Hansard, Thursday, 3 August 2023

1 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the proposed establishment of a Johor-Singapore special economic zone, what opportunities relating to business, jobs, tourism and leisure are expected to be realised from this collaboration.

The proposed Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone has the potential to strengthen the excellent economic relationship between Singapore and Johor. A special task force has been set up to study the broad areas of collaboration. We will provide an update on its progress at the 10th Singapore-Malaysia Leaders’ Retreat scheduled for later this year.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. This is not the first time that Singapore has been involved in special economic zone development with other countries, having been involved in developing industrial spaces in Asia as early as the 1990s in China, Vietnam and Indonesia.

So, I would like to ask the Minister of State two questions. One, what lessons can be drawn from our previous experience to ensure positive outcomes for Singapore under the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone? Two, the success of special economic zones depends heavily on incentives, policy innovations and experimentation to attract businesses; so, I think it is important to know how we can ensure that the set-up of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will not impact the competitiveness of Singapore’s own export sector.

Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Foo Mee Har for her two supplementary questions.

The second one is about our export competitiveness. Let me tackle that first. Ms Foo would agree that Singapore and Malaysia enjoy very strong bilateral ties. And when it comes to Singapore and Johor, this Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ), the comparative advantages of both sides of the Causeway have attracted companies to set up complementary functions in Singapore and Johor to serve their regional and global operations as well as customers. I want to share with her and Members of the House that, in fact, the Singapore Economic Development Board, alongside our Malaysian counterparts, helped land some of these significant projects in Johor last year, after the COVID-19 measures were lifted. Allow me to quote one example, in the interest of time.

For example, we worked with SPC Group to have a cold chain, halal-certified factory in Nusajaya Tech Park (NTP) to allow them to produce 100 items, such as bread, cakes and desserts, to supply to Paris Baguette outlets in Southeast Asian countries. I think we are quite familiar with this brand. This particular company hires more than 300 staff in Singapore. This is a good example to show how, by leveraging the comparative advantage on both sides of the Causeway, we are able to complement our collective value proposition. So, on the second supplementary question, we look forward to the prospects to strengthen the nexus with Johor to foster closer economic cooperation and the chance to explore areas of synergies to benefit both our countries and peoples.

As to Ms Foo's first supplementary question, I want to assure her that the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone sits under the auspices of what we call the Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia (JMCIM). JMCIM was set up 16 years ago in 2007. It was set up by both our Prime Ministers and it has been meeting every year. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]

The JMCIM held its 16th meeting recently, slightly more than two weeks ago, on 14 July in Singapore. This meeting was co-chaired by Singapore's Minister for National Development Desmond Lee and Malaysia's Minister of Economy Mohd Rafizi Ramli. It was agreed during the meeting between the two Ministers that Singapore and Malaysia would set up a task force to study the establishment of JS-SEZ to do a few things: one, to drive economic growth; two, to strengthen economic connectivity between Singapore and Johor; and three, to promote collaboration for the mutual benefit of both countries and our peoples.

I would like to add that the JS-SEZ, if it comes about and is established, will build on the good growth of Johor and Singapore's significant investments in the region.

Ms Foo asked about what lessons can be drawn. I have explained that the JS-SEZ will sit under the auspices of the JMCIM. And if I could use the data-points since the COVID-19 measures were lifted, from January to June 2022, Singapore was Johor's second largest foreign investor after Japan. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]

During this period, Singapore contributed to around 70% of Johor's total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the manufacturing sector, with about 3.97 billion ringgit in investments, most of which come from investments in the electric and electronics and medical equipment sectors.

As I shared earlier, it is complementary so that we can anchor regional headquarters activities here, we can also anchor research and development (R&D) activities and supply chain management here, so that our Singaporean workers are well-placed to perform these functions, to help the companies manage, integrate, orchestrate their Pan-Asian operations.

I want to assure the Member that the JS-SEZ will build on the foundation set by the various JMCIM workgroups to drive sustainable growth, develop human capital and improve infrastructure and connectivity. The meeting just took place two weeks ago. We will certainly provide the House with an update on the JS-SEZ during the 10th Singapore-Malaysia Leaders' Retreat scheduled for later this year.

2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to online news site Asia Sentinel, why does the Government require the inclusion of a POFMA correction direction on both the main page of its website and on the page which hosts the article that contains false statements of fact.

Sir, under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), a Minister is empowered to issue a Correction Direction to a recipient who has communicated a false statement of fact. The Correction Direction will specify the form and manner in which the Correction Notice is to be published. The intent is to try to have the Correction Notice reach at least as large a readership as the original falsehood, though often this may be difficult to achieve.

In the case of Asia Sentinel, the Minister for Home Affairs had instructed the POFMA Office to issue a Correction Direction to Asia Sentinel in respect of one of its articles and specified that the recipient publish a Correction Notice at: one, the top of the page which hosts the article that contained false statements of fact; and two, the top of the main page of its website. The inclusion of the POFMA Correction Notice on more than one location on Asia Sentinel’s website is to try and achieve the objective that I stated above. The Act also allows other orders to be made to get the Correction Notice brought to the attention of the readers who may have read the original falsehoods.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I filed this question because it was a point I raised last month in the course of a speech I made on a Bill and the Minister for Communications and Information invited me to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on it.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, at what point is a threshold crossed by which the Government then decides that the Correction Direction not only must be included at the article where the false statement of fact was transmitted, but also the main webpage? Can there not be a question of overreach when you expect the Correction Direction to be on the main webpage as well? Having it on the article itself would be sufficient because then the reader would know that this particular article is the one that has been flagged out, not every article on the Asia Sentinel website.

The second question I have is how many Correction Directions have been issued to online sites, which include this particular rendition of the Correction Direction – not just for the article, but for the entire website as well?

Sir, as far as the first question is concerned, the idea that we have to put the Correction Notice only next to the original article, Mr Singh has asked if this may be overreach. I think you would characterise this as overreach only if you felt that the inclusion of the Correction Notice, in other words, the correction of the falsity, was, in itself, not necessary or was itself false, or that it was inappropriate to have this viewed by as many people as possible. Mr Singh, who was part of the Select Committee that produced the White Paper that led towards the legislation that turned out to be POFMA, would agree that it is easier for the false statement of fact – a lie travels faster than the truth – and so, you do need to make sure that you have as much coverage as possible when you want to correct the falsity.

The behaviour of people reading online material is not all homogeneous; people access material in different ways. And it is not often that someone will necessarily go back to the original article after having read it. And so, you do need to put the correction in place so that as many readers of the original falsehood as possible will have that corrected. And so, we need a variety of tools and, depending on how the site is laid out and how the publisher manages its material, propagates its material, there needs to be some assessment of that done to make sure then that the correction is visible. And even with the tools, such as placing the correction on the main webpage, I am sure the Member would agree, it is unlikely that all the readers of the original falsehood would have that Correction Notice brought to their attention. We do try and so, we do need this type of tool.

I do not have the details about the specific Correction Directions and which used this tool versus the other types of Correction Notices. I can get the information to Mr Singh. The reality is that each Correction Notice needs to take into account the design of the feed and the website. But I will get the information to him separately, Sir.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a follow-up for the Senior Minister of State. Can I confirm whether a Correction Notice had been given to Asia Sentinel for other articles in the past and their conduct had been egregious in that they ignored it and, hence, a more heightened approach was taken with them for the subsequent article which contained false statements of fact?

Because I think the question here is the threshold. Does the Government treat each site differently or will it treat each site the same? And in this particular case, I think we need to delve deeper into why that particular Correction Direction required not just the clarification from the POFMA Office to be placed on the article itself, but on the main webpage. Can we expect to see the Government pursuing this approach, given his preamble about how important it is to make sure that lies do not get multiplied much more quickly?

Is the Government changing its approach to be stricter vis-à-vis Correction Directions? Because the consequence of that Correction Direction is Singaporeans are denied the opportunity to read other articles on Asia Sentinel which contain no false statements of fact. And I think this is a fine line that the POFMA Office needs to consider because I think you have a case when there are false statements of fact, to put out what ought to be the right facts and expect the site to carry them. But it does sound like overreach when you potentially are almost forcing the site to shut down because you force them to actually put the clarification on the first page, which has nothing to do with the article at hand.

Sir, can I just seek a clarification from Mr Singh? He said that the action denied Singaporeans the opportunity to read other articles on the Asia Sentinel site. I do not quite understand why the publication of a Correction Notice on its main webpage should in any way impede readers from accessing other articles. Surely, he would agree that if that Correction Notice is necessary to correct a falsehood, it should be seen by as many readers as possible.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Sir, I think the point here is what is the effect of that Correction Direction. I have no objection with the Correction Direction being on the article itself. But when you have it on the main webpage, which does not contain the article, but may contain a link to the article, I would grant the Senior Minister of State that. Has there been a situation where Asia Sentinel in the past did not adhere to Correction Directions which led the Government to turn the screw and say, "Look, I think you are pursuing a certain course of conduct which requires us to do this"? That is why my earlier question was about thresholds.

The second question I asked was about the approach of the Government: is this the way it is going to move forward – for Correction Directions for any site, you can expect, not just a Correction Direction on the offending article, but on the main webpage as well?

Sir, Mr Singh did not quite address my clarification. So, I am going to assume that he agrees with me that the publication of the Correction Notice on the main webpage does not, in any way, impede a reader from accessing all the other articles on Asia Sentinel's website. And what that Correction Notice does is add further information and transparency for people to make up their own mind about the facts at hand. So, I hope that is my understanding of his position. And I hope he will agree that then, there is no overreach or damage done to Asia Sentinel by requiring them to add a notice which essentially carries a correction, in other words, the correct understanding of the facts.

If I take the analogy from what happens in the print publication, I am sure if Mr Singh was concerned about a piece of article in a magazine or a newspaper which he disagreed with, which he required a correction, he would not be satisfied if the only thing that was done was the newspaper went out and published a Correction Notice next to the original article because nobody is going to read the same newspaper again from three or four days ago. And he would require a notice carried in the same publication in a prominent place that people could read and, especially to do so in a way that as many of the readers of the original false statement will then be better informed.

The analogy breaks down a little, clearly; this is an online digital publication and not something in print. But the intent is the same – to make sure as many of the original readers of that false statement see the Correction Notice, understand the correct facts – and I hope Mr Singh agrees that there is no harm caused by that.

So, as I said, I did not quite get an understanding from him that he agreed that we did not, in any way, intend to deny the readers of Asia Sentinel access to the other articles by the publication of the Correction Notice on its main website. It was a tool to make sure the facts are well-read and well-understood.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I think on the first point about whether I agree, I do not agree. I do not agree with that approach.

On the analogy, of course, the analogy break downs, like the Senior Minister of State shared, because you do not expect a print publication to publish an apology on its first page. So, that is the nub of the issue here. I can accept actually an argument which goes along the line of repeated egregious conduct. Then, we have to take this approach. I think that is fair. But how many times has Asia Sentinel or any other publication – I do not have a particular interest in Asia Sentinel, it is more the approach of the Government. And that is my concern.

So, perhaps, I will look forward to some information from the Senior Minister of State about how many other Correction Notices have included this requirement, not just the article but the main website as well. Then, we can analyse and see what the Government's approach is. But I hope I have clarified every question that the Senior Minister of State asked in his reply to me.

Sir, I thank Mr Singh for that explanation. The use of this type of tool, a Correction Notice on the main website, I think, should not be predicated on a certain number of strikes. This is not a fixed threshold. It needs to take into account, for example, the design of the website, the way in which links are made to other feeds because, otherwise, the process can be gamed. There is a significant amount of leeway and freedom in how online sites are designed and published.

So, we take into account the design of the website, the feed, the way in which user behaviour is guided by that, but also the kind of content and the kind of notice that is required.

I would point out that if Mr Singh is concerned about past track records, Asia Sentinel did not comply with the Correction Direction on 26 May, so, then an access blocking order was issued. And so, we do give an opportunity for the sites to comply, to provide information to the readers. We take into account the fact that the design of the site and the design of the particular article are important and we give an opportunity for people to put things right.

Mr Pritam Singh.

A last follow-up. I am not sure whether that was an accurate characterisation by the Senior Minister of State. My understanding was that they followed the Correction Direction, but they only partially followed the Correction Direction. There was a clarification on the article itself as required by the POFMA Office but not on the main website. And I think this is my understanding and the Senior Minister of State can correct me if it is wrong. I just want to confirm that.

Sir, the compliance with the Correction Direction is not for the site to decide which parts of the Correction Direction they comply with or they do not comply with. They are required to comply with the entirety of the Correction Direction and Asia Sentinel did not comply with the entire Correction Direction in the time required. So, they complied late.

They also did not comply with the requirement to have the Correction Notice at the top of the main webpage and they had changed the design by including another article. And so, you have partial compliance, which means they have not complied with the Correction Direction.

3 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will be evaluating Grab's proposed acquisition of Trans-Cab for anti-competitive practices; (b) what safeguards will CCCS take to ensure that Grab does not disadvantage taxi drivers from other companies on its platform following the acquisition; and (c) whether CCCS will provide an assessment of the impact of the recent consolidation in the taxi industry on consumers.

Sir, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has received Grab's notification of the proposed acquisition. CCCS will assess the impact of the proposed acquisition on competition and consult relevant stakeholders before reaching a decision on the matter.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Sir, thank you. Can I ask the Minister of State what will be the further actions taken with regard to this acquisition? For example, we all know that this acquisition is likely to have a great impact on the livelihood of about 100,000 taxi drivers and driver hirers.

So, did the Ministry conduct any study on what has been the impact of Grab's acquisition of Uber on fares, waiting time for commuters and the income of driver hirers and taxi drivers? That is the first question. Did the Ministry do any survey on all these things and what has been the impact? So, that will become a consideration in assessing this acquisition.

The second question is: given that Grab already controls 75% of the current private ride hailing market and we know that the taxi and PHP markets are actually like part and parcel of one another already as the development of the market continues. So, since Grab is already holding 75% of the market – of course, I may be jumping the gun a little bit – but does the Minister of State think that that will be taken into consideration very seriously by CCCS?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Let me just share again and reiterate the point that CCCS is still assessing this and, so, we cannot comment on a specific case under consideration at this stage. What we can do is to share about the processes and that is what I will be doing shortly.

CCCS, for the Member's understanding, adopts a two-phase approach in evaluating merger applications that are made through the Competition Commission. And upon receipt of this complete application, CCCS' will carry out a phase one review which involves a quick assessment. This phase one is expected to be completed within 30 working days. The timeline is subject to suspension for a variety of reasons, for example, if the merger parties do not respond to CCCS' requests for information or provide documents which are needed to complete its assessment.

For merger situations that do not raise competition concerns, CCCS will issue a favourable decision at the end of the phase one review and, therefore, the merger can proceed without undue delay.

If during the phase one review CCCS is unable to conclude that the merger situation does not raise competition questions or concerns, it will provide the merger parties with a summary of its key concerns and then proceed to carry out a more detailed phase two review, which is expected to take 120 working days.

To the Member's questions about consultation and concerns, I want to assure him that information provided by third parties play an important role in CCCS' assessment of mergers. CCCS obtains relevant information from third parties, such as competitors and customers, via public consultation and by contacting them directly. CCCS, in this case, will be consulting on the proposed acquisition and the public will be able to provide feedback through this public consultation.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Sir, on the ground, we have received a lot of feedback or complaints by drivers or hirers and also from commuters about the condition of the point-to-point transport in Singapore. So, I would like to ask, based on the understanding of the Minister of State, what has been the trend of fares, waiting times and the drivers' or hirers' income over the last three to five years?

Sir, there are several Parliamentary Questions on this matter that have been filed and the Ministry of Transport (MOT) will be addressing them at a subsequent Sitting. Can I ask that the Member refer to those replies instead on the Point-to-Point Act?

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have two sets of supplementary questions on this. I have Clementi residents who have also been following the news. Some are consumers, some are drivers, and they are understandably wondering what it means moving forward.

Firstly, Mr Speaker, without prejudging the outcome, can I ask, based on previous CCCS assessments, whether CCCS may look at whether there will be substantial lessening of competition in just a single aggregate market or at the individual markets of taxis, private hire as well as the total aggregate point-to-point markets? That is my first question.

The second question would be – again without prejudging the outcome – has there been any situation where CCCS, as part of assessing potential economic benefits, even if there are substantial lessening of competition, is the tripartite lens applied so that if there are tripartite outcomes which are overall beneficial to workers and the functioning of the labour market and bargaining power between workers and firms, would that be a consideration as well, as part of the economic outcomes in the analysis?

Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary questions. It is worth saying that not all mergers, as I mentioned in my original answer, give rise to competition issues. Many, in fact, are pro-competitive or are competitively neutral.

To determine if a merger is anti-competitive, CCCS will assess whether the merger leads, as the Member alluded to, to a substantial lessening of competition.

With regard to this specific case, as I mentioned to the Member earlier on, we will be conducting a public consultation and I invite Members, as well as members of the public, to give their views on this particular merger.

4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the Request for Information exercise launched by Malaysia's MyHSR Corp Sdn Bhd on 12 July 2023, whether the Ministry can provide an update on the discussions with the Malaysian government to revive the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail project.

5 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide an update on the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High-Speed Rail project.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together? My reply will also address a question by Mr Louis Chua on the same topic.

Please do.

Thank you. Sir, Singapore is willing to discuss any new proposal for a Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) from Malaysia in good faith, starting from a clean slate. We have not yet received any new proposal from Malaysia.

Mr Saktiandi.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the short answer to the question. I have one supplementary question. In regard to, maybe I am jumping the gun here, potentially going forward, the original proposed line was supposed to have a stop at Iskandar-Puteri on the Malaysia side, linking the Nusajaya region within Iskandar, Malaysia, to Singapore, Melaka, Seremban and Kuala Lumpur. But going forward, on the Singapore side, are there any changes to plans of the HSR potentially, within Singapore's borders? Is it still going to go through Jurong? If the Senior Minister of State can share some thoughts on that.

The second supplementary question is in relation to the request for information (RFI), whether the Senior Minister of State can share if we have any inkling of the concept proposals that the Malaysia side has received through the RFI?

Mr Speaker, the RFI exercise is conducted by the Malaysians, MyHSR Corp. As to what are the plans, I think we have to receive the proposal and then we can study the proposal. We will keep an open mind on what are the possibilities, to have a win-win arrangement between Singapore and Malaysia.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, just two supplementary questions on that. Firstly, in terms of the RFI by MyHSR Corp, whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or Land Transport Authority (LTA) is actually involved in the preparation of this request, just so that any plans that could involve Singapore potentially, could be factored into that request?

Secondly, in relation to that, were there any Singapore companies that were involved in the initial information gathering stage organised by MyHSR Corporation, in its earlier engagements with the private sector?

Mr Speaker, I feel like I am repeating myself, but the RFI exercise is conducted by MyHSR Corp. We are not involved in this RFI exercise.

6 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many workers over the age of 63 have lost their jobs in retrenchment exercises in the last five years; and (b) whether a higher proportion of workers in this age group have lost their jobs as compared to other age groups.

7 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices for workers who are losing their entitlement to retrenchment benefits to be entitled only to Employment Assistance Payments upon reaching the age of 63; and (b) whether the guidelines can be amended to reduce a "cliff effect" in the drop in retrenchment entitlement for long-serving workers upon turning 63.

Sir, Mr Nair has filed two Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to retrenchment of senior workers. With your permission, Sir, may I respond to both these related questions together?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. First, the data shows that workers who are past the retirement age are not disproportionately affected by retrenchment, compared to other age groups. From 2018 to 2022, the average incidence of retrenchment among residents aged 63 and over was 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, lower than the overall figure of 6.1 for the entire resident workforce. Over the same period, the absolute number of retrenched residents aged 63 and over remained low, at an average of 450 per year.

The Retirement and Re-employment Act requires employers to offer re-employment to employees above the prevailing retirement age and below the prevailing re-employment age, or else employers will need to pay eligible employees the Employment Assistance Payment, or EAP. The recommended EAP amount in the Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees is carefully calibrated. The EAP should not be so low that it provides employers an easy alternative to offering their employees re-employment.

However, if the EAP is too high, it may deter employers from hiring or retaining senior workers nearing retirement age in the first place. The EAP quantum is tied to the legal obligation to offer re-employment and should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, which are not mandated by law.

The quantum of retrenchment benefit is usually stipulated in the employment contract or is negotiated in a collective agreement between unions and companies. It thus varies across companies, though the vast majority of employers do follow the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment in paying retrenchment benefits, generally paying between two weeks and one month of salary per year of service, to eligible employees.

In some cases, there is an agreement between the union and the employer to scale down the quantum of retrenchment benefits payable as the worker nears the statutory retirement age. Any real or perceived "cliff effect" between retrenchment benefits and EAP is dependent on the quantum of retrenchment benefits stipulated in the individual's employment contract or the collective agreement.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to review our retirement and re-employment policies, to ensure they remain relevant and foster progressive workplaces that enable our senior workers to continue working if they wish to.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State and these are based on feedback I had received in my capacity as advisor to the Advanced Manufacturing Employees' Union (AMEU), with which I think the Senior Minister of State is very familiar. So, what I was informed is that for many senior workers who are above the age of 63, their EAP benefits are no longer tied to their years in service.

So, what this means is, in substance, up to the age of 63, they are very expensive to lay off if they have been working for a long time. But after the age of 63, the EAP payments are no longer based on years in service. So, someone who was very expensive to lay off or retrench at the age of 63, suddenly becomes very cheap to lay off. And because senior workers also have the greatest difficulty getting re-employment, I think it is important for them to be protected.

My first clarification is: the figure that was given for workers over 63, that is, only 3.8 per 1,000 were retrenched, does this also take into account workers who may have been retired and not re-employed? Because I understand that is the mechanism that is sometimes used. So, the worker is not actually re-employed and given early retirement.

The second is, I think the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that the EAP is carefully calibrated and open to negotiation. I have two related clarifications on this: first, in relation to employees who have the benefit of collective agreements, how many of these collective agreements tie the EAP payments to years in service? And second, for employees without collective agreements, how many of them are eligible for retrenchment payments?

Sir, on the Member's first clarification, on the 3.8 per 1,000 resident employees, that refers to retrenchment and does not include those who voluntarily retired. We are talking about retrenchment.

On the second issue. I just want to correct the statement that was made. The EAP is mandated by law. Retrenchment benefits are open to negotiation. So, it is not the other way around. And the EAP should not be compared to retrenchment benefits, because it is meant to help those who are not re-employed, to tide them over a period of time until they find other re-employment opportunities.

Therefore, it is not something that is tied to years of service, but it is meant to be something that tides them over a couple of months, for example, till the person can find a new job.

The EAP quantum recommended in the tripartite guidelines on the re-employment of older employees, as I said, is carefully calibrated. Because if the EAP amount is too high, employers may then be concerned with excessive cost burden of the re-employment obligation. And then, they will be less willing to retain a senior worker up to the retirement age. In other words, they may choose to then retrench the worker before the retirement age.

If the cost of paying retrenchment benefits is cheaper than paying EAP, it may well be that it will become a perverse incentive to retrench a worker before retirement age instead. This would then be detrimental to senior workers who are close to retirement age.

We want to avoid disincentivising also senior workers from searching for alternative employment if they are not successfully re-employed. It really is about getting enough for them to tide them over a period, but not to be such a windfall that there is no more incentive to look for other employment opportunities that come along the way. And we also should not be creating a perverse incentive to employers to not retain workers close to the retirement age.

Mr Vikram Nair.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications. Then, perhaps the question that I should ask is: is the Senior Minister of State aware of whether retrenchment benefits are extended to workers beyond the age of 63, but before they reach the end of their re-employment retirement age?

Sir, as I said, retrenchment benefits will be something more of a contractual agreement between the employer and the employee and it is something that would defer from case to case. I suppose for employers who really want to take care of their employees, there is no real reason why he or she cannot extend benefits to employees beyond the retirement age. But this is not mandated by law and this is something that companies and their employees will have to come to an agreement on.

8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Sea by Japan (a) what measures are in place to ensure the safety of our food products, especially seafood, imported from Japan; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact on Singapore's surrounding waters.

9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the impending release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the ocean (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will review the safety of seafood imports from Japan; and (b) what actions will SFA take when an imported food is found to have elevated levels of tritium or other radionuclide levels.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 together in the Order Paper today, because they relate to the same matter?

Please proceed.

Thank you very much. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) adopt a science-based approach towards assessing food safety risks and environmental impacts respectively.

To ensure food safety, food imported into Singapore is subjected to SFA's surveillance and monitoring regime, which includes radiation surveillance. Food products that fail SFA's inspections and tests will not be allowed for sale. SFA has been closely monitoring food imports, including those from Japan, and our surveillance results have been satisfactory. SFA also keeps abreast of international developments and expert reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and foreign food safety authorities to augment our surveillance and monitoring regime.

NEA assesses that Japan's planned discharge of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea is unlikely to impact the seawater quality in or around Singapore waters. Since 2019, NEA has been closely monitoring Singapore's waters as part of NEA's environmental baseline radiation monitoring programme. The radioactivity measured continues to remain within our natural background levels. SFA and NEA will continue to monitor closely radiation levels in our food imports and our environment respectively.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. I note that NEA operates a network of about 40 ambient radiation monitoring stations in and around Singapore, which provide a daily update on radiation levels. First, may I ask if the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment (MSE) has any plans to increase the frequency of monitoring to more than once a day or to include more monitoring stations?

The second question is a request for the readings to be made known to the public; and third, does MSE have any processes presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment?

Mr Speaker, sorry, I could not catch hold of the Member's second and third points – made known to the public on what?

Make known to public on the radiation levels.

Yes, okay. And the third?

Any process presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment.

I thank the Member for the questions. I would like to assure Members here as well as members of the public that we do keep a close watch, as I have mentioned earlier, including the readings from the 40 monitors that Member Joan Pereira has mentioned. And we do include readings on radiation and, if necessary, we will make some of these known if we need the public to be aware. Because these monitors actually collect a lot of data, so, we do not think that it is necessary to highlight one of them, unless it is in the public interest to do so.

And we have in the past, for example, when it comes to haze, we do highlight certain readings when we think that it is necessary for the public to take action. Otherwise, there will be a lot of data that may inundate the public and actually may not have the desired impact.

Having said that, we will monitor closely. For some indicators, we do intend to increase the number of monitors, but I will just assure the Member that we will look into the overall requirements of environmental protection and assess our capability from time to time.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Minister for her reply. My supplementary questions relate to food products. First, I would like to ask if SFA tests all imported food products coming from high-risk locations where there are potential nuclear contamination issues. Second, what would be the recourse for consumers who suspect that they have bought or consumed a product that contains high radionucleic levels?

Thank you very much, Mr Melvin Yong, for the question. We take a risk-based approach when it comes to food safety and these risks could be many different types of risks. It can be from nuclear activities, nuclear active materials, it can be contamination from the environment. We are inundated actually with many, many different types of risks. So, I would not want Members to go away thinking that nuclear contamination is the only thing that we are concerned with or this is an issue that we are concerned about right now. As I have mentioned earlier in my reply, we have actually been monitoring a whole host of risks and you can see that SFA, from time to time, does take action against food items that do not meet our requirements.

So, this regime will continue and, of course, we will watch the situation with the discharge of Fukushima wastewater carefully. We will also rely on international assessments and we do exchange data and intelligence with other food safety authorities.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for her replies. I note the Minister said that the discharge of wastewater is unlikely to impact the waters around Singapore. But can I ask the Minister if NEA or SFA is monitoring whether the water around the areas where our sources of seafood come from is being monitored to assess whether or not it will impact Singapore?

Of course, we will monitor reports coming from those areas. As you see, we do not have jurisdiction in those areas. So, it is really not very realistic for us to expect NEA to be monitoring the quality of waters several thousand miles away from Singapore. Having said that, we do assess the plan that has been put up by the Japanese authorities on how they intend to discharge the wastewater. We do watch what IAEA is doing because IAEA is obviously monitoring the discharge and also on the lab reports very closely.

More importantly is that we do take food samples to manage the risks. So, I can assure the Member as well members of the public that this item is on our agenda and we will be taking all necessary actions to keep food coming into Singapore safe.

10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what studies have been undertaken on the environmental impact of the relocation and redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase; (b) what are the findings from these studies; (c) what measures have been or will be taken to mitigate any negative environmental impact; and (d) if studies have not been undertaken, whether the Ministry will conduct these studies and, if not, why not.

11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in view of the impending redevelopment of the Paya Lebar Airbase (a) whether there are plans to retain sufficient green spaces in the north-eastern part of Singapore, including to allow continued connectivity for migratory birds to fly between the Northern Islands and other parts of Singapore; and (b) will the Government consider preserving or enhancing the current tracts of green spaces along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon Dam.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 10 and 11 together, please?

Please proceed.

The redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase will only commence from the 2030s. Prior to that, we will evaluate the potential impact on the environment and biodiversity in the area and conduct more detailed environmental studies if the impact is assessed to be significant. These studies will also inform mitigation measures for the redevelopment, including the integration of green spaces in and around Paya Lebar Airbase.

For Sungei Serangoon, a network of parks and park connectors has been safeguarded to enhance green spaces for biodiversity as well as provide recreational spaces for the community.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. Would the Government consider rezoning the stretch of land along the Sungei Serangoon or Serangoon River, currently under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) masterplan, to rezone in the coming masterplan review, especially bearing in mind the following factors?

One, there is a lack of significant green spaces in the northeast of Singapore specifically, as the stretch of green spaces along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam is the only significant green space of its size in northeast Singapore, besides Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong. I have Hougang residents who told me that they are wary of the developments of the stretch of green spaces along the Serangoon Park Connector by Hougang Avenue 7 and Upper Serangoon View. But, in effect, this stretch of land actually stretches past four constituencies – Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC), Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Sengkang GRC and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, including the area around Buangkok forests.

Two, in addition to the biodiversity, the floral, fauna and even the wildlife that may dwell in these green spaces, many migratory birds actually use this stretch of land, this stretch of green spaces, in their annual migration journeys between the northern and southern hemispheres as they fly through Singapore twice a year.

Three, the redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase into a huge Housing and Development Board (HDB) estate – I believe it is about 800 hectares and 150,000 new homes – will have a significant environmental impact on the northeast area, including, I believe, heat impact in the surrounding northeast area. So, a significant retention of the green spaces on this stretch will mitigate against some of such impact.

I would also like to ask whether the Government can consider expanding on the planned area of the green spaces to be retained beyond the current areas which are marked on the current URA masterplan for the same reasons.

Sir, let me maybe set the context of the development plans for the area. The site will be developed progressively over several decades after the relocation of the airbase from the 2030s. And as shared by the Member earlier, it is an exciting development for the Paya Lebar site.

During the draft masterplan 2019 exhibition, URA shared the vision that the airbase and the surrounding industrial areas can be transformed into a liveable and sustainable new town, built on the unique identity as a former airport and airbase. And the new town will have a myriad of housing, employment and recreational opportunities. New nodes of employment to bring jobs nearer homes, more direct connections between adjacent towns, including Hougang, and the rich aviation heritage of its former use.

Importantly as well, a network of parks and open spaces and new ways for our residents to live, work and play. And URA has been engaging the public and seeking feedback on the PLAB redevelopment plans and engaging industry and professional bodies, like the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Singapore Institute of Planners, to develop a conceptual masterplan and precinct designs.

So, to the Member's question, this is something that we will build on and continue to refine and it takes years to do so. This is still a very early stage of the entire concept plan and we will develop a masterplan based on that. And after the masterplan has been developed, developing agencies will undergo an in-depth consultation process with the relevant technical agencies to discuss the scope of the works, including the expected impact on the environment as well as the mitigation measures and monitoring plans to be put in place to minimise the impact when studying the feasibility of the whole area's redevelopment. If the impact on the environment is substantial or could be significant, an environmental study will be required to assess in greater detail the full impact and develop more extensive mitigation measures.

And this will be done closer to redevelopment works, which will only take place from 2030 onwards. So, these are the processes and I assure the Member and members of the public that the various considerations that the Member has raised will be considered.

On the specific part of Sungei Serangoon, allow me just to provide some context. I am looking at the map of the Sungei Serangoon and the locations around it. Most of the vegetated areas along Sungei Serangoon are located on the eastern bank, which is currently zoned for B2 industrial use and there are no plans to launch the area for redevelopment in the near term, except for an industrial cluster in the vicinity of the upcoming Defu station on the Cross Island Line.

Actually, more importantly, most of the areas on the western bank of Sungei Serangoon have already been developed with an existing park connector running along the western bank from Tampines Road to Punggol Promenade. And to enhance the connector area, URA is working with the National Parks Board (NParks) to see how we can continue to build on that, potentially extending the park connector along the eastern bank from 2025.

So, to assure residents living in the area, actually, we have already put in place open spaces, park connectors and also looking at how we can continue to extend it to benefit not just the residents living there but people using the space for various activities as well.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answers. Not to belabour this, but in view of the next masterplan review that is coming up – I believe it is next year – I would like to urge the Government to look into realigning the green spaces currently marked on the current masterplan which is actually a very short stretch. And I am not just referring to the park connectors which our residents in the area really enjoy, but really, the green spaces on the eastern bank, as the Senior Minister of State has rightly put it. That is critical to retain the biodiversity as well as to facilitate wildlife, such as migratory birds which use the area as they hop along the green spaces through Singapore, up and down their annual journeys between the northern and southern hemispheres.

I thank the Member for the supplementary question and reminder. I am very glad to hear that the residents enjoy the park connectors and green spaces that are available along Sungei Serangoon. These are considerations that we will factor into the planning and I just want to assure the Member by reiterating what I said just now that most of the vegetated areas around Sungei Serangoon on the eastern bank are currently rezoned for B2 industrial use and there are no plans to launch the area for development in the near term.

12 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the impact of undesirable marketing tactics for financial products, such as ambush style marketing, on less financially literate consumers; and (b) what recourse do consumers have after buying products as a result of such tactics.

Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects financial institutions or FIs and their representatives to conduct their prospecting and marketing activities responsibly and in conducive settings. MAS has set standards of conduct for such activities. For example, one, representatives of FIs must disclose their identities upfront and clearly to prospective clients; two, FIs should monitor the conduct of their representatives at roadshows through site visits and mystery shopping; three, FIs should conduct call-backs and surveys within the free-look period to check if clients understood the products that they purchased at roadshows.

MAS has recently issued a public consultation to strengthen these safeguards by making them mandatory. MAS has also proposed additional new measures, such as requiring FIs to: one, offer consumers additional time of at least three to five days to consider their decisions; two, limit the use of gifts to influence consumers’ decision-making; and three, conduct roadshows and marketing events only in commercial premises instead of public spaces, such as streets and pedestrian areas.

A consumer who feels he has been sold a product through inappropriate means by a representative of an FI should immediately lodge a complaint with the FI. The FI is required, by regulation, to thoroughly investigate the matter. Where the representative has been found to have mis-sold a product, the FI will offer redress. Should the consumer remain dissatisfied with the FI’s response, he can approach the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for assistance. FIDReC’s mediation and adjudication services provide consumers with an accessible and affordable avenue to resolve disputes with FIs.

Mr Desmond Choo.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is that we know lots of residents who might not be familiar with English and they tend to be older residents. So, what are the additional safeguards put in place to help these vulnerable residents? We do see some of these marketers doing ambush tactics in the heartlands, going after these residents. This is my key concern for them.

So, the second supplementary question is: has MAS monitored how many victims of such ambush marketing tactics have subsequently asked to withdraw their investments and, if they want to do so, are the remedial actions and recourse easily accessible to them?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to vulnerable clients, including seniors who may not be savvy with the English language, FIs must implement additional safeguards when recommending products to such clients. A supervisor from the FI must call the client to check back on his or her understanding of the product and risks before any sale to vulnerable clients is allowed to be completed. MAS has also publicly consulted on proposals to enhance pre- and post-transaction safeguards for these vulnerable clients.

I will just share a few examples. First is the strengthening of requirements to identify selected clients. Second is to require FIs to ask the selected clients to have a trusted individual to be present during the sale and advisory process. And third, to require FIs to audio record call-backs to the selected clients and to provide the recordings to them upon request.

MAS is reviewing the feedback from the public consultation and will produce the response when the review is completed.

With regard to the Member's second supplementary question, there are many different reasons why clients may wish to withdraw their investments. One, it may be due to the fact that they have their own preference or they may have a change of mind. MAS does not have this information, but the FIs will have that information.

On what recourse mechanisms customers or consumers might have, please allow me to just elaborate shortly.

Consumers who suspect any wrongdoing again should lodge a complaint with the FIs, which are required by MAS regulations to investigate and resolve these complaints promptly and also independently. The complaint must be handled by a separate unit comprising staff who are not involved in sales. FIs will then review the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with proper procedures, including interviewing the complainant and keeping the complainant apprised of the case status. They will offer redress to consumers where their representatives are found to have committed mis-selling or other wrongdoing.

If the FI's response is not to the customer's satisfaction, he or she can approach FIDReC, which I mentioned. The outcome of FIDReC's adjudication is binding on the FIs, but not on consumers, who retain the right to pursue their claims through other avenues, such as seeking legal advice on the merits of their case.

Finally, consumers may also file a report with MAS if they suspect that an FI or representative has committed a regulatory breach or misconduct. While MAS does not adjudicate individual cases of disagreement between consumers and FIs, MAS will review reports of breaches or misconduct and take appropriate regulatory actions against FIs or representatives found to have breached MAS regulations.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State a supplementary question. With regard to the recourse on products which are not specifically fronted by FIs, for example, commodities-related products, such as gold, can I ask the Minister of State for clarification? Is the appropriate recourse via FIDReC in those types of situations? Because if I am not mistaken, when it comes to commodities-related products, it is not. So, maybe the Minister of State can help me clarify that point.

Sir, I do not have the answer at this moment but will check and get back to the Member.

Ms Carrie Tan, a clarification?

Thank you, Speaker. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State pertaining to this matter. I appreciate that MAS performs a regulatory check and balance on the FIs, but it does not sound to me like the individuals who fall prey to such marketing techniques have any form of recourse or compensation. So, my question is: should MAS find any particular FI in breach of a certain threshold of aggressive or inappropriate marketing, will there be retroactive forms of compensations required of them to be made to the consumer?

Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her question. As I mentioned earlier on, MAS will review reports of breaches of misconduct and take appropriate regulatory actions against FIs or representatives that are found to breach MAS regulations.

Ms Carrie Tan, next question.

13 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the considerations when ICA rejects applications of the spouses of low-wage and aged Singaporeans for Long-Term Visit Passes to work and fulfil the care needs of their families in Singapore; (b) whether ICA will consider working with the Ministry of Manpower to create a special entry and work pass category for these foreign spouses to make it easier for them to stay and help with caregiving of our citizens.

Sir, Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications for foreign spouses are assessed individually and holistically. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) will consider all relevant factors, including the length of marriage, whether there are children from the marriage, whether the sponsor is able to support the applicant and the family financially and if the sponsor or applicant has adverse records. ICA will also consider unique considerations, including caregiving needs. Foreign spouses are assessed on these criteria, taking into account their close relationship with Singapore Citizen families.

Ms Carrie Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have come across several and actually quite many cases where residents who are on ComCare financial assistance, meaning they are not independently able to sponsor their foreign spouse, in a very catch-22 situation. On one hand, they need the caregiving support of their spouse to be here physically with them; on the other hand, they also can benefit from the spouse having some part-time employment or income, which actually helps the Government to potentially save on some of these financial support expenses.

So, my question is: would ICA consider working with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to create a special category of entry or stay pass for such persons, given that the Government has been expending a lot of efforts to try and encourage ageing-in-place?

There is a real caregiving need amongst the lowest income segment and I would like to seek the Ministry's and the Minister of State's view on how we can tackle this particular problem that is faced by the residents.

Also, to add, many of them have come and tried to extend their short-term visit pass, for which every application costs $40, which, no doubt, they are taking from the financial assistance amounts that they have been given by the Government. So, I do not see how this is a constructive process going forward.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, we assess such applications individually and holistically. Given that ICA also considers unique considerations, such as caregiving needs, we assess that there is no need for a separate facility for foreign spouses for now.

Just to share, marriage to a Singapore Citizen does not guarantee the non-resident spouse automatic right of entry into Singapore or approval for long-term stay in Singapore. So, we strongly encourage Singapore Citizen-non-resident couples who are interested in applying for an LTVP to submit the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass assessment (PMLA) together, before the marriage. And PMLA is a free online assessment tool for couples to find out more about each other and if the prospective non-resident spouse is likely to qualify for LTVP after the marriage.

And, in fact, the Government provides support for Singapore Citizen-foreigner couples in areas, such as financial assistance for lower-income households, employment support and access to housing.

So, we keep track of the ground situation and you have seen how things have moved over the last few years with regard to financial assistance, employment support and housing. In fact, looking at the facility that we provide and as well as the accessibility, we have to look at the very broad perspective and factors of not only looking at talents, caregiving needs but also at the security of Singapore. So, I hope the Member will understand that we have very broad considerations with regard to such an issue.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I note that the Minister of State stated that married spouses and foreign spouses may not have an automatic right to come in and to stay in Singapore. Assuming that the Singaporean spouse or the Permanent Resident spouse is able to look after financially his foreign spouse, would the Minister of State be able to share what are some of the grounds of consideration that may militate against the granting of an LTVP, assuming, of course, that financial consideration is not an issue?

As I shared earlier, we look at various factors. We look at the individual considerations, the nature of the marriage and also, the circumstances as well as the identity of the people involved. But beyond that, we also look at it from the holistic perspective. So, each case is unique. I want to assure the Member that we will look at some of these cases. In fact, there are cases where we provide such a facility where the circumstances merit it.

14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) how many ITE students are estimated to be able to qualify per year under the new Grade Point Average requirements for entry into polytechnics; (b) what are the anticipated implications of these changes on polytechnic enrolment and respective programmes; and (c) how much flexibility is allowed for students to choose a polytechnic course which is not mapped to their current ITE course.

Mr Speaker, from the 2027 polytechnic intake, the minimum entry requirements (MERs) for ITE Higher Nitec progressors to polytechnics will be raised from the net Grade Point Average (GPA) 2.0 to 2.

5. We expect the number of ITE progressors to polytechnics to remain stable with the revised MERs, as most Higher Nitec students admitted to the polytechnics today have a net GPA of 2.5 and above already. About 4,000 ITE graduates are expected to qualify for and progress to polytechnic each year, similar to today.

ITE students who are interested to progress to a polytechnic diploma not mapped to their ITE course may apply through the Early Admissions Exercise (EAE). The EAE allows students to seek admission based on aptitude and interest in their course of choice.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Sir, I would like to first declare that I am an academic at a polytechnic. I thank the Minister for his response but, most importantly, I thank the Ministry for rolling out this much welcomed change. Many students that I have taught who came from ITE and on to the polytechnic, actually do quite well. They adapt quite well and, sometimes, they do better than GCE "O" level entrants themselves.

But there are others who struggle in their polytechnic studies. In all fairness, the subjects that they tend to falter or have trouble with are Math- or Science-related modules. These are things that prevent them from continuing the course mid-way.

So, my first supplementary question is: what measures are being taken to ensure that these students are adequately prepared for the academic rigour of polytechnic education? In that sense, would there be a review of how we want to introduce heavy, weighted, Math- or Science-related modules in a course that might find that unnecessary?

For my second supplementary question, Sir, I know many of my students who graduate from the polytechnics want to enter university. Most of them have good GPAs, but are not able to secure slots in universities. Thus, my supplementary question is: are there plans to expand this similar GPA concept to our polytechnic students who wish to join a university upon graduation? If not, what are the considerations behind this decision?

Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his questions. The first question is about students who are taking modules or courses in ITE and may not want to continue because they think they may not do well in the mapped courses in ITE. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when they go to ITE, yes, they take those courses. Today, we have already revised the curriculum structure for ITE to allow them to go to higher Nitec. We hope that in those two to three years that they are prepared in Higher Nitec, they are given the proper fundamentals and can strengthen their fundamentals so that they can continue to the mapped polytechnic courses. As I mentioned earlier, most of them are able to do so.

For those who have gone to the ITE courses and realised that those may not be the courses that they would want to pursue as their polytechnic courses, they can go through the EAE. That is really where they present their own credentials, look at their own strengths, tell the polytechnic, "This is really who I am. I may not be good in certain subjects, but my overall GPA is good to be able to get into the polytechnic."

At the polytechnic, we are also making some structural changes to allow them to have a feel of what are the kinds of courses available. So, even if they are mapped onto the courses, there is the Common Entry Programme, meaning that they go through schools and they go through a semester of generic programmes in those schools before they decide to major in a particular area. So, in a sense, it allows them to have a feel of the aspects of the course, though mapped onto the schools that they were from in the ITE, but they can then decide, after one semester, where their strengths are.

But if they really feel that they want to go into a course that is a bit different, it is useful for them to go through the EAE.

We do have career guidance for our students at the ITE level, even at the polytechnic level, to allow them to make informed decisions in terms of where and how they can get into a better course in the polytechnic.

We have also been designing more flexibility at the polytechnic level to allow students some space, particularly those who are struggling in their earlier semesters, to allow them to take lighter loads so that they can cope with the demands of a polytechnic education.

As to the second question on plans for university admission, university admission today is flexible. The universities do take in students with different entry capabilities, including students with GCE "A" level, International Baccalaureate (IB) and polytechnic diploma qualifications. The universities have their own criteria to admit some of these students.

One of the most important things we want to also articulate is that while everyone aspires to have a university education, it need not be the first port of call following the completion of polytechnic education. There are many other pathways that we are creating today, including going out to work first and coming back and taking modules or credentials – they call it micro-credentialing, which universities are exploring today. This allows them to take modules that are relevant to the industry and the work they are in; and subsequently, aggregating those modules to perhaps be awarded a degree later on.

We are encouraging our students to be more flexible, open-minded in the kind of career path they are taking, without being fixated on just looking at a university education as the first port of call following their polytechnic education.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response. It is heartening to know that at the higher levels, this is something that is being actively considered. I wonder if this will also be considered at the somewhat lower levels as well. Understandably, students at the lower levels feel more constrained in the kind of subjects they are forced to study and sometimes feel that taking on certain topics may be completely unrelated to their subsequent career aspirations.

Just to clarify, first, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, are you thinking of the lower levels as in the secondary level? Okay.

So, at the secondary level, yes, we do expose our students to polytechnic and ITE courses along the way. Some students are able to take modules in the polytechnic to give them a flavour of the kind of courses that they can take. Some students do take GCE "O" level subjects through polytechnic modules; for example, those who are interested in studying media and they take modules in Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Their GCE "O" level is based on these modules that they have taken. So, there is flexibility that is provided, but it really depends on the aptitude of the students at that point. [Please refer to "Clarification by Second Minister for Education", Official Report, 3 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 110, Correction by Written Statement section.]

Today, we allow the schools to have the flexibility to identify students' interest so that they know exactly what options are available.

At the same time, we do a lot of education and career guidance for students at the secondary level. We are also encouraging secondary schools to get their alumni to come back to serve on school boards so that the alumni can expose the students to various industries that are available out there.

While the foundation is necessary for us to make sure that we ready our students with the fundamentals – Math, Science, as articulated by Dr Wan Rizal earlier – from the perspective of getting exposure to the kind of careers that are available when they grow up, we do explore other opportunities for them.

Ms Hazel Poa.

I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Given that the GPA has been increased from 2.0 to 2.5, each year, how many ITE students with a GPA of between 2.0 and 2.5 enrol in the polytechnics? Was there a study done into how they fare in their polytechnic studies? For example, what percentage was able to successfully complete their polytechnic course?

The group of students with a GPA of 2.0 to 2.5 is very small. As it is, they apply to get in and, based on the number of places available, most who get admitted would already have gotten a GPA of 2.5 and above. Those with a GPA of 2.0 to 2.5 do complete their polytechnic education, but we notice that their completion rates may not be as good as those with a GPA of 2.5 and above.

But I just want to say that those who have a GPA of 2.0 and above have access to other diploma courses. Today, ITE provides diploma courses in the form of a work-study diploma as well a technical diploma. These are diplomas provided by ITE and these are more hands-on.

We notice that for some of these students, they do better in hands-on-related courses that are offered at the diploma level for our students in ITE. The employment outcomes for the technical diploma as well as the work-study diploma are equivalent to the outcomes of students who receive a diploma from our polytechnics.

15 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is (i) taking any steps to address the 25% rise in suicide cases in 2022 and (ii) making mental health assistance more readily accessible and affordable to the public.

Mr Speaker, my response will also cover Written Question Nos 26 and 27 from yesterday's Order Paper and Written Question Nos 21 to 22 in today's Order Paper.