motorists that inattentive driving will not be tolerated. This is not because we want to be overly restrictive but because we value lives and limbs. Fatalities and casualties due to such careless behaviour are unnecessary and unacceptable. To do any less would be utterly irresponsible and show a heartless disregard for the safety and lives of other road users.

Page: 64

The number of drivers caught using their mobile phones had increased from about 2,800 in 2011 to over 3,500 in 2013, last year. These figures support our observation that many motorists are ignorant or choose to ignore the danger of constantly attending to every Tweet, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, email and SMS while operating a machine weighing a few tonnes, moving between 40 to 90 kilometres or more per hour. Researchers around the world have found that drivers tend to be overconfident in their driving skills and under-estimate the risks of inattentive driving, particularly while using mobile devices, whether the devices are being held or mounted in holders.

Even worse, we all know that these figures form only the tip of the iceberg and are part of the bigger problem of distracted driving. Distracted driving includes attending to mobile devices, setting or changing GPS systems, watching videos, eating or drinking, smoking, reading maps, speaking on the phone or to passengers, looking after unsecured children or pets, personal grooming, adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player and so on and so forth. For example, setting or changing a GPS system or touching the screen of a mobile device mounted in a holder requires the motorist to take his eyes off the road for a few seconds and we all know that in those few seconds, we are, in effect, driving blindly, which, needless to say, is extremely dangerous and potentially fatal. Distracted driving is deemed to be such a serious problem that the US government has a dedicated website to raise awareness and campaign against it.

Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry to amend the Act to include a more comprehensive framework to penalise distracted driving as well. I would be the first to admit that enforcement is a challenge but we must do this to protect our motorists, passengers and other road users. Additional legislative support will provide our law enforcement officers with the tools to ensure that our drivers pay attention to the most important task at hand – arriving at their destinations safely. Some of us may feel that this is unnecessary and onerous. How are our taxi drivers, for example, going to check on taxi bookings? What about mounted navigation systems? Can I not just pick up a call on my hands-free set from my mum and tell her I will be home in 10 minutes' time? Why are drivers held solely responsible? Should we not also penalise pedestrians whose eyes are on their mobile devices as they cross the roads?

Let us all examine these problems as people become increasingly tied to their mobiles. Let us have robust discussions and debates, within the Ministry, through public forums and dialogue sessions, and formulate a new consensus on how to tackle distracted driving holistically. The new framework should include long-term public education and, very importantly, legislative teeth. Our law enforcement staff should be able to assess evidence easily and quickly, with minimum red tape, to penalise dangerous drivers and keep them off our roads. For example, the TP should be able to obtain information from a driver's telecoms provider to verify his activity online at the time of the offence in order to prove beyond doubt

Page: 65

that the driver has used the mobile device while driving.

Besides distracted driving, tailgating, speeding, sudden change of lanes and failure to signal appear to be increasingly common. So, let us start with attacking the bane of distracted driving. Once we have taken these inconsiderate drivers off our roads, I am sure the rest will also fall into place.

I believe that behaviours and mindsets, both positive and negative, are consistent and contagious. There are psychology research materials to prove this as well. Focused drivers are less likely to engage in irresponsible driving habits. I believe that once we have established a safety-conscious culture among our motorists, our roads will be among the safest in the world. This is one area where I would dearly like to see Singapore take the lead. Incidentally, Minister, may I take this opportunity to ask how is Singapore's ranking for road safety in recent global findings?

Lastly, I would like to voice support for the amendments to sections 84(1) and (2) which impose a duty on a driver whose motor vehicle was involved in an accident to take reasonable steps to inform and provide his particulars to the owner of the damaged vehicle or structure or injured animal, even if the owner was not present at the scene of the accident, and to make a police report within 24 hours unless he was contacted by the owner. This change clearly imposes a legal obligation upon drivers to act responsibly towards the absent victim.

I would like to suggest that the Minister consider including further amendments to provide greater clarity regarding emergency treatment for an injured animal which is narrowly defined as a horse, sheep, pig, goat or dog, and so on. If the owner can be contacted, arrangements for treatment would naturally be made. But what if the owner could not be reached? Should there be a legal obligation for the driver, after failed attempts to contact the owner or establish the identity of the owner, if any, to contact a relevant agency to treat the injured animal, most probably a dog? And which agency should it be? I am aware that quite a number of drivers had sent injured animals to private vet clinics and hospitals or engaged vet ambulances. However, should this be a legal obligation? It should be, as it is the humane thing to do and is also a moral and ethical obligation. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, these amendments will go a long way towards enhancing road safety and encouraging responsible road use. However, I hope more work can be explored in four other areas to make our roads safer. They are, namely, in the

Page: 66

areas of education, enforcement, engineering and enabling technology.

On education, I support the TP's plans to implement a voluntary corrective training SDC. Drivers who have accumulated half or more of their maximum allowable demerit points and met the prevailing criteria will be eligible for this course, and subsequently, once completed, have the demerit points reduced.

Many vocational drivers I spoke with, that is, those who made a living from driving, welcome this move. They spent more time on the road and cover more mileage than most drivers and, therefore, have a higher probability of encountering incidents on the road. We are not condoning drivers with bad habits, but while addressing the needs of these drivers to stay on the roads and to make a living, we are also making efforts to ensure that our roads are safer. This particular programme represents an innovative way to motivate them.

Upon cultivating good driving habits, the incidence of accidents arising from bad habits will be reduced and the livelihood of these vocational drivers safeguarded as well.

Content development of the SDC should, therefore, incorporate inputs from behavioural experts on what shapes drivers' driving habits and how to correct bad habits. This will help curriculum planners and driving instructors design better and run more effective courses. We should not end up with drivers going through the motion of attending the SDC, but rather, ensure that it will result in effectively instilling better and more responsible driving habits. It is important that those who attend the safety course understand and realise the importance of driving safely. Perhaps the course can also consider showing videos of accidents or close shaves arising from unsafe driving.

To this end, I sincerely hope the TP will enlist and consult extensively with behavioural experts to make sure that the course meets its intended objective. Nonetheless, this policy reflects a readiness by the authorities to take decisive actions early on to help errant driving behaviour, while, at the same time, benefiting other road users.

On enforcement, currently, drivers who use their hands to call or text using a mobile phone while driving are committing an offence. The use of any mobile communication device while driving is an extension of the current laws. The Bill is a move in the right direction; it encourages responsible driving before such a phenomenon becomes more pervasive and results in more injuries or loss of lives. Just like how alcohol impairs judgement, putting an intoxicated driver behind the steering wheel puts other drivers and pedestrians on the roads at a higher risk. Similarly, a driver, whose eyes are glued to his mobile phone or his hands are operating the phone or other devices while the vehicle is in motion, will be distracted as

Page: 67

well.

Some have shared in this House and elsewhere that they have seen motorists engage in activities, such as having a dog on the lap, applying make-up or smoking while driving. They felt that these should be covered under these amendments as well. In fact, any activity or action that may distract the driver from driving in a safe manner, or result in driving in an erratic or dangerous manner that may endanger the lives of others, is already an offence.

However, laws alone will not be enough. We need to educate the public and drive home the point of being responsible road users to both drivers and pedestrians. As such, I also would like to urge pedestrians and cyclists to be more aware of their surroundings when they are on the roads – to check and look out for on-coming traffic from all directions, and, for pedestrians, not to have earphones plugged to their ears, eyes fixed onto their mobile phones or devices while crossing the roads and ignoring traffic that comes from different directions.

Other examples shared with me include those faced by taxi drivers who shared that commuters also can play a part. Some commuters have attempted to show the drivers the map to their destination while the driver is on the road and driving, or to pass their phone to the driver while he is driving, so that their friend on the other side of the line can provide directions to the destination. These efforts are dangerous. Do plan your routes beforehand and discuss with the driver before he sets off.

Education and enforcement, Madam, need to work in tandem because everyone plays an equally important part to ensure that our roads are safe. To this end, I hope that more resources can be channelled to help our Singapore Road Safety Council mount publicity and educational programmes to meet this goal.

On the third area of engineering, specifically on road designs, how roads are designed can also affect the safety of road users, for both pedestrians and drivers. We need to identify potential danger spots early and make safety enhancements. For example, simple tasks, like pruning tree foliage to avoid blocking of street lights or traffic lights, reviewing road designs at accident-prone areas, installing road calming designs in housing areas, are some examples. It is heartening to note that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is already installing new road safety features at selected locations from August 2014.

The Silver Zone pilot programme's objective is to make our roads safer for senior pedestrians. Improvements include special road signs and markings to demarcate the Silver Zones, ramp-downs for barrier-free access, road humps to reduce vehicle speeds and reducing the speed limit on these roads. I look forward to seeing more estates join the

Page: 68

programme.

Another area where there have been enhancements to road safety is for roads located outside schools. Currently, those outside primary schools are identified with "School Zone" signs and the roads are painted with red markings to alert drivers that they are travelling within a school zone. Vehicles are required to slow down while driving along the roads fronting the schools.

In fact, Madam, incorporating better road designs and engineering considerations that promote road safety should be a planning norm as we plan for new schools, new estates and elderly homes.

The fourth area is on enabling technology. Today, some high-end vehicles are fitted with safety devices, such as auto-brake functions that slow down vehicles if they sense a pedestrian or a car in the path of their travel; adaptive cruise control or use of sensors, such as radar and cameras to monitor the distance of the vehicle to a lead vehicle, and the system will automatically slow the vehicle down to maintain a safe distance; adaptive headlights which switch on automatically round a bend or when the surrounding lighting is dim; side-view assist sensors which can detect a car in the blind spot and emit an alert with a light in side mirror; backup camera to see what is behind the vehicle; reverse backup sensors which beep when the vehicle is about to hit an object.

These devices serve as safety aids to help drivers navigate in a safer manner on the roads. With lower costs, such devices are gradually being introduced to more vehicles, both vocational vehicles and household cars. To this end, I would like to commend ComfortDelGro and SBS Transit for piloting a new smart camera which gives visual and audio warnings on traffic risks while the bus or taxi is in motion. SMRT has also installed a telematic device on their buses to monitor drivers' driving behaviour in real-time and alert them when they have exceeded the speed limit, accelerate or brake too abruptly or negotiate a turn too sharply. It is certainly of great help to drivers if they are alerted when the vehicle is travelling too close to another car or pedestrian. This will aid them in taking appropriate steps to avert an impending collision.

To further raise the level of safety on the roads, perhaps TP and LTA can work together to consider issuing rebates to car dealers to install safety enabling technology in their vehicles. It may speed up such adoption. A case in point is the Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS). The scheme takes into consideration a car's carbon emissions and fuel efficiency to encourage importers and consumers to shift to low emission models. More cars now come with low carbon emissions and the environment has become a lot cleaner.

Page: 69

Car manufacturers all around the world are constantly developing newer ways and devices that enable drivers to receive real-time alerts of road hazards; systems that can analyse camera data and alert drivers of potential safety threats, such as impending collisions and unexpected obstacles.

I hope that the agencies can consider an approach similar to the CEVS for enabling technologies to be installed for new vehicles. These will make our roads a whole lot safer.

Enabling technology need not be expensive; it can be low in costs as well. Drivers need to note the importance of eye health and go for regular check-ups to assess their vision and eye health. Better vision on the roads can be as simple as wearing a pair of spectacles or sunglasses so that the glare from the sun or inadequate eye care due to fatigue may not affect our ability to see properly when driving.

Madam, with the proposed amendments, I believe we can work towards cultivating more responsible road use by drivers and road users. In particular, the SDC is an innovative policy to encourage a change in behaviour. Some may argue that it is the responsibility of all drivers to drive safely and there should not be any incentive. In fact, it is my opinion that the reduction of demerit points to make that outcome a reality is more of a motivation than incentive. I believe, at the heart of this policy lies the desire of the authorities to provide a reason, a strong motivation, for drivers to adopt better and safer driving behaviour. Surely, it is a path worth exploring to arrive at safer roads for all. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.

Senior Minister of State.

Madam, I would like to thank Members who have expressed support for the Bill and their recognition of TP's efforts in keeping our roads safe. At the same time, Members have raised good and pertinent points, which can be grouped into four main themes: first, our overall strategy for road safety; second, the enforcement of traffic offences, in particular, the handphone driving offence; third, public education and driver competency; and, finally, responsible road use. Let me address each of these four main issues before I speak on other specific issues Members have raised.

Madam, allow me to begin by reiterating some of the key tenets of our strategy on enhancing road safety. At its core, all road users must exercise individual responsibility to cultivate and practise safe and courteous road use. Laws alone are not enough. Other stakeholders, including the Government and employers, also have a part to play. The SRS

Page: 70

initiative, which I mentioned, was launched in 2013 with its three-pronged approach of enforcement, education and engagement so as to engender a culture of safe and courteous road use.

Our proposed amendments to the RTA take reference from the SRS roadmap and give some of these initiatives that were previously announced. The implementation of SRS has been progressing well. We have stepped up our tempo of enforcement.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke about the importance of effective enforcement. TP has deployed an additional 70 TP officers as well as Auxiliary Police Officers on our roads since 2013. Indeed, Mr Lim's pointing out of the increase in violation is, in no small part, a result of violations alone but also the result of increased enforcement.

Anecdotally, I have been told that motorists have felt this increased presence on the roads and feel safer and more reassured because of this. Mr Lim also mentioned certain hotspots. TP does take into account feedback from the community in the deployment of its enforcement resources. I will also inform TP about the specific areas of concern that the Member has mentioned. Apart from more officers on the roads, TP has also been installing digital red-light and speed cameras – 60 digital red-light cameras have been installed since March 2014. These initiatives will augment TP's enforcement capabilities and allow them to effectively enforce the amendments being discussed today.

On education, TP has implemented several initiatives, such as requiring all learner motorcycle riders to take the Expressway Familiarisation Ride course, as well as revising the retraining course for motorists facing their first or second suspensions, to have a more comprehensive curriculum and more stringent passing standards. On the engagement fronts, TP has worked with the Singapore Road Safety Council to launch the Singapore Road Safety Award to recognise fleet owners that are committed to improving road safety.

I also chair the Safer Roads Industry Taskforce (SRIT), together with Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. SRIT is a platform for us to engage key stakeholders, including the private bus operators that Ms Tin Pei Ling spoke about, on road safety initiatives for vocational drivers.

Our overall strategy for road safety has served us well. Between 2003 and 2013, our road traffic fatality rate fell by over 40% to 2.9 fatalities per 100,000 persons. In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query on how we fare in global rankings on road safety, it is, unfortunately, not meaningful to rely on international rankings for road safety as various jurisdictions adopt different definitions in measuring accident statistics. Instead, it is more important that we keep a close watch over our own accident trends over time and

Page: 71

continually review them – review our policies, enforcement and education measures so that we can continue to improve road safety.

Madam, I will now move on to address specific questions and comments from Members on enforcement. In particular, many Members have spoken on the expansion of the handphone driving offence and I would like to thank Members for their support. Indeed, many Members have said that we have not gone far enough. But let me clarify that the expanded offence will cover the use of any function of a mobile communicative device. The examples raised by Mr Lim and Mr Gerald Giam – of playing games, reading e-books on a mobile communication device, or reading downloaded emails and documents – will indeed be captured under the new offence if the driver holds the device in one hand while the vehicle is in motion.

Several Members, such as Mr Zainal, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gan, Mr Giam, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Lim, have asked whether we should have broadened the scope of the handphone driving offence beyond what has been proposed.

As a principle, drivers should be focused on driving and not be distracted at any time. Like Mr Gan, we are just as concerned about distracted driving. Madam, the proliferation in the use of mobile devices, such as handphones, and their expanded range of functions – trends which Ms Tin Pei Ling had also highlighted – explains why we proposed broadening the scope of the handphone driving offence.

However, we also recognise that it is neither possible nor practical for the law to specify all the actions and even devices that could potentially distract the driver. Our proposed approach for the handphone driving offence is consistent with that taken in other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, which do not permit the use of mobile communication devices while the vehicle is in motion but generally allow the use of hands-free sets and operation of mounted or in-built devices.

As Mr Zainal and Mr Kumar have pointed out, other jurisdictions, such as the UK and some Australian states, go a step further to prohibit the use of handphones in stationary vehicles. Mr Zainal had also asked whether we should prohibit driving instructors from using their mobile devices while conducting classes for learner drivers. The driving schools have been advised by TP that their instructors should refrain from doing so when conducting driving classes. This has, indeed, been a longstanding practice.

To sum up, with respect to defining the scope of the handphone driving offence, we have deliberately decided to take a measured approach in tightening the rules on handphone driving. But we will continue to monitor this situation after the new changes

Page: 72

come into effect and study the practices of other jurisdictions as they evolve to deal with other types of smart devices that are being developed.

Nonetheless, I would like to emphasise that, regardless of the scope of this offence, it is the individual responsibility of every motorist to display a duty of care on our roads. Mr Zainal and Mr Kumar have asked whether exemptions could be granted, for instance, to allow the use of handphones in emergency situations. As far as possible, motorists, even in emergency situations, should find a place to stop before making the call. Within the Home Team, Police officers who drive or ride alone are required to pull over to the side of the road if they need to use a handphone, even in emergency situations. That said, each case is assessed based on its individual circumstances, no different from how other traffic offences are enforced.

Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Gan have suggested raising the penalties for the offence, especially for handphone driving. Our assessment is that the current penalties provided within the RTA are sufficient. A motorist who commits this offence will be fined $200 and given 12 demerit points. If he is charged in court, he can face a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine and up to six months' imprisonment as a first-time offender. The maximum penalties for repeat offenders are double that for first-time offenders. These penalties should be seen within the context of the overall increase in TP enforcement which, taken together, serve to deter such behaviour.

On the broader issue of distracted driving, TP may take action against motorists for the offence of inconsiderate driving under section 65 of the RTA, as mentioned by Mr Pritam Singh, if they display irresponsible road use behaviour. The offence carries a penalty of up to $1,000 fine and up to six months' imprisonment for first-time offenders convicted in court, who may also face disqualification. In response to Mr Pritam Singh's question, there were 6,527 and 3,220 cases of inconsiderate driving in 2013 and the first half of 2014 respectively. However, TP does not track which cases can be specifically attributed to distracted driving as there may be several factors that can contribute to inconsiderate driving.

Madam, a third theme running across several Members' speeches relates to public education and driver competency. Allow me to address these points in turn.

Mr Ang and Ms Tin said that education and enforcement need to work in tandem. I agree. They are parts of the mutually reinforcing thrusts under the SRS roadmap. Mr Ang also asked the Government to provide greater support to the Singapore Road Safety Council on its education initiatives. In practice, TP works very closely with the Council and supports many of its outreach efforts, such as annual road safety campaigns. In addition to funding provided by MHA, the Singapore Road Safety Council has also been very active in raising funds from the community and its key stakeholders in support of its efforts. This is

Page: 73

encouraging and also reflects the principle of shared responsibility for road safety.

Mr Lim asked if we could emphasise road safety education for the vulnerable road users, including students and the elderly. In fact, TP already conducts targeted outreach to educate these vulnerable groups about road safety. In 2013, TP had conducted talks for over 90,000 young and elderly persons and also organised 70 exhibitions for these groups. We will do more. I would also like to inform Mr Kumar that during the engagements with young children, TP also emphasises the importance of wearing seatbelts for child seats. This forms part of TP's overall preventive education efforts that Ms Tin and Mr Kumar asked about.

Specifically on public education on the dangers of handphone driving, I think it is important to put this in context. There are many other types of behaviour that contribute to distracted driving, which several Members have alluded to. Mr Ang and Mr Gan will be happy to know that the dangers of handphone driving are already an essential part of TP's general road safety education efforts on distracted driving. Learner motorists are also taught, from the onset, the dangers of distracted driving as part of their basic theory education.

Madam, education also plays a key part in ensuring driver competency. I am glad that Mr Ang and Ms Tin support the introduction of the SDC. Mr Ang has suggested that the SDC curriculum should incorporate inputs from behavioural experts and also show videos of road accidents. The SDC was developed by TP's testers, in close collaboration with the driving schools, to focus on correcting bad driving habits. Students will undergo lessons on basic driving theory, including defensive driving, as well as practical driving, before taking the theory and practical tests. They will also view videos on traffic accidents to discuss common mistakes made by motorists and to identify learning points.

Mr Lim has asked about the intents of the amendment to section 35A. The amendments to sections 35A and 45 will allow the Minister to prescribe situations where TP will be allowed to cancel demerit points. The intent is to allow TP to recognise good behaviour. The application of these amendments will be confined to situations, such as passing of the SDC, that the Ministry specifically prescribes. It will not apply to appeals for individual cases. The SDC allows for early intervention and retraining of motorists and will equip motorists with the relevant defensive driving skills. We have made the SDC voluntary rather than mandatory as it is the individual responsibility of each motorist to be proactive in improving his own driving habits.

Mr Giam and Mr Lim raised some questions about the licensing requirements for foreign drivers. Singapore is a signatory to international treaties on the recognition of driving licences, which allow Singaporeans holding Singapore-issued licences to drive in other countries. In return, we accord the same privileges to foreigners who are temporarily in Singapore holding driving licences issued by signatory countries. We have also studied the

Page: 74

practices of other jurisdictions. Many allow non-tourist foreigners to drive with their foreign licences for a designated period. This can range from a month to 12 months. We have decided on six months, which is consistent with countries like Germany. In enforcing this provision, TP may require an extract of the driving licence records from the overseas licensing authority, for instance, when TP has reason to believe that the licence had been forged or tampered with.

Mr Lim commented on the tightened licensing requirements for foreign vocational drivers. Vocational drivers spend long hours on the road and owe a greater duty of care as they may ferry passengers or goods. The policy intent behind our requirement for foreign vocational drivers to obtain a local driving licence is to ensure that they are competent and understand our traffic laws when they drive on our roads. This is also why, in response to Mr Lim's comments, the law will apply to all work pass holders, whether they drive full-time or are asked to ferry passengers or goods on an ad hoc basis as part of their work. For example, a warehouse assistant who may have to deliver goods at times as part of his job would still be required to obtain a local licence.

Madam, I will now move on to the fourth theme. This pertains to responsible road use.

We will introduce the rebuttable presumption regime, which allows TP to presume that a vehicle owner was responsible for the commission of a traffic offence if he does not provide the driver's particulars. I would like to assure Mr Lim that TP endeavours to inform vehicle owners promptly after a traffic offence is detected. TP is also on track in installing almost 260 additional digital red light and speed cameras by the first half of 2015. This will further speed up TP's processing time for these traffic offences. I must emphasise, however, that it is still ultimately the duty of vehicle owners to ensure responsible use of their vehicles, keep track of those who use their vehicles and assist with the administration of justice. They, too, have a part to play in road safety.

I would like to thank Mr Gan for supporting the amendment to clarify the expected behaviour of drivers involved in accidents when there is no one else around. He asked particularly if there should be a legal obligation for a driver to contact a relevant agency to treat an animal injured in an accident. The objective of this provision in the RTA is to ensure restitution for victims of accidents – in this case, the owner of the animal. Drivers should also first ensure that it is safe to stop before contacting any other party for assistance or when they want to assist the animals. Nevertheless, we thank Mr Gan for his question and would encourage drivers who hit animals to contact the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Before I conclude, let me address some of the other issues that Mr Ang has raised. I agree with him about the importance of road design in keeping our roads safe. LTA regularly

Page: 75

reviews and audits the design of Singapore's roads. For example, LTA's Black Spot Programme tracks locations with a high incidence of traffic accidents and introduces customised road engineering treatments to reduce the number and severity of accidents.

Mr Ang has also cited examples of fleet owners that have proactively installed road safety vehicular technologies. These are, indeed, worthy efforts. Such technologies not only improve road safety, but also raise productivity by reducing accidents, downtime, as well as repair, maintenance and insurance costs. The Government has helped to encourage companies adopt such devices. For example, the Singapore Transport Association and SPRING Singapore recently collaborated to launch the Mobileye advanced driver awareness system to about 100 transportation and logistics companies. SPRING provided funding through its Capability Development Grant to help SMEs defray the costs of adopting Mobileye. I hope that more companies will recognise the broader benefits of adopting such vehicular technology.

To conclude, Mdm Speaker, I have spoken on the importance of individual and shared responsibility in ensuring that our roads remain safe for all. We have also consulted the Singapore Road Safety Council and Automobile Association of Singapore. Every road user has a part to play. I have also highlighted the importance of education and enforcement under the broader SRS roadmap. I am thus heartened that Members support the proposed amendments. These amendments will ensure that TP has the necessary legislative levers to continue to keep our roads safe for all road users. With that, Madam, I beg to move.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M]. (proc text)]

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

Page: 76

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That this House (1) endorses the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review Report (Paper Misc 3 of 2014), which sets out this Government's policy to ensure that all Singaporeans, whatever their qualifications, enjoy full opportunities to upgrade and progress during their working lives; and (2) supports a tripartite approach to instil a culture of lifelong learning, and to recognise and reward individuals based on their skills and performance."

Mdm Speaker, two weeks ago, the ASPIRE Committee released its report, making 10 recommendations which have been accepted by the Government in full. But ASPIRE is much more than just the 10 recommendations.

What is ASPIRE about? It is about creating multiple opportunities to realise aspirations, creating multiple pathways to success and facilitating progression and advancement. It is also about embracing lifelong learning, valuing every individual and respecting every job, letting people go forward, not by always and only looking back to their start point, but by how they perform, what they achieve and what they become. Above all, it is about doing this together.

In 2012, we had the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC). One very strong theme that emerged was Singaporeans' desire to progress and do well. Parents have high aspirations for their children. Young people have high aspirations for themselves. The ASPIRE engagement sessions also reflected the same thing. They all want opportunities.

But career aspirations cannot be achieved in a vacuum. They are linked to jobs and jobs, in turn, are linked to our domestic economy and international economic trends and forces.

This means two things. First, that the fulfilment of Singaporeans’ aspirations is closely tied to Singapore having strong economic growth. Second, it means that we need to ensure that there is a strong alignment between our people's knowledge and skills – the supply side; and the jobs and skills that are needed – the demand side. In the last 50 years, we have achieved phenomenal development and have made the leap from Third World to First. This was only possible by having an educational strategy that was closely attuned to the economic

Page: 77

situation of the day.

On this, may I say that it is important to understand that it is not a matter of educating people to serve the economy. Rather, the overarching objective is to enable Singaporeans to prosper and to do well and achieve their aspirations. It is in service of that objective, making lives better for Singaporeans, that this Government's consistent strategy has been, and continues to be, to try and identify trends and developments, and to equip Singaporeans, through education, to take advantage of them.

So, from the 1960s to 1970s, our economy was labour-intensive. Education focused on the basic level of skills. From the 1980s to mid-1990s, our economy became capital-»intensive. Education focused on equipping Singaporeans with deeper technical expertise to meet this environment. The late 1990s to 2000s saw a knowledge-based economy, so education was geared for critical thinking, creativity and innovation. Now, 2014 onwards, we are once again on the cusp. The future is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous – the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA) environment. We now have to, once again, think of how to equip Singaporeans to navigate and do well in this VUCA environment.

It is not possible to predict the future. However, from where we stand now, looking forward, this is what we can see: that there is a demand for deep and relevant skills; that the nature of jobs will change, and the way we do the jobs will change. In some cases, the jobs themselves will change. Some may disappear forever.

Technology will continue to drive disruptive change. All this means that our people will have to constantly adapt and learn new skills in order to remain relevant and to get good employment. It also means that learning must be lifelong, more than ever before. The old paradigm where education ends at school is no longer applicable. Education continues throughout life.

Let me say a little on skills. What are skills? We must be clear on what we mean by skills. I have actually heard that since the National Day Rally (NDR) and the ASPIRE report, some children have been telling their parents that since it is now about skills, they do not have to study anymore. If only! There is a misapprehension that skills means only doing things with your hands, or some manual form of work. “Skills” means much more than that.

What does it mean? First, and this is not a term of art or a technical definition, but I think, broadly, skills means knowledge plus application plus experience. The knowledge part, necessarily, includes, but is not limited to, academic content and theory. So, for example, it is not possible to do construction work, which involves measurement and dimensions,

Page: 78

without maths, otherwise you might have a very crooked house. You cannot do product design without learning about materials and understanding manufacturing processes. Hence, our primary and secondary schools have an academic syllabus to provide a strong foundation for our students, whether they later choose an academic route or a more applied route, such as the polytechnics and ITE.

But knowledge alone is not enough – it is how you apply it: "It is not what we know. It is what you can do with what you know." And this is where applied learning comes in. It allows students to learn through practice and application. And the workplace is one of the best places for applied learning. Experience is, of course, the fruit of constant practice and application. That is the first thing.

The second thing about skills is that when we refer to skills, we are also referring to hard skills and soft skills. Hard skills are the technical know-how. Here, let me emphasise, it is not limited to skills in the technical sectors, such as precision engineering. It also includes skills in the service sector, for example, hospitality, as well as skills in the professions like nursing and accountancy. It covers the entire spectrum of work. Then, there are soft skills. These are things like attitude, leadership, communication skills, teamwork, the ability to work across cultures, the ability to deal with people, the ability to solve problems.

A third way to think about skills is the ability to achieve desired outcomes, to get results.

Once it is understood that skills means all of these things, then it is easy to understand why skills are so important to an individual’s personal development and growth as well as to his/her career prospects. It is also easy to understand why skills are so much in demand by industry and employers.

Then we talk about progressing through skills. What do we mean by this? The first thing we mean by progressing through skills is raising skills levels across the board. Let me explain.

Jobs are becoming more complex. For example, in the past, if you were a car mechanic doing maintenance and repair, all you needed was mechanical knowledge. Today, car functions are increasingly computerised. If something goes wrong, it is not just a matter of a mechanical repair. There is also a need to run computer diagnostics on the car to find out what is wrong. In future, we will have driverless cars. The car mechanic will have to acquire even more skill sets. In fact, he may be replaced by a maintenance robot. To stay relevant, he will need skills that enable him to direct and control the robot – a higher order of skills.

So, if we just take the example of a car mechanic alone, the skills needed yesterday were mechanics; today, it is mechanics plus electronics; tomorrow, it will be mechanics plus

Page: 79

electronics plus robotics.

In order to cope with this, we have to raise our skills levels across the board. That is what we are seeking to do, in every sector, at every level, to bring Singaporeans to a new skills equilibrium.

And this is so that, as the way we do jobs change, as jobs themselves change, as new ones are created and old ones are swept away, Singaporeans will be ready, not only to cope but to thrive, because those with the raised skills levels will be the ones who will be able to access better pay, better prospects, better progression and better outcomes.

The second way of progressing through skills is building on skills. We want people to be able to progress by building upon a solid preceding layer of skills at each stage. Let me give an example which I encountered when I visited the Keppel shipyard.

An employee comes in with a Diploma in Marine and Offshore Technology. He works for a few years as an Assistant Engineer, installing and commissioning equipment on a rig. Later on, he goes on to do a degree in Naval Architecture. He graduates, becomes a naval architect and can design ships or rigs. Think of how much more someone who has actually worked on building a rig can bring to the design and functionality of a rig when he one day becomes a naval architect. So, that is what I mean by building on skills.

Then, there is broadening of skills. We want people to progress not only by building on skills but by widening their scope. For example, you could have a technician or an engineer on the shop floor, and this person may, after sometime, show leadership or organisational potential. To help that person fulfil potential, we need to broaden his/her skills, for example, by sending him or her to a course in project management and human resource management. So, they acquire a different set of skills.

The fourth way in which we refer to it is deepening of skills. There is a need for deep knowledge and expertise. This is the path of specialisation. For example, in the aerospace industry, a trainee Licensed Aircraft Engineer (LAE) starts with becoming familiar with an aircraft's major systems and power plants. He deepens his skills to become an Assistant LAE and performs transit checking procedures, and then becomes a full LAE – performing detailed system, engine component and functional checks and troubleshooting procedures.

Also in line with deepening skills are the master craftsmen. On this, let me tell you a tale of two men. Mdm Speaker, I have four slides for my speech. With your permission, may I display them at the appropriate time?

Page: 80

Yes, please.

The first is the story of Mr Jiro. I do not know if you have seen the documentary film called Jiro Dreams of Sushi. It is about Mr Jiro Ono, a sushi master, and his quest to perfect the art of sushi. He is the owner of Sukiyabashi Jiro, a tiny sushi bar with only 10 seats in the basement of a Tokyo subway station. But his is the first sushi restaurant in the entire world to be awarded three Michelin stars.

Jiro learnt the art of sushi at age nine. He has been learning and perfecting the art of sushi ever since. Next year, he will be 90! He was 85 when the film was made. He is widely hailed as the greatest sushi chef in the world. And his sushi is said to be so delicate, exquisite and sublime that his sushi rice was once described as “[a] cloud that explodes in your mouth”. Yet, despite his age and accolades, he is still driven to perfect his technique.

In the movie, he says, "Even at my age, in my work, I have not reached perfection. I will continue to climb, trying to reach the top, but no one knows where the top is!" This mind-set and dedication to his craft has elevated a skill to an art. In fact, Japan has declared Mr Jiro as a living national treasure for his contributions to Japanese cuisine.

But we do not have to look so far to find someone like Mr Jiro. At home, right here in Tanjong Pagar, we have Mr Tham Niap Tiong, who owns the Rolina Traditional Hainanese Curry Puffs at Tanjong Pagar Plaza. I know because this is in a constituency I cover.

Mr Tham is 75 years old. He learnt the art of making curry puffs at age 19 from a 70-year-old Hainanese sailor. The sailor understood that Mr Tham had problems getting a job and offered to teach him how to make curry puffs to earn a living. It took Mr Tham about one to two months to learn the basic skills of curry puff making. He started selling his curry puffs at the Thomson area, near the Novena Church, in the 1960s. In 1976, when the Government introduced hawker licensing, he opened a stall at Serangoon Gardens.

He has been in this trade for 56 years and is still going strong. Till today, each curry puff – golden, crisp, and which melts in your mouth – is prepared by hand from the spices to ingredients, to the crimps in the crust. And he is very strict about his ingredients and quality. He still uses the same recipe he learnt all those years ago. His artisanal craft has been honed over the years.

He takes pride in his business and is constantly seeking to improve the quality of his curry puffs. Even now, he still goes around buying curry puffs made by others to make sure that his curry puffs are as good as, or not even better than, the rest. He expanded his business and started operating the stall at Tanjong Pagar seven years back. The original stall

Page: 81

is still run by his son.

On how his stall came to be called "Rolina", he used to sell curry puffs near Novena Church. And his regular customer, one of the aunties, always shouted "Rolina curry puff", instead of "Novena curry puff" and, so, he decided to use this name when he set up his first stall in Serangoon Gardens!

I am not advocating that everyone should be a sushi chef or curry puff maker. But the stories of these two men and their success contain the recipe for success that cuts across all professions. Both have a strong passion for what they do. Both embody the mind-set of skills and expertise through practice and application. Both espouse the philosophy that they must seek to be the best in their profession. And their success is founded on real and deep skills. They both have great pride in their work. They strive relentlessly for perfection, always seeking to improve, upgrade and better their performance. As a result, they have become masters of their craft. The quality of their work generates its own demand. They are both virtually recession proof. So, that is on deepening of skills and master craftsmen.

Let me now say something about lifelong learning. When we consider the future of jobs and you see skills from the perspective that I have outlined, then we can understand why learning and education must now be lifelong.

In the past, graduation from an educational institution marked the point where education stopped and work began. Education and work are intertwined. Learning and education must continue even after one has started work.

This is for all occupations. Even politicians are not spared. It used to be that you just needed skills to make policy. In the last four years alone, we have had to acquire a whole slew of additional skills: blogging; facebooking; tweeting; instagramming; and lately, the art of the selfie! We too have been disrupted by technology. We too have had to raise, broaden and deepen our skills. We have different progression rates. Some of us are still apprentices, though a couple are fast becoming master craftsmen in this area!

The continuous learning and acquisition of new skills will enable people to upgrade and progress throughout their working lives and achieve better outcomes for themselves and their families. This is the reason why we place such importance on Continuing Education and Training (CET) and invest so heavily in it.

While the ASPIRE recommendations are geared for polytechnic and ITE students, the Government's policy of supporting CET applies to all Singaporeans, from graduates to those with only primary or secondary education. To this end, the Government is working on a CET

Page: 82

masterplan.

ASPIRE is also about multiple pathways. There is a wide diversity of jobs. They require different knowledge, skill sets and experience. Different individuals have different talents, interests and strengths. Some thrive in a more academic approach, others are more hands-on.

We want a system that provides opportunities for all to progress at any stage of their working lives. It is not one size fits all – or one educational path for all. We want to have multiple pathways for people to upgrade and progress, to go as far as they can, according to their abilities.

For some, pursuing further studies immediately after JC, polytechnic or ITE is the right path for them. Others may find that working first and then pursuing further studies is better. Yet others may find getting specialised industry qualifications or certifications is the correct path for them. And for some, going on a path of skills deepening through work and becoming a master craftsman or specialist may be a better route.

We want a system that is flexible where the upgrading can be taken either full-time or part-time, or in small modules over a period of time. Online learning will become an important enabler.

So, it is all about the right career choice, the right qualifications for the right job at the right time. But to do all this, a concerted effort is needed. One of our greatest strengths is our tripartite relationship of cooperation and collaboration between employers, employees and the Government. We must harness this.

We need employers' input and involvement for applied learning. We need this when we are developing the curriculum, when we are structuring the internships. We need the employer's collaboration to provide good mentorship to students and employees. We also need employers to recognise and reward individuals based on skills and performance. We need them to invest and develop the employees and to help their employees grow.

We need employers to support their employees in CET and lifelong learning. Scholarships may be one way. And now with the Place and Train, which benefits employers too, that is another way. Providing on the job training as part of CET would also help. At the end of the day, from the employees’ perspective, the most important thing is to have moral support from the employers and time to study outside of working hours.

Page: 83

For the employees, we need their input and collaboration too. To make the right choices; to seek out the areas of demand where you can grow; adopting the mindset and qualities exemplified by Mr Jiro and Mr Tham; to have the willingness to re-train, upskill, upgrade; and for employees to support their employers too.

Unions, being the employee's representatives, as well as the bridge between employers and employees, also have an important part to play in achieving the ASPIRE objectives.

On the part of the Government – to provide quality education and to gear for applied learning, to provide resources for our schools and institutions and ensure that they are well-resourced; to ensure that our Institutions of Higher Learning collaborate with industry in an even closer and more coordinated fashion; to support CET; and to develop frameworks for each individual industry sector together with the industry – for these provide a reference frame for progression. The Government will also do its part as an employer in recognising skills and performance.

So, in fact, we need everyone on board, not just the tripartite partners, but also teachers, parents, students and society – everyone. Achieving this will need a lot of effort and coordination. Hence, the new inter-Ministerial Committee is to be led by the Deputy Prime Minister Tharman.

Again, in order to do this, we also have to change mindsets. We have to change mindsets in many things; in how we see education – no longer just academic; but to recognise the importance of skills. We have to embrace lifelong learning. We also need to have a mindset shift in how education is developed. It is no longer the sole preserve of educators. It must now be a collaboration between educational institutions, in particular, the Institutions of Higher Learning, educators and industry. We also need to change the way we think about how we recognise and reward people and also, in how we see jobs.

Ms Olivia Lum of Hyflux who was on the ASPIRE Committee told us of a technician who was very good at his work. With his expertise and years of experience, he was being paid more than some of the graduates. However, he wanted to switch to a white-collar job even though it paid less. The reason – his wife did not like him coming back in dirty overalls, smelling of the factory and the plant. She wanted him to have a white-collar job, even if it paid less.

This effort also leads us to value every person – not seeing them just as an employee or a worker, but as a person with potential and giving each one the chance to grow and develop. There is an advertisement we saw by an employer which encapsulates this best, where the employer who was advertising focused on an employee. It said, "From apprentice to

Page: 84

manager of 12,000." And the lines below says, "There are many paths to the top, all it takes is a company who believes you can." So, that supportive relationship between the employers and employees makes a big difference.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, what we are seeking to do, through ASPIRE and other Government efforts, is to ensure that Singapore continues to be a place of opportunities for all Singaporeans, through education and lifelong learning and a concerted effort by all. I look forward to hearing the Members’ views and urge this House to support the motion.

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]

The ASPIRE project has been a long-time coming. I am inspired by ASPIRE's goals to strengthen the applied education pathway in our country's polytechnics and ITEs; and I want it to succeed.

Although the ASPIRE report has not expressed it blatantly, one primary concern, I believe, it hopes to address is the potential problem of an over-supply of graduates. Graduate unemployment is already seen in East Asian countries such as Taiwan and South Korea. In a society that places a high premium on academic pursuit, Singapore runs the risk of facing the same fate.