Hansard, Tuesday, 1 March 2016

1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what measures are taken by the Police during the investigation and law enforcement process to safeguard the interests of children and vulnerable young persons who are suspected of, or accused of, committing an offence.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he can provide an update on the review of the procedure to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed by the Police and whether more protection can be accorded to young persons during investigations.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the Police keep parents or guardians of minors informed regarding interviews, investigation, arrest or custody of their minors; (b) how does the Police ensure that minors who are arrested or subject to Police interviews are made aware of their legal rights and have adequate and timely legal representation; (c) how do the Ministry and police monitor and ensure compliance with the law, protocols and processes; and (d) whether interviews of minors are recorded on video as part of the pilot scheme to video-record Police interviews of accused persons and, if not, why not and when will video recording be extended to minors.

4 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry could have timeously addressed the extensive speculation on social media surrounding the case of the 14-year-old boy who was found dead after being interviewed by the Police; and (b) whether there will be a thorough review of Police procedures on the interview of vulnerable suspects.

5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are standard procedures for interviewing and investigating young persons who are suspected or accused of committing an offence and, if so, what is the age guideline and the standard procedures in place; and (b) whether there are standard procedures to keep the parents or guardians of these young persons informed of the legal process.

6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the reason for the delay in the Ministry's response to speculation made on social media about the Police's conduct in the case of a 14-year-old boy who had died after having been questioned by the Police.

7 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the coverage of the Appropriate Adult Scheme can be extended to more vulnerable groups, such as the young and elderly, to ensure that they are supported during Police investigations.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission for the Minister for Home Affairs to take Question Nos 1 to 7 in a Ministerial Statement later?

I give my permission. Mr Dennis Tan, Question No 8.

8 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how do the Ministry and schools keep parents and guardians informed of developments when students are engaged in the law enforcement process; (b) what is being done to monitor and ensure compliance to the protocols put in place to protect minors who are subject to Police interviews or investigation; (c) how are these protocols reviewed, updated and improved upon; and (d) how does the Ministry ensure that these protocols are consistent with relevant laws and Singapore's obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) what are the schools' procedures when the Police go to a school to interview a student in relation to a crime and later decide to bring the student to the police station for further questioning.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 8 to 9 later in a Ministerial Statement, following the Minister for Home Affairs?

I give my permission. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Question No 10.

10 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current process for a small business to get an alternative site from HDB or JTC to continue their business if their shop/office is destroyed by fire; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider expediting the process so that the affected businesses can make a quick recovery to resume their business.

Madam, both HDB and JTC have measures to assist tenants whose premises have been affected by fire, so that their business operations can resume as quickly as possible.

For example, in the case of factory units, HDB will take over the affected premises and carry out architectural and structural repair works. HDB will also grant rent remission to the tenants of the affected units from the date of fire until the date the units are reinstated and handed back to the tenants to resume business operations.

During the period of rectification works, if the tenant needs alternative units to continue their operations, HDB can allocate available vacant factory units, known as transitional units, to the tenant for temporary occupation. Similarly, JTC will assist by looking for alternative factory units while the affected premises are being repaired. In addition, they provide rental remission on a case-by-case basis.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I have a supplementary question on transitional units. May I know how many such units are there available or is there a rough estimation on how many will be available?

Madam, the numbers fluctuate, depending on whether they have been taken up. There is no fixed figure at any one time.

11 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the plans for HDB commercial shops that have their 30-year lease expiring in a few years; and (b) what are the long-term plans for towns with these commercial shops not partaking in the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme.

Madam, similar to other leasehold properties, the shops which had been sold by HDB on 30-year lease will be returned to the lessor, in this case, HDB, upon the expiry of the lease. Where possible and if in line with future planning intentions, HDB can consider allowing lessees to rent the shops after the lease expires.

HDB shops are an integral part of public housing estates and are provided to meet residents' needs. The Revitalisation of Shops or ROS scheme has been designed specifically for HDB shops, to help enhance their vibrancy and improve their competitiveness. Under this scheme, the Local Merchants' Associations have the opportunity to lead and drive the revitalisation of their respective shop clusters, with funding support from the Town Council and HDB. To-date, 50% of HDB Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres have benefited from the ROS scheme.

Besides the ROS scheme, HDB has other programmes to rejuvenate older towns and estates, like the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme, which provides enhancements for the entire town.

MND and HDB have also been reviewing the ROS scheme with the aim of encouraging more retailers to upgrade their shops and business operations. The outcome of the review will be announced in due course.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answers. I have three supplementary questions. First, for those where the tenure is already up, how long will the lease be for the renewal? Second, what are the criteria under MND for the mix of those on sale and of the lease of the shops? Last, would MND consider the transfer of ownership between one generation and the other, if we want to have some businesses thrive over generations?

Madam, can I ask the Member to ask the second question again?

The second question is what are the criteria being used to determine the ratio in each of the HDB heartland, between those shops on sale and those for lease.

Madam, on the first question on tenure, that will vary from shop to shop and by the individual circumstance. So, I cannot give a definite answer but HDB will look at each case on a case-by-case basis.

On the mix between sale and lease, HDB does not sell any more shops. There was a certain point in time when these were put out on a "sold" basis to encourage ownership, but this is not the case today. Currently, all the shops are put up on a rental basis.

On transfer of business from generation to generation, I presume Miss Chan is referring to sold shops and whether those can be transferred from one generation to the next. If it is within the tenure of the lease, HDB will consider it. So, if it is within the period where it is owned by that person and he wants to pass it on to the children, that could be considered. If it goes beyond that particular tenure, then that is a separate matter which would have to be considered separately.

12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many vehicles have been booked during the past three years for leaving the engine of their stationary vehicles running; (b) what is the duration allowed before the vehicle owner can be penalised; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to raise awareness of this rule to vehicle owners.

Under the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) Regulations, it is an offence to leave the engine of a motor vehicle running when it is stationary for reasons other than traffic conditions. Leaving the engine running when the vehicle is stationary, results in fuel wastage and unnecessary environmental pollution.

While there is no grace period allowed for the idling of vehicle engine in the Regulations, NEA officers will exercise judgement on the ground before errant motorists are booked. Over the past three years, NEA has booked more than 12,000 motorists for idling their vehicles.

As part of its outreach programmes, NEA works closely with stakeholders such as the authorised vehicle inspection centres, private and public transport operators and schools to disseminate educational pamphlets and decals so as to raise awareness of the regulation and forewarn motorists not to leave their vehicle engines idling. To promote greater awareness, NEA has also installed anti-vehicle idling signage at places where vehicles frequently congregate, such as carparks, loading/unloading bays and along the roadside near schools.

Everyone has a part to play in safeguarding our environment and public health. Members of the public who spot idling vehicles are encouraged to report them to NEA via their hotline or the myENV app.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answer. I am a little surprised to hear that 12,000 had been booked in the last three years. I would like the Minister to confirm that again. In a similar Parliamentary Question (PQ) three years ago, the average number of advisory notes issued was 320 per year. That figure was given in 2012. Twelve drivers were booked for offences. But now, the Minister has just replied that 12,000 had been booked. Why the big jump from 12 to 12,000? If the numbers are correct, is there a concern that there are more and more offenders now?

Indeed, it is an area of concern. The numbers have increased largely because we have enforced more and there have been more complaints from the public. It is useful also for people who drive to know that, today, modern technology does not require you to warm up your engine before you drive. Sometimes, there is this misperception that you have to continue keeping your engine warm so that you can get better fuel efficiency or make the engine last longer.

In reality today, vehicle manufacturers we have consulted say that engines warm up faster to reach the optimal temperature when the vehicle is driven at moderate speeds upon starting. So, that is the new technology. It is what we have today.

So, I hope people will move away from the old habits. With old engines, yes, they need to be warmed up before the vehicles move. But we need new habits, because engines today do not have to warm up.

Can I ask the Minister what was the quantum of the fine given to these 12,000 offenders? Should we revise the fines, if the deterrence measures still do not work?

Under Regulation 21 of the Environmental Protection and Management Regulations, it is an offence for any driver to leave the engine of a motor vehicle idling when the vehicle is stationary for reasons other than traffic conditions, or the working of on-board machinery for some ancillary purposes. The offence carries the following Court penalty: a maximum fine of $2,000 for the first offence, a maximum fine of $5,000 for the second and subsequent offence. There are provisions under the regulations to compound the offence and the quantum of the compound fine is currently fixed at $70. We will look at whether we need to review this for the future.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –

13 To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many cases of high-rise littering are reported in 2015; (b) what is the number of resultant injuries and deaths; and (c) whether the current measures to deter high-rise littering are satisfactory.

Question No 13.

In 2015, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received some 2,800 reports of high-rise littering. High-rise littering is an anti-social act and offence that can pose a threat to public health and safety. NEA has been working with the Town Councils and grassroots organisations to remind residents of the dangers of high-rise littering. In addition to the reports received by NEA, SPF's records showed that in 2015, two persons were arrested for throwing killer litter which resulted in hurt. SPF did not receive any reports of death from killer litter in 2015.

Due to the nature of the offence, high-rise litterbugs are traditionally difficult to apprehend. When feedback on high-rise littering is received, outreach and education efforts to caution residents against high-rise littering will be conducted by my Ministry, the Town Councils and grassroots organisations, and in most cases the situation will improve after these efforts. However, in cases of persistent high-rise littering, NEA will deploy surveillance cameras once a suitable deployment site has been identified.

NEA has stepped up the deployment of these cameras over the years and has conducted close to 3,000 deployments since August 2012. Last year, NEA took more than 800 enforcement actions against high-rise litterbugs, an 80-fold increase compared to 2011, when the surveillance cameras had not been introduced yet. Offenders who were prosecuted in Court received fines ranging from $700 to $5,600.

NEA will continue to tackle high-rise littering by deploying surveillance cameras and secure the conviction of high-rise litterbugs. While the effective conviction of high-rise litterbugs will serve as a deterrent to would-be offenders, I would like to urge every member of the public to play his part to cultivate social graciousness, good habits and a sense of shared responsibility for the cleanliness and safety of our neighbourhoods.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to ask: for recalcitrant high-rise litterbugs, would the Ministry consider imposing a certain limit whereby if they have exceeded a number of times where they were caught for high-rise littering, that tougher measures beyond just fines will be imposed on them? For example, in very extreme cases, perhaps, confiscation of their flats. I believe there are some cases, where the litterbugs have been really recalcitrant despite many, many fines already imposed on the persons. Will the Ministry consider such a measure?

Also, one of the issues is that high-rise litterbugs continue to offend on a daily basis, thinking they can get away with it. Will the Ministry consider revealing the identity of litterbugs who may be caught on camera so that the grassroots or agencies can then follow up with these persons and to try and persuade the persons to not litter in the future?

I want to thank the Member for her suggestions as well as her questions. Firstly, for recalcitrant high-rise litterbugs, to consider if we should cap the limit for the fine imposed. First of all, for high-rise litterbugs, the fine is not compounded. They have to attend Court and the Court will decide on the fines to be imposed. But certainly, this is something that we can follow up on.

Regarding the acquisition of a property, we need to carefully consider this. In most instances, in fact, since we started the implementation of surveillance cameras, as I have noted earlier, we have been able to effectively enforce on a significant number of litterbugs. Last year, for instance, more than 800 enforcement actions were taken and we hope that this will be a deterrence. Before we even deploy surveillance cameras, we undertake education and outreach efforts, including house-to-house visits. In most cases, the littering would stop or improve. Therefore, implementing the surveillance cameras acts as a deterrence.

Having said that, for recalcitrant offenders, we also have to look at the facts of each case. In cases where it may be due to mental issues, we work closely with the grassroots, as well as with the family members, to see what assistance can be rendered, as well as to implement measures to prevent this littering from happening, for instance, even installing wire mesh across the grills of the windows to prevent the littering offence. We need to look at each case separately and be mindful that some of these may be due to specific issues.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how many surveillance cameras does NEA have and how long do they take to deploy surveillance cameras. The reason I ask is that there are many near-miss cases. Residents show me their clothes that were burnt by cigarette butts. But whenever I asked for action, NEA officers would merely set up ambush and then they would give me the update that they did not catch anyone. So, I have the impression that NEA does not have sufficient surveillance cameras and it takes a long time for them to deploy the cameras.

In response to the rising number of high-rise littering feedback, we have done a number of things. Firstly, of course, we have stepped up our outreach and education efforts. Secondly, we have increased the number of camera deployments since the adoption of this method to catch persistent high-rise litterbugs in 2012.

We have increased the number of camera deployments by more than four times to close to 3,000 over the last three years. In fact, just last year alone, there were more than 1,000 camera deployments. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground to see if we need to deploy more cameras.

But let me assure the Member that we will deploy a surveillance camera when it is assessed that there is a need to do so when our outreach and education efforts do not resolve the problem, notwithstanding the fact that resources are ultimately finite and, like everybody else, we do experience resource constraints. But having said that, if there is a need and it is feasible to deploy the camera, we will do so.

With regard to the time required to deploy a camera, normally, upon confirmation of the need to deploy a camera, we can install it as soon as four days from the date of confirmation. We need the time to do a detailed site assessment to determine the feasibility of the installation of the camera, as well as to further study where is the best position or the vantage point to deploy the camera to increase the success rate of catching the high-rise littering act, whilst safeguarding the privacy of residents around.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answers and I concur with my Parliamentary colleagues that this is a big concern. In Clementi, some of my residents have had cigarette butts going into the home where there are young children. Some have reported faeces being thrown from high-rise sources. I have three supplementary questions.

First, of the camera deployments, what proportion of deployments has led to identifiable perpetrators being successfully convicted or warned? Second, would the Ministry continue upgrading the camera technology so that there can be better night-vision image acquisition as well as higher resolution images? Third, I also second Ms Tin Pei Ling's suggestion that offenders could be named and shamed, similar to how litterbugs were dealt with some years ago.

We agree with Members that high-rise littering is an anti-social act and it is something that we must not condone and will not tolerate as it poses a threat to public health and safety. At the end of the day, I think all of us need to play our part to cultivate social graciousness, good habits, as well as a sense of shared responsibility. Deploying more and more cameras really is not sustainable and it is also not desirable. But having said that, we take every high-rise littering feedback seriously and, where there is a need to deploy the camera, we will do so.

Regarding the success rate of the cameras in identifying perpetrators, on the whole, based on the number of camera deployments, it is about one-third. The reason is that, very often, when we put up a camera, it may actually deter the litterbug from littering if he is aware that there is a camera focused on him or the unit. In some instances, it could also be because of intelligence or understanding of the ground, the camera could be focused at the wrong column of flat units, or on the wrong column and then we will have to redeploy it.

Regarding a "name-and-shame" tactic, I think it is something we will continue to monitor and consider.

14 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent oil spills on our roads caused by at least four accidents (a) whether the profiles of the drivers involved have any similarities; and (b) what preventive measures can be implemented.

15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of oil spill incidents on public roads in the last five years; (b) how many of these oil spill incidents caused traffic jams exceeding an hour; and (c) how does LTA work with the Traffic Police to minimise the frequency and impact of old spill incidents.

Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 14 and 15 together, please?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, there were about 6,500 oil spill incidents in the last five years. Most were minor spills that did not lead to significant traffic disruptions. Only 13 were serious cases that required the roads to be resurfaced, resulting in severe traffic jams. This year, four major oil spills have occurred on Singapore roads. There is no clear commonality in the profile of the drivers involved. Both local and foreign drivers and vehicles were involved.

Most oil spills are caused by accidents or breakdowns. To reduce accidents, the Traffic Police (TP) will continue to educate and engage the public through its various campaigns and enforce against reckless driving. On its part, LTA mandates regular vehicular inspections to ensure that vehicles are kept in good shape, so as to minimise breakdowns on the roads.

In recent years, LTA has claimed from the involved parties, amounts ranging from about $5,000 to $200,000 for the cost of repairs to damaged roads. LTA is looking into imposing deterrent penalties.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Would the Senior Minister of State consider providing clear notification to motorists and not merely state that there is an obstacle or an accident on the road because, with knowledge of the severity of the accident and timely notice, motorists would then have the option to take a route away from the incident?

I thank the Member for the question. EMAS signs on the expressways and arterial roads currently show only the key information related to traffic incidents, such as the root causes and the magnitude. As oil spills are not root causes and are, in fact, often caused by root causes like vehicular breakdowns or accidents, they are not reflected in the EMAS.

Nevertheless, LTA will review how EMAS displays can be enhanced to convey more information about major incidents which may be useful to motorists. Currently, we also have various channels, like the radio, Twitter, smartphone apps like Mytransport.sg, all these different possibilities to inform motorists, if they so choose to use other roads to ease the congestion.

16 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Finance (a) in each year since the inception of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, how many cases and constituting what percentage of total PIC claims has IRAS investigated, or is investigating or pursuing, clawbacks of PIC payouts; (b) what is the dollar value of the clawback investigations initiated by IRAS in each year; (c) what are the reasons for the clawbacks; and (d) what is the success rate so far in obtaining the clawbacks.

Mdm Speaker, since inception until January this year, 102,000 companies have benefited in one way or another from the Productivity and Innovation Credit. To put this into perspective, this is 70% of all active companies in IRAS' records for the Year of Assessment 2014.

For a scheme with such a wide reach, it is expected that some taxpayers will try to game the system through artificial and contrived arrangements even as the majority of claims are genuine. For example, a group of taxpayers had hired each other as employees and paid each other just enough to satisfy the three-local employee condition in order to qualify for the cash payout.

To address these abuses, IRAS conducts rigorous compliance programmes to review and audit PIC claims. Relying on the experiences of IRAS investigators and advanced analytics, IRAS has investigated or audited about 71,000 claims, or around 30% of the PIC Cash Payout claims made from Years of Assessment 2011 to 2015. One thousand five hundred of these claims investigated or audited required clawback. As for the amount of cash payout clawed back, for Years of Assessment 2011 to 2014, IRAS has clawed back $11 million, of which, $8 million has been recovered to date.

Taking the Year of Assessment 2014 for illustration, out of the 10,000 claims investigated or audited, IRAS has clawed back $7 million worth of improper claims from 500 cases, of which $5 million have been recovered to date.

The Government takes a serious stance on PIC abuse. IRAS will not hesitate to take stern enforcement actions against these businesses and any intermediaries helping them.

Madam, three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. I am sorry, the figures were too much for me to remember, but I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could clarify, out of the applications made for cash payouts, how many percent of the claims were rejected before payout and how many needed to be clawed back after payout? If the Senior Minister of State could give us a sense of that distinction.

Secondly, I wonder if the Ministry, in hindsight, thinks that it perhaps had been too lax in its approval procedures since now we are faced with having to claw back after payout, and whether IRAS would review the approval process to tighten this up.

Thirdly, I understand that IRAS has prosecuted some people in Court for PIC fraud and there are also some cases pending prosecution as well. From the IRAS website, the cases that were reported as prosecuted appeared to involve the grant recipients. We understand that, of course, many of the grant recipients relied on consultants who provided them, as it seems, dubious advice. So, I would like the Ministry to clarify are there cases actually involving consultants that have been prosecuted or are being prosecuted, and, if so, how many of them.

If I may address the Member's questions in turn, I think what the Member is really seeking is to have an idea, the sense of the claims which are actually rejected before payout and after payout.

As I had mentioned earlier, around 71,000 have been investigated or audited. After they have been investigated or audited and rejected upfront, it is about 43,000. There are a number of investigated and audited cases that led to actual clawback. That is about 1,470 or if we round it up, 1,500. That is the first part of the question.

The other question the Member had asked was whether we should review the approval process. That is something that we constantly look at to see how we can improve it. But there is also the other aspect, which is where people deliberately attempt to abuse the system. And that is, in fact, the reason why we do these audits. We want to make sure that even though on the face of it, it looks like they have done the application properly, you have got to look behind it. That is why IRAS investigates and does audits. As I have said earlier, we will have no hesitation in prosecuting those that are found to be abusing the system.

The Member also asked about whether prosecutions included consultants. I am afraid I do not have that information with me at the moment, but that can be checked.

Mdm Speaker, one final clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Based on the figures she cited earlier, the 71,000 being investigated, after we deduct the 43,000 where the claims were rejected prior to payout, and the 1,470 where they were clawed back after payout, does this mean that there were more than 26,000 cases where payout has been made, but clawback has not been achieved, as yet?

I think the Member took the 71,000, minus off the 43,000, minus off 1,500, and that gives a figure of approximately 25,000. These are still under investigation or audit. So, they are in the process of being looked at. I am not able at this stage to say whether they are rejected upfront or whether they are clawed back because they are still being looked at.

Ms Lim, you may want to file a specific Parliamentary Question or PQ. That may be much easier. Mr Zainal Sapari, next question.

17 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether there are guidelines given to Ministries or Statutory Boards to ensure (i) clauses in Government tender specifications for service contracts are fair to service providers and (ii) liquidated damages commensurate with the non-delivery of service; (b) whether there are avenues for service providers to flag out unfair or one-sided clauses in tender specifications; (c) whether there is training given to Government procurement officers to ensure fair contracts; and (d) whether an audit can be conducted on Government tender contracts to ensure fair clauses.

Madam, Government agencies are expected to conduct procurements in a fair and reasonable manner. To guide agencies, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) provides templates on the contractual terms and conditions for common types of buys which agencies make. Agencies can choose to use these templates or adapt them accordingly to cater to their specific unique needs. From time to time, these templates are reviewed, taking into account feedback that we receive and any appropriate industrial norms. For example, following industry feedback, our IT procurement contract terms were amended so that when the original equipment manufacturer's vendor defaults, the replacement vendor is compensated at prevailing fair market value instead of having to accept the previous vendor's rates.

We have clear guidelines to agencies that liquidated damages should not exceed actual damages/losses suffered in the event of a breach. There are also contracts which do not impose liquidated damages. Whatever the case, Government agencies are advised to work closely with their contractors to resolve issues early. As far as possible, agencies and contractors are not to let problems escalate to the point where contractual non-fulfilment is reached.

There are training modules that guide officers on how to write the tender specifications or the scope of work expected of the tenderer. However, it is not possible for training to cover every scenario on what is fair or unfair, or every type of purchase that Government agencies make. The Government buys a wide variety of goods and services, and each industry has differing practices and norms. What is considered the norm and reasonable in one industry may not be so in another. For example, in the creative design industry, the industry norm allows up to three rounds of consolidated changes after the design concept has been signed off. But this does not apply to architecture design of buildings. Given the differences across industries and situation in which a procurement is made, any audit on whether the tender specifications are fair would have to take into account the context and the circumstances when the particular procurement is called.

To address concerns about appropriate contract clauses, MOF works with lead agencies for the major categories of buys that the Government spends on, and provide guidance to agencies and procurement officers. For example, we work with Building and Construction Authority (BCA) for the procurement of construction services and Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) for procurement of IT services. Similarly, MOF is working with DesignSingapore Council to advise Government agencies on best practices for procurement of design services.

Today, every agency which intends to procure services or products will indicate the agency's contact person's details in the GeBIZ procurement notice. I would encourage suppliers who have any questions about a specific tender or quotation, whether on the tender specifications or contractual terms and conditions, to contact the agencies. Where the questions or concerns pertain to an agency's procurement practice, suppliers can also raise these to the agency's Quality Service Manager. Apart from these channels, suppliers may also give their feedback on government procurement matters to MOF's Quality Service Manager or on the GeBIZ feedback page.

Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. First, what can the Government do to encourage fair and reasonable outsourced contracts in the private sector? Second, can the Government consider setting up a body similar to the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) to help mediate should there be any contractual disputes between service buyers and service providers?

May I clarify with the Member when he asked in the first question, what the Government can do to encourage fair and reasonable contracts in the private sector, does the Member mean contracts between the Government and the private sector, or does the Member mean the private sector at large?

Private sector at large.

It is a little difficult for the Government to step into that arena, as it were. What one would have to rely on are the general principles of contracts. There is obviously bargaining power; that is one of the things that you take into account. But when a contract is particularly unfair and crosses a particular line, then, in some cases, in the Courts, the Courts will strike it down. We do have the Unfair Contract Terms Act. If it contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act, then, obviously, certain things will not be enforced. That is a matter of general law and that has developed over time. That is fairly well-settled.

With respect to the other question of a body to encourage mediation, in fact, we do have the Singapore Mediation Centre. It hears not just international cases but also domestic cases as well. I agree with the Member that mediation or amicable resolution is something to be encouraged. There are tribunals where you can take your cases for mediation.

18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) whether the Ministry can include the topic of tripartism, in particular, the history and importance of strong tripartite relations to Singapore, in the social studies curriculum at the secondary school level.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore's peaceful industrial relations are central to our economic competitiveness. Our model of tripartism – the social partnership between Government, employers and workers – has contributed greatly to our economic growth and success. So, it is important for our students to know and understand how tripartism shaped Singapore and how it continues to have a role to play today and in the future.

While tripartism is not specifically taught as a topic on its own, students do learn about aspects of tripartism in Social Studies, History and Economics. Through the curriculum, our student learn how positive industrial relations lead to social stability and economic growth for Singapore.

For example, through the History subject, our Secondary students learn how the Singapore Labour Movement activity in the 1950s reflected people's grievances and created the need for mediation and the crucial need to maintain peaceful relations between workers and employers.

Next, at Junior College levels, our History students study the post-Independence developmental strategies adopted by Southeast Asian countries. In the case of Singapore, our students will then gain a deeper understanding of how tripartism created a conducive environment that attracted foreign investment to Singapore and created good jobs for Singaporeans.

In Economics, for example, the study of policies in relation to economic restructuring, wage level management, labour productivity and mobility, allows discussion of the roles of employers, employees and government.

More broadly, students learn about how societies build consensus because that is very important in a society, in the same way that tripartism builds consensus amongst the various stakeholders and collaboration between unions, employers and government.

In Social Studies, our students are taught how government, the community and individuals work together for the common good of society. This knowledge is important because this knowledge will help our youth, especially when they eventually join the workforce, where consensus-building, mutual understanding and good relations are key.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her assurance that MOE views tripartism as an important subject matter. But more than just a historical account of our tripartism journey, what we hope to impart to our youths are the values of mutual respect and understanding, of team work and collaboration, and the ability to see issues from a broader perspective. May I, therefore, ask that the Ministry consider consolidating all the materials and having a dedicated chapter or module on tripartism in the Social Studies curriculum? NTUC would be happy to work with MOE on the contents.

I would like to thank the Member for his question and suggestion. Please allow me to take the opportunity to reassure Members that although tripartism is not taught as a standalone topic, as I have mentioned in my response earlier, it is indeed weaved into subjects like History, Social Studies and Economics, from the lower Secondary, to the upper Secondary and even the pre-University levels.

We agree with the Member that it is not just about the historical context but consensus-building, mutual understanding, give-and-take. These are very important perspectives that our young should take on-board before they join the workforce.

This is why beyond teaching it from the textbook, our teachers at the pre-University level, for example, will guide these lessons and discussions to bring about the important part that tripartism plays in our economy and also society.

If I can quickly cite an example. In Social Studies, our teachers will facilitate discussions where differing views are respected through role playing, and then through a very experiential learning process, our students will be guided to find out how individuals and groups in the society have different needs and interests, as Mr Yong has mentioned earlier. Our teachers then take the students through the process, so that our students can explore how government, community and individuals can work together through consensus-building and mutual understanding to contribute to the common good.

Let MOE look at the suggestion that the Member has made and let us study it deeply. We will come back in due course.

Madam, let me add to the points made by the hon Member Melvin Yong and the Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling. Ms Low mentioned that the history of the Labour Movement is mentioned and talked about in the Social Studies and History subjects. But a lot has morphed and transformed in the past decade. A lot of current issues and new legislations have been rolled out.

It is important that the young are also acquainted with some of these new developments; not just the history but the significant and transformational development of the Labour Movement and tripartism in the past 10 years. Likewise, the definition in the word tripartism. Many young people I engage do not know what tripartism means in our Singapore context. Just these two points for the Parliamentary Secretary to take away.

I would like to thank the Member Mr Patrick Tay for his suggestion. The Member will take note that we have recently revised our Social Studies syllabus. Of course, we do revise our syllabus along the way and evolve with the developments. So, the various aspects of tripartism explored in the various subjects that I have mentioned – History, Social Studies or Economics – are tailored to suit the age. The syllabus has to be designed to be age appropriate, so that it is pitched at a level where our students can absorb, internalise and understand.

We agree with the Member that besides the historical aspects, it is important that our students, as they move from lower Secondary, to upper Secondary, and to pre-University, can also, through the revised curriculum along the years, learn about the economic benefits of tripartism – and that definition evolves along the way – and its positive influence on the society.

19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) what measures are being taken to foster an ethics-based education system in Singapore centred on values and character development and not just academic achievements.

Mdm Speaker, education goes beyond the mind, it also involves the heart. In MOE, we agree and we are very passionate about the fact that imparting the right values and character development are central to our mission of education.

To guide our work in this area, we have a framework of six key values that shape our curriculum and these six key values are Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, Integrity, Care and Harmony. Besides nurturing such values, we also focus on developing social and emotional competencies of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management and responsible decision-making. So, that is the framework.

In order to set the foundations of character development and sound values, schools dedicate generally between one and two hours per week to teach character and citizenship as well as social and emotional competencies. And this carefully designed curriculum then allows our students to learn through stories because that is the best way for them to learn and internalise and through discussions, as well as engage in activities, learning journeys and reflections.

The Member would agree that values are not just taught. They are also caught. And that is why MOE creates many opportunities for our students to apply what they have learnt to put into practice the values they have learnt. The latest move last week announced by Acting Minister Ng Chee Meng to let our students participate in the daily cleaning of their school environment is one good example.

In our schools, the "Values in Action" projects, class and leadership responsibility, Physical Education (PE) lessons, for example, inter-class games, project work and also Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) are all part of the moulding process where it gives a lot of opportunities for our young to apply what they have learnt about character development and with a view of shaping our young into men and women of good character.

Along the way, our students receive feedback about their development from their teachers and their peers, and this is summed up by the form teacher in the Holistic Development Profiles at the end of each school year.

To shape our young generation, we also need role models of exemplary character. In the selection of our teachers and school leaders, MOE looks for people with integrity, essentially role models who embrace and exemplify the core values that I have talked about earlier. In training, NIE makes it a point to focus on Character and Citizenship development. It also equips teachers with the skills and knowledge to impart love for Singapore and our core values. Other than that, workshops and seminars are also held every year for in-service teachers and key personnel to allow them to refresh and deepen their capabilities in values education. So, that is for teachers.

In recent years, our schools and MOE have increased efforts to share all these development and efforts, and to involve our parents, very important stakeholders in values education. In fact, our Primary school textbooks and Parent Support Groups (PSG) offer opportunities for family time, with suggested fun activities for family bonding and through the process, also value development. Parents are the best teachers at home.

This consistently weaves a set of important values around our students, not just in school but at home, in school and also society, through Values In Action projects, and that really helps to set a sound foundation for their character growth.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. On the issue of character and CCA, if a child wants to participate in school in a team sport, just to be able to learn team spirit, camaraderie, values on the field and selflessness, would the school allow that child to participate notwithstanding that the child is not of a school team standard?

Why I asked is, parents and some residents have shared with me that some schools are too "medals-focused" when it comes to sports. Therefore, this prevents students, who are just wanting to participate for the sake of participating and understanding what sport can provide to them, from doing so. So, would team sports be a vehicle of character building in schools?

I want to thank the Member for the supplementary question and I want to reassure him and the other Members that we agree that whether it is PE or CCA team sports or even uniformed groups, these are very good platforms for our students, our young ones to understand the importance of teamwork, perseverance, resilience and so on.

In the area of sports, our schools have also, in the last few years, focused on a broad-based approach: giving our students an opportunity to experience various types of sports even if they did not have a foundation in the particular sports. And this is really in line with our focus for "Values In Action", which was reframed from the Community Involvement Projects (CIP). Whether it is the PE lessons or lessons in class, or the way we look at sports participation, we are looking at how we can avail such opportunities on a broad-base basis to our students to allow them to develop the six important values that I have talked about.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there are any checks by MOE on whether the two hours, that she mentioned per week, that are supposed to be spent on value and character building, whether do the schools use the time for such purpose?

The reason I ask this is that many of my residents, they recall very favourably the 好公民 lessons during their times. They are asking whether this is still taught in schools. Secondly, they say that sometimes, the lessons could be taken by the form teacher to use it for other purposes because it is very result-oriented nowadays. So, I would like to ask whether are there such checks and whether 好公民 is still taught in school?

I want to assure the Member, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, there is a framework for guiding how the curriculum is implemented in the classroom. Maybe I can give some examples. Generally, 80 hours are allocated for CCE lessons at the pre-University levels across two to three years of which 40 hours are for CCE lessons and 40 hours are for school-designed CCE. It is not what just you learn from the textbooks, it is also about applying it in the school environment, whether it is cleaning and respecting teachers and so on. The other 40 hours of school-designed CCE includes assembly programmes and also leadership development programmes. That is for the pre-University level.

For the Secondary level, I want to assure the Member that 60 hours per year are allocated to be carried out over two hours per week. There is a textbook. I am a mother of two young boys, 8 and 11 years old, and so I check their bags every night and I see their textbooks. They do have an activity book that they have to do; not just copy and do 习字 but also do a simple activity with the parents. So, I can attest to that, as a parent myself.

The 60 hours at the Secondary level comprise CCE lessons, school-based CCE would be similar to the pre-University assembly programmes and guidance modules. What are guidance modules? This includes education, career guidance, cyber-wellness – very important for young ones now – and sexuality education.

For the upper Primary level, it would be 60 hours to 75 hours per year, and this includes one to two hours on a weekly basis. So, the curriculum time is not just set broadly; it is guided through a carefully designed curriculum to be taught, not just in the classroom, but also within the school environment.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the responses. Just a supplementary question. If values and character-based development are so important in one's education, can MOE then take these into account in crucial milestone decisions, such as entry into schools of choice of the students, or especially for the high-stake examinations, or in decisions such as the awarding of scholarships, and also entry into Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs)? Is there any way by which MOE can strengthen the alignment between the importance of this aspect of education with all the other crucial decisions in our education system?

I want to thank the Member, Ms Denise Phua, for her very thoughtful suggestions. We want to assure her that MOE is generally moving in that direction. The Member would have taken note of Acting Minister Ong Ye Kung's sharing that for higher education, the institutes are also given some discretion to assess and enrol students, not just looking at their academic results, but looking at their holistic development and their character development. That is the first point.

For the second point, maybe, it is useful for me to take the opportunity to share that we do work with our schools to use the School Excellence model to evaluate their efforts and programmes about character development and citizenship through a few ways: students' feedback, survey and school-based indication. One example is schools have been giving out school awards for good character. Some of these awards are familiar to many Members in this House. They range from individual awards at the class level, at the school level with badges or certificates given, and even group awards, such as the "Most Responsible Class".

MOE introduced the Edusave Character Award (ECHA) in 2012, four years ago, to enable our schools to recognise the students who demonstrate exemplary character and outstanding personal qualities through their behaviour and actions. If you talk to the IHL principals and faculty members, over the last four years, they do take note of students. Everything being equal, they will look at the students who have been given those kind of awards, like the ECHA, because it would mean that this is a socially responsible Singaporean who would be able to contribute to the school and the society in the future.

In the annual performance for teachers, one of the Key Result Areas is character development of students. When we look at working with our teachers, we also work with them to ensure that this is an area they look at – working with their students to develop their character and imparting the right values.

We agree with the Member that this is important. We need to take a holistic and systematic approach to ensure that there is consistency within the education system from the schools to IHLs.

20 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether there are plans by the Ministry to (i) preserve our unique local food recipes and (ii) organise more food trails in the Singapore heartlands.

Madam, food is close to the hearts of many Singaporeans. We take deep pride in our local food heritage – recipes handed down from generation to generation, traditional ways of preparing food, neighbourhood food stalls that have been around for decades. And we want to preserve this for future generations.

The National Heritage Board (NHB) recognises that food is an important part of Singapore's cultural heritage. NHB has organised many talks, exhibitions and events to raise awareness of the importance of preserving our food heritage. In 2015, NHB presented a travelling exhibition titled "Deliciously Singaporean" to showcase Singapore's unique food heritage. This exhibition was presented at major food and heritage events and also in public libraries islandwide. Over 480,000 people visited the "Deliciously Singaporean" exhibition, which is a testament to the strong interest people have in discovering our food heritage.

Part of the exhibition entailed documenting stories and recipes from featured hawkers and their signature dishes such as Roti John, Chilli Crab and Carrot Cake. These were made into 25 short documentaries that have been uploaded on YouTube and presented as pop-up demonstrations at festivals. In this way, the stories and traditions of our local food recipes can be kept alive for future generations.

Because our food heritage resonates so strongly with many Singaporeans, we have also seen great interest from the community to play a part in preserving our food heritage. Our grant schemes have supported many of such projects which were led and initiated by Singaporeans.

The SG50 Celebration Fund supported "jiaksimi" and the My Singapore Food campaign, which featured local food recipes contributed by renowned food chefs and food enthusiasts. These recipes and stories also include the history and origins of dishes such as Hainanese Chicken Rice, Nasi Lemak and Mutton Curry, and all can be accessed on their respective food websites.

NHB's Heritage Grants Scheme is also supporting Koko's Island Adventures, a storybook that introduces children and their parents to two local ingredients – the pandan leaf and coconut – and includes recipes like Kaya and Otak Otak which feature these ingredients. This book is one way of making our food heritage come alive for the young children and their families by involving them in trying simple recipes.

Through this example, we see that preserving our food heritage is not just about famous hawker recipes. It can also be a means to inter-generational and inter-cultural bonding, through tapping on the wealth of knowledge and memories of food that is contained in our local communities.

For instance, NHB partnered grassroots organisations as well as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle to put together a Geylang Serai Foot and Food Heritage Trail, which highlights not just historical places but also food delights from famous stalls along Geylang Road and the Haig Road Food Centre. Similar trails have been developed in Ang Mo Kio, Balestier and Jurong, in partnership with community groups. Anyone interested in discovering the community and culinary heritage of these neighbourhoods can do so at their leisure by downloading a heritage trail booklet or mobile app from NHB's website.

We will continue to provide more opportunities and platforms for our local food recipes to be preserved and to ensure that this legacy is passed on to future generations in sustainable and meaningful ways. The upcoming Singapore HeritageFest 2016 will also feature more initiatives by the younger generation to preserve traditional culinary methods and promote our food heritage.

Singapore's food culture is a part of our DNA. Whether you are a company, community group or food enthusiast who shares a love for Singaporean food, everyone has a part to play in sharing and preserving our local food culture. We welcome and support your ideas on how we can celebrate and preserve food heritage better, as a unique part of our Singaporean identity.

Mdm Speaker, I think we feel very hungry after listening to the reply by the Senior Minister of State. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the very delicious reply.

First, I think all of us have heard of stories about very good food stalls in hawker centres cooked by very veteran hawkers but after a while, nobody will take over, and the art is lost completely and the skill is gone. We do not want to just merely look at the recipes. We want to really eat and taste the food.

The key concerns I have now is that while NEA takes charge of hawker centres, the hardware, but the software of it, I hope the Ministry can look into it and work closer with NEA to see how to preserve and make sure that all our hawker centres, our hawker food, can continue to survive.

Other countries or other states like Penang, there is a ruling whereby only the locals can cook Penang food. I am not sure how that works but I think the rest of the countries are trying very hard to preserve their own food. The issue is what are we doing and I hope that our food will be able to be tasted, not just looked at, in the recipes only.

Madam, I thank Dr Lim for his supplementary question. Indeed, for the reasons that I have stated, we recognise that food heritage is a very important part of our national identity and this is the reason why NHB and MCCY work to support efforts to document, preserve and promote local food.

Dr Lim mentioned about who can cook local hawker food. I think it is already the case today that hawker stall licensees in NEA-managed hawker centres and markets have to be Singapore Citizens or PRs, and they are also not allowed to employ foreigners.

As to whether MCCY or NHB, from a heritage perspective, feel that we need to impose further restrictions on who can cook hawker food in privately-managed food centres, I believe that would be Dr Lim's question. Madam, I think when it comes to hawker food, great taste and authenticity do matter and that is the reason why NHB and MCCY work to promote our food heritage. But we do so recognising that other factors are also very important and these also help to make Singapore hawker food very close to our hearts. This includes affordability and accessibility, and it also includes allowing for evolution of recipes, so that there will be innovation. Variations and recipes are being created all the time and also evolve to take cognisance of evolving consumer preferences such as healthier choices.

Our approach is to promote our food heritage in the ways that I have mentioned just now, rather than advocating further restrictions on who can cook hawker food in privately-managed food centres. As for the example of Penang that Dr Lim mentioned, I think it is an interesting experiment and we will certainly watch it as it unfolds.

21 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many cases of molestation in MRT trains have been reported; (b) what are the plans to cut down on these cases; and (c) whether warning signs can be put up in train carriages to alert commuters.

Mdm Speaker, over the past three years, there has been an annual average of 71 outrage of modesty cases on MRT and LRT trains. There were 65 cases in 2013, 79 cases in 2014 and 69 cases last year. These numbers have to be seen in the context of an increasing number of passenger trips on trains over the years, with almost three million passenger trips daily on trains. The number of outrage of modesty cases on trains represent about 5% of the total number of outrage of modesty cases reported annually.

Police officers from the Public Transport Security Command (TransCom), a specialist unit within the SPF commissioned in 2009, conduct patrols within the public transport network to project police presence. This helps to deter and detect crime, including cases of outrage of modesty. Police have also been active in their crime prevention outreach to commuters. Police display posters on trains and train station platforms, screen videos and conduct crime prevention roadshows in train stations and bus interchanges to raise commuters' vigilance against crime, including outrage of modesty. Commuters are reminded to be aware of their surroundings, look out for suspicious persons and to take steps to protect themselves from being victims of crime. Our assessment is that the current level of crime prevention messages is sufficient and there is no need at present to include warning signs in trains.

The maximum penalty for outrage of modesty is two years' imprisonment or a fine or caning, or any combination of these punishments. This increases to five years' imprisonment if the victim is under 14 years of age. The Courts have been meting out stiff sentences for those convicted of molestation on trains.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Though it is only 5%, I believe there are a lot of cases not reported because the victims feel very embarrassed. That is the feedback from my residents.

So, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry will step up education, that means to educate commuters, remind them about personal space, educate victims how to make reports and what are the key details that need to be furnished. The next question is whether there are sufficient cameras on the train platforms or inside the carriages to help to deter crimes.

As for the suggestion to step up awareness, there has been cooperation with the public transport operators, and these have included in-train panels, advertisements and videos to encourage people to be aware to protect themselves. As for the suggestion on how to make reports and all that, it is something we will look at closely.

As for the adequacy of cameras in trains, for operational reasons, I am not able to go into detail on the use of cameras on the trains, but the Member can be assured that this is something that we take very seriously, and not just for outrage of modesty case but the general security of our trains. So, be assured of that.

Mdm Speaker, if I can just ask a supplementary question on Question No 21. If the number of molestation cases worsens or shows a worsening trend, would the Government consider experimenting with women-only carriages, which I think is a scheme that has met with some success in other countries?

There are currently no plans to have women-only carriages. I do not think we have reached that stage. As the Member has heard, the number of cases is very small, it is 5%; I do not think we would go to such a drastic measure at this stage.

Mr Leon Perera, next question.

22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the current projections in the rate of change in doctor-to-population and nurse-to-population ratios over the next five years; (b) what targets are in place to improve the doctor-to-population and nurse-to-population ratios over the next five years; (c) how does the Ministry intend to meet these targets; and (d) what are the fallback options should the Ministry be unable to meet these targets.

Mdm Speaker, at the last Parliament Sitting in January, I informed Mr Leon Perera that Singapore's doctor-to-population ratio in 2014 was 21 doctors per 10,000 population, compared to 18 in Hong Kong and Taiwan. For nurses, we have 69 nurses per 10,000 population compared to 66 in Hong Kong and 60 in Taiwan. I also explained that these ratios could only offer a broad comparison and we need to be mindful about differences in healthcare demand, clinical practices and operating environments. A higher staffing ratio does not necessarily equate better quality healthcare or better health outcomes.

MOH has been expanding the capacity of our healthcare and aged care services in Singapore under the Healthcare 2020 Masterplan. We are on track to growing the healthcare workforce by 20,000 between 2011 and 2020. So, our staffing ratios will go up. In addition, the Government has introduced policy measures like Pioneer Generation Package and MediShield Life to improve healthcare affordability and give Singaporeans greater peace of mind.

Looking beyond 2020, Singapore will face an increase in projected healthcare demand and also a smaller local workforce due to our ageing population. To keep our healthcare system sustainable, we must step up efforts to help Singaporeans to stay healthy and enable our seniors to age well. MOH is also working in close collaboration with healthcare institutions, unions and community partners to develop new care models and improve productivity, so that we can continue to provide high quality of care for Singaporeans and a good working environment for our healthcare workers. We are adopting this tripartite partnership approach to attract and train more Singaporeans to join the healthcare sector, improve productivity in our healthcare institutions and enable our healthcare workers to continue working till a later age.

As I explained at the last Sitting, another important area is for all of us to show appreciation and support for our healthcare workers. This will go a long way to motivate our healthcare workers to continue putting in their best efforts to serve with care and commitment.

Madam, I thank the Minister of State for his helpful reply. I have a few supplementary questions. In regard to the assurance from the Minister of State that our staffing numbers will improve in future, which is a welcomed assurance, my question would be: does he feel that the doctor-to-population and nurse-to-population ratios right now are not really where they should be? And if so, what are the mitigation measures that the Ministry is considering to deal with that current situation? That is the first question.

The second question is: would the Ministry consider evaluating the feasibility to set a target for doctor-to-population and nurse-to-population ratios? The reason I ask that question is because I think that, looking at where Singapore stands versus other OECD countries, we are quite close to Hong Kong and Taiwan. But there is a considerable body of expert opinion that there is a doctor and nurse shortage in Hong Kong and Taiwan. There are various reports, for example, the Brookings Institution, Taiwan National Institute of Health, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong Hospital Authority and so on, which have acknowledged that there is a situation of doctor and nurse shortage in those countries. So, it concerns me that we are closer to those countries on the OECD spectrum. Would the Ministry consider setting a target or an ideal zone that we want to move towards in future?

Mdm Speaker, the assurance that I have given earlier about the staffing ratios going up is not a new assurance. This is something that the Ministry of Health (MOH) had previously already provided. The figures are in the public domain. We will be increasing the number of healthcare workers between 2011 and 2020. This is not something that is because of what is happening now and, therefore, we are hiring more workers. It is in recognition that our population is ageing and we expect healthcare demand to go up. So, we are building more hospitals and hiring more healthcare workers not only to take care of the current situation but in preparation for what is going to come in the future.

This is something which the Government does in all areas, not just in healthcare. We always plan ahead, we always anticipate, we build ahead of demand and we deal with the situation before the problem emerges. This is something which we will continue to do.

It is important for us to look beyond the numbers and I need to re-emphasise this point to Mr Perera, that we should not be overly fixated on one particular number, the staffing ratio, because it only represents one dimension of quality healthcare.

Mr Perera mentioned that some of the OECD countries have higher ratios than Singapore. But if you also check their health outcomes, they do not necessarily have better health outcomes than Singapore. So, if we look at the issue from only a single dimension, we may end up with the wrong conclusions. Higher staffing ratios do not necessarily mean better health outcomes.

It is important for us to bear in mind that there are many different aspects of what constitute good health outcomes: the efforts to encourage Singaporeans to stay healthy, how we run our healthcare institutions, improving productivity, how we review our processes and how we transform our care model.

I thank the Minister of State for his answers. One thing that many patients and, indeed, many of my residents tell me is that the care relationship in healthcare is very much local: local language, local culture, understanding local nuances for local medical practice. Would the Minister of State be able to share what measures MOH is looking at to help maintain a strong Singaporean Core in our healthcare system?

Mdm Speaker, I thank Dr Tan for his question. Indeed, it is a very important area for us to look at, to increase the number of healthcare workers and the number of Singaporean healthcare workers. We do this in a number of ways.

First, it is to make sure that we have a good working environment for our healthcare workers, and this includes not just our younger workers but also our older workers. So, part of the effort that we have been working on and we will continue to do, is to work closely with the hospitals, the healthcare institutions and also our unions to look at how we can improve the work environment to allow our healthcare workers to work till a later age.

We are also looking at supporting mid-career professionals who are interested to become healthcare workers. We will fund the cost of their training and provide them with training allowances during their studies to help defray their living expenses. And upon completing their training, they will receive a career transition bonus.

We are also looking at how we can increase the pool of healthcare workers by bringing back Singaporeans who are studying overseas. We do this through the pre-employment grants which we offer to Singaporeans studying Medicine and Dentistry overseas. As of March 2015, we have awarded 630 of such grants.

Very importantly, it is also about how we can make good use of the number of workers that we have by improving productivity, providing a good working environment and making sure that they can focus on providing good quality care for their patients.

Madam, I am happy to note that the Minister of State has said that MOH, and even the whole of Government, is always building ahead to prepare for demand. Perhaps the Minister of State would like to give us some examples as to how MOH has been building ahead in terms of hospitals, in terms of step-down care facilities, in terms of healthcare workers, so that residents or patients can be better served. Would he give us some examples or some statistics to prove what he said, that MOH is always building ahead of demand?

Mdm Speaker, if Mr Low is interested to know more about the statistics, I am happy to provide these statistics to him. But just to assure Mr Low, we do look at the future demand. As I had said, the ageing population is one of these trends that we need to prepare for. We are building more hospitals. Recently, we opened Ng Teng Fong Hospital in the west; in the north, we added Yishun Community Hospital; and there will be new hospitals coming up subsequently in Sengkang and in Woodlands.

So, we do plan ahead and build ahead, and there are definitely areas which we will continue to work not just from within Government but in close partnership with the community. Many of these step-down care facilities, for example, are done in close collaboration with VWOs and with the community.

I thank the Minister of State for his answers earlier on. It is good to know all that is being done to increase the local core of the healthcare system here. I have a question, and that is to ask whether MOH would consider working with MOE perhaps, to allow for more discretionary admission into tertiary programmes, like nursing programmes, for example, and explore possibilities for more bursaries, more scholarships, to entice and enhance more Singaporean students to take up nursing in these institutions as a career and also to develop a career path for such students. Perhaps, even in areas such as mentorship and internship, to holistically develop these future healthcare professionals.

I thank Mr Darryl David for his question. Mdm Speaker, indeed, working closely with MOE, our ITE, Polytechnics and Universities, is an important area for MOH. We will continue to look at what are the different options we have to attract more Singaporeans join the healthcare sector, whether it is to become doctors, nurses or allied health professionals.

23 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) of the more than 900 homeless individuals and families displaced between 2013 and 2015, what are the longest, shortest and average periods of displacement encountered by them; (b) what percentage of these homeless cases has been the outcome of unsuccessful applications for a HDB rental flat; and (c) what are some of the measures that the Ministry has with HDB to flag out potential displacement and homeless cases at the point of application for a rental flat.

Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) provided support and shelter to 543 homeless individuals and 374 homeless families between 2013 and 2015. Some of them had sold their flat due to debt or divorce, or could not continue staying with their families because of strained relationships or behavioural issues. They would often first approach close relatives or friends to take them in or rent from the open market, intermittently for a few days or up to several months.

Of these cases assisted by MSF, about half applied for a rental flat, of which about half were successful. Those who were unsuccessful mostly had other housing options when they applied, such as being able to afford a flat or having family support. Some could be existing owners of a flat. HDB, MSF and social service agencies would work together to assist these individuals and families to explore alternative housing options.

HDB recognises that families with young children and elderly dependants may have greater needs. HDB considers their circumstances and exercises flexibility on a case-by-case basis. For some families and individuals who have no other place to stay, MSF works with social service agencies to identify temporary shelter options while they find other accommodation. We also address their other needs, which may include counselling, financial assistance, employment and other factors that contribute to their housing instability.

Government and community agencies such as Social Service Offices, Family Service Centres and HDB Branches in each town also coordinate identification and support for individuals and families who may be at risk of homelessness. Families which are facing mortgage arrears, for example, may receive a combination of financial help, emotional support and guidance.

MSF will continue to work closely with HDB and community partners to provide assistance to homeless families and individuals and to help them to regain stability.

Madam, two supplementary questions. One is that the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered part (c) of my question, which is: what are some of the measures that the Ministry has with HDB to flag out potential displacement and homeless cases at the point of application for a rental flat? My second question is I would like to ask the Ministry whether it foresees the homeless trend increasing in the next five years; if so, how does the Ministry plan to tackle this trend?

Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the questions. As I mentioned in my answer, HDB, MSF and other agencies work very closely together. At every touchpoint that we have, we would check with one another and have a holistic assessment as to how we can take care of residents or fellow Singaporeans.

On the homelessness trend, I am unable to comment on this. Nevertheless, I want to assure the Member and fellow Singaporeans that caring for Singaporeans is key and at the heart of no matter what we do. In fact, I am thankful to Singaporeans who at times share with me incidents or photographs of people who they suspect may have difficulties, through my Facebook or other platforms. I am also pleased to share with all Members that our staff work into the wee hours of the night to look after fellow Singaporeans.

One example is where I received a Facebook post on a case somewhere in the northern part of Singapore. My staff went all the way in the wee hours to see how we can help that fellow Singaporean. This is something that we must continue to do because it takes everyone to make Singapore a special place; more so, we want to make sure that fellow Singaporeans are at the heart of what we do.

Order. End of Question Time. Leader of the House.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 24-28, 30, 33, 35, 37-38 and 40-41 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 29, 31-32, 34, 36 and 39 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 14 March 2016.]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Ministerial Statements by the Minister for Home Affairs and Acting Minister for Education (Schools) standing on the Order Paper for today be taken after Item 2 of the Orders of the Day."

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

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the Ministerial Statements by the Minister for Home Affairs and Acting Minister for Education (Schools) standing on the Order Paper for today be taken after Item 2 of the Orders of the Day." – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]

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

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

Mdm Speaker, the Pioneer Generation Fund (Amendment) Bill 2016 before the House seeks to propose two technical amendments to the Pioneer Generation Fund Act 2014.

The intent of the Pioneer Generation Package is to honour and recognise the contributions of all Pioneers in nation building, regardless of their financial status. As such, they receive similar benefits on top of existing healthcare subsidies which the Government already provides for all Singaporeans.

We have taken in former Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Chia Yong Yong's suggestion during the Second Reading of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill in November 2014 for an amendment to better convey the intent of the Pioneer Generation Package and avoid any doubt that the fund could be restricted to providing relief to only those needing financial help. I thank Ms Chia for raising this suggestion and for helping to make clear the intent of the Bill.

Hence, the technical amendments to section 3 and section 27 of the Pioneer Generation Fund Act are proposed to make clear that the financial means of a Pioneer must not be taken into account when allocating the Pioneer Generation Package benefits, which are met from the Pioneer Generation Fund.

These benefits include the Pioneer Generation Medisave top-ups, maximum subsidy for MediShield Life premiums and healthcare costs, for example, additional subsidies at polyclinics, subsidised Specialist Outpatient Clinics and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) clinics and the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

There are no speakers for this Bill.

[(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. – [Ms Sim Ann]. (proc text)]

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

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

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

This Bill seeks to amend the National Environment Agency Act (NEAA), the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA), the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) and the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act (CVPA) to enable us to better address our goal for a clean and liveable environment. Allow me to explain the main amendments and new provisions of this Bill.

First, expanding the Community Volunteer programme. One growing area of concern of my Ministry is with the state of public cleanliness in Singapore. Over the years, Singapore has earned a reputation as a clean city. This is something that many Singaporeans are proud of and many of us view a clean environment as an important part of the Singapore identity, as reflected in some of the polls that have been conducted.

However, maintaining a clean Singapore cannot be left to cleaners alone. Members would have read in the news of how festival-goers of Laneway Music Festival in 2015 and 2016 left the venue littered with trash despite the fervent efforts of volunteers from the Traceless Movement who went around the event venue to pick up trash strewn on the floor. Just a few weeks ago, members would have read in the news about the large amount of litter that was left behind after the countdown to 2016 at Marina Bay. The organiser subsequently mobilised 300 cleaners to ensure that 30,000 kilogrammes worth of trash was cleared up. Many concerned members of public have also provided feedback on how to improve the situation. During a recent radio discussion, some callers pressed for harsher penalties while many more said that there should be a focus of creating a culture of community ownership.

Over the years, the Government has stepped up enforcement against littering. Last year, NEA issued more than 26,000 tickets to littering offenders, 32% more than previous years and the highest in six years. We have also taken a tougher stance towards littering by imposing stiffer penalties for recalcitrant offenders. In addition, we are expending significant resources to keep public areas clean – as much as $120 million each year is spent on cleaning public areas with some hotspots cleaned every two hours.

Ultimately, public cleanliness should be the outcome of the intrinsic values and habits of our people and not just the result of cleaning services and enforcing rules. Indeed, it is not even related to the number of waste bins we provide for the convenience of the public. Members who have been to Japan would agree that the level of public cleanliness there is much higher than Singapore. The public areas in Japan are cleaner not because there is a large army of cleaners, but because of the Japanese people's habits and social norms. Indeed, in many public places, bins are scarce in Japan. This is something that we can strive to emulate, by creating a culture of community ownership so that everyone takes responsibility in maintaining high standards of public cleanliness and hygiene and treat public places like their own homes.

We have started this journey with a good number of volunteers who are passionate about the cleanliness of our public spaces and are active in helping us keep them clean. As part of the Keep Singapore Clean movement, the Public Hygiene Council partnered residents, schools, businesses and community groups to turn our community spaces into "Bright Spots". These are essentially shared spaces adopted by stakeholders who take ownership of the area's cleanliness and hygiene conditions and lead by example to promote good social norms. Since the launch of NEA's Community Volunteer (CV) programme in 2013, NEA's CV programme has been successful in attracting more than 340 passionate individuals from various non-Government organisations to step forward as CVs to help us educate others about public cleanliness and nudge those observed littering to bin their litter instead. To date, our CVs have collectively engaged more than 2,500 litterbugs.

I understand that the public has shown an interest in playing a more active role in keeping our environment clean. Last year, my Ministry announced during the Committee of Supply debate that we will expand the CV programme so as to allow members of the public to take greater ownership of the environment. Specifically, we will allow individuals to join the expanded CV programme without having to be affiliated to a recognised environmental group and empower them to engage offenders for a wider range of offences beyond littering. This will broaden the pool who can be tapped on to join the programme. In addition, we will allow CVs to have the option of participating in advocacy, outreach and educational activities. Through the expanded CV programme, we hope to see more CVs taking ownership of the cleanliness and hygiene conditions of existing Bright Spots numbering more than 520 and lead by example to promote good social norms.

To this end, clause 5(c) of the Bill inserts a new section 16A into the NEA Act to allow any individual, including volunteers, to be appointed as an auxiliary officer to assist NEA in performing its functions. Clause 5(h) inserts a new section 42A into the NEA Act to specifically empower the Chief Executive of NEA to authorise, in writing, an auxiliary officer to exercise all or any of the powers of enforcement conferred on an officer or employee of NEA by the NEA Act or any environmental written law, in relation to an offence under the NEA Act or that environmental written law. Clause 5(b) defines "environmental written law" to mean any written law administered by NEA, the Director-General of Environmental Protection or the Director-General of Public Health. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make consequential amendments to the CVPA, EPMA and EPHA in order to allow an auxiliary officer to be appointed as an "authorised officer" for those Acts, and thereby exercise the powers of enforcement conferred on authorised officers under those Acts.

As auxiliary officers may obtain sensitive information in the course of their duties, clause 5(i) amends section 47(1)(a) of the NEA Act to prohibit an auxiliary officer from disclosing certain information obtained in the course of his or her duties, except in certain circumstances, such as when he or she is lawfully required to do so. I would like to inform Members of the House that as an auxiliary officer is deemed, under the new section 42A(5) of the NEA Act, to be a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code when exercising a power of enforcement, the auxiliary officer will be protected under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act from any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or words towards the auxiliary officer in relation to the execution of the auxiliary officer's duty.

Next, enabling auxiliary police officers to exercise powers of enforcement in relation to environmental offences.

Under the Police Force Act, an auxiliary police officer (APO) can assist a Government department or statutory body with the enforcement of certain offences. NEA currently engages APOs appointed under the Police Force Act to enforce certain environmental offences such as spitting and littering. Clauses 2(b) and 4(b) will amend the EPHA and CVPA to enable these APOs to be appointed as "authorised officers" for the administration of the EPHA and CVPA. This aligns the position under the EPHA and CVPA on the appointment of APOs as authorised officers with the corresponding positions under certain other Acts administered by NEA, such as the EPMA and the Energy Conservation Act.

Mdm Speaker, NEA has been progressively equipping officers with body-worn cameras since 2015. These cameras help to deter abusive behaviour by offenders towards NEA officers, protect them against allegations of unprofessional conduct, as well as remind them to abide by the relevant operational protocol in the execution of their duties.

Clause 5(d) to 5(g) amends section 42 of the NEA Act mainly to make it clear that an NEA officer can photograph or record the scene of an offence under the NEA Act or any environmental written laws administered by NEA. I would like to assure Members of the House that NEA will address privacy concerns by ensuring that the photographs and recordings can be accessed only by authorised personnel for authorised purposes, such as when investigating allegations against our enforcement officers.

Madam, we all want Singapore to be a clean and liveable society, where the people have a stronger sense of community ownership of our environment. NEA will take action against irresponsible environmental offenders and ensure high cleaning standards but keeping Singapore clean requires everyone to play an active role. This Bill will allow passionate individuals to take greater community ownership of our environment and better complement NEA's enforcement efforts. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker, volunteers have always been valuable resources to any community, whether it is to help out in a civil disaster, provide companionship at a nursing home or even a neighbourhood clean-up programme. Undoubtedly, without volunteers, many projects and plans would not be able to achieve the desired results. The volunteers are a unique group of people who are always on the ground, doing their part for the community without much fanfare. Most importantly, they are a positive influence on the people around them to volunteer for the good of the community.

I am delighted to note that the amendment to the existing NEA Act is looking towards expanding the Community Volunteer scheme. This has been a good scheme to encourage responsibility and ownership for the environment. However, under the existing scheme, only members of selected environmental-related societies or councils could be appointed as Community Volunteers (CVs). To my understanding, the number of these groups currently stands at four. In Singapore, we have at least 44 registered environmental-related NGOs. Singaporeans are a more civic-minded lot and I believe there is a lot of potential in the CV scheme. Certainly, I pledge my full support to expand the CV scheme so that individuals too can be appointed as CVs.

Personally, I am a great believer of community volunteerism. To address the littering problem, my grassroots team and I have been organising monthly litter-picking exercises. These involve residents and students in our neighbourhood estates.

When I mooted this monthly litter-picking in 2012, there was a lot of initial scepticism. I was asked, "Bee Wah, are you sure or not? What if you go and pick litter, no one follow you?" I am glad that every month there are about 100 to 200 residents, students, nurses from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Lions members, as well as residents beyond Nee Soon South, those who care about environment, come and join us. I deeply appreciate their contributions and I am sure some of these residents will be keen to volunteer under the CV scheme.

Litter has been a constant thorn faced by many developed countries and densely populated cities. A great number of annual anti-litter picking campaigns are held worldwide: Clean Up the World, Don't Mess with Texas, Keep Britain Tidy, Keep Australia Beautiful, Hong Kong is The Face of Litter. These are just a few memorable ones out of the many national and localised campaigns held in countries across the global map. In Singapore, we have our very own Keep Singapore Clean campaign. And in Nee Soon South we have our own HABIT. There are numerous NGOs world-wide supporting community clean-up efforts. These campaigns certainly bear some weight in keeping the littering problem at bay.

However, we will have to look further for more comprehensive solutions. Education, coupled with efficient and effective enforcement, is the way forward. That is why I am very happy to hear the Education Minister announce last week that school students will do the daily cleaning and it will be implemented in all schools by the end of 2016. Certainly, this is a very good start. I hope that, eventually, it will be progressed, like what is happening in Japan and Taiwan, where every student not just clean their own classroom, they clean the school compound, they wash the toilets, they sort out the litter and they do not have cleaners in the schools.

Mdm Speaker, the idea of empowering regular civilians to enforce offences is, in fact, not a foreign concept. This not only helps to save resources and generate more efficiency, but as a ground-up initiative, it will have more social impact. It will foster social norm and I hope that it will remind would-be litterbugs that there are eyes around them; there are people who care and love the environment watching them all the time.

Since 2002, the UK has roped in volunteers to become Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), who help support front line officers by dealing with minor offences and anti-social behaviour, including littering. They play a crucial role in neighbourhood and police work, freeing up time and resources for the police to focus on other more crucial crimes. They are paid a token salary; however, there are now plans to engage unpaid volunteers.

In Mumbai, volunteers could fine litterbugs, a move welcomed by the volunteers who bemoaned apathetic litterbugs that refused to heed warnings. These volunteers are armed with ID cards and arm bands as identification proof.

But as with all "super volunteers", the greatest challenge remains in finding volunteers with the relevant skills, commitment and integrity to carry out their duties. Passion is important, but it does not necessarily equate suitability. Adequate training and resources will have to be invested in this programme. I believe there would be stringent screening of those who want to volunteer under this scheme so that what attracts them is their passion to serve and not the appetite for authority or power.

Next, we have to think of how to protect these volunteers. I fully support the use of body-worn cameras and, besides that, tough punishment have to be meted out for those who abuse the law enforcement officers.

Mdm Speaker, despite the possible challenges of engaging and empowering volunteers, it is undeniable that we need to integrate volunteerism into our community. But like any work, be it full-time or voluntary, people must be properly motivated and managed. Early this year, there have been some opinion pieces in the TODAY newspaper discussing the act of incentivising volunteers. I think volunteer management is something we need to consider very carefully in our long-term plan to recruit and empower more volunteers.

How do we maintain the motivation in our volunteers? How do we keep that flame alive year after year? Job satisfaction, the feeling of being wanted, the thought of having made a difference, their love for environment are powerful emotions that spur the volunteers. Volunteers need to feel appreciated to continue their work or they will move on to other causes. One thing can be for sure, we should never reduce volunteerism to just a dollar value. However, I certainly believe that more can be done to raise the social profile of volunteers.

When we hear someone say they are volunteering for the United Nations, or the SPCA, or a nursing home or orphanage, our first reaction is often to express admiration for the person. Why? Because we feel that he or she is directly contributing to the cause of improving and helping the less fortunate.

But for littering and smoking causes, often people cannot visualise the impact they are contributing to the environment. Many think that this is not their job. And some even labelled their friends or volunteers, "They are kaypoh." The inclination is to shower less admiration for their work done. Perhaps, employers should pay more attention to job applicants who are volunteering for good causes. Bosses, top management, CEOs and community leaders should lead by example.

Generating more public awareness will not only help to promote the importance of environmental volunteerism, but also give them the recognition they truly deserve. The eventual goal of expanding the CV scheme should lead to long-term plans to further this to the masses. Ultimately, this scheme will, hopefully, pave the path to two goals: a society that supports volunteering and civic engagement and a nation where the general public feels motivated to fight for their rights to a healthy, clean and green living environment and not depend on a large army of cleaners.

When I mentioned "large army of cleaners", in Taipei, there are three million people and they have 5,000 cleaners. In Singapore, we have five million people. You know how many cleaners we have? By proportion, it is many, many times. We have 70,000 cleaners. Three million in Taipei, 5,000 cleaners. We have five million people in Singapore; we have 70,000 cleaners. I hope to see this number reduced in due course. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to give a brief summary in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) proposed that we should train more volunteers so that they can enforce the law to deal with litterbugs. I strongly support this. However, I feel that to maintain the passion of these volunteers is not easy. Contributions from Community Volunteers are not as noticeable as volunteers who help the vulnerable. The authority should explore how to increase environment awareness in the society and encourage the community to express gratitude towards these volunteers. I hope the employers, bosses, CEOs and community leaders can set an example and encourage their subordinates to care for the environment. Ultimately, I hope that everyone in our society can do his or her part for the environment and reduce our reliance on cleaners. I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, a central aspect of this Bill is the inclusion of volunteers to assist NEA in its efforts to make Singapore a clean and not "cleaned" city.

The Workers' Party supports the principle that underpins this Bill, which is to rope community volunteers, preserve and upkeep the environment and the cleanliness of our home. This is the philosophy that appears to underpin the NEA's CV scheme introduced a mere three years ago.

Under this scheme, volunteers replace the presence of NEA officers on the ground and promote a more educative approach with lawbreakers while, nonetheless, retaining the authority to take down an individual's details before forwarding them to NEA for further review and investigation. These volunteers act to supplement NEA officers who cannot be everywhere all the time.

Clause 5 of the amendment allows for the appointment of auxiliary officers who may be volunteers with potentially wide-ranging powers to enforce the Act. However, this Bill extends the powers of volunteers to include powers of arrest including search and seizure as determined by the Chief Executive of NEA. This represents a manifest escalation of the concept of not just the current CV scheme, but crucially the very concept of volunteerism as well. In fact, certain extreme powers such as forced entry, search and seizure and arrest should not be given to volunteers under any circumstances at all but only to NEA officers and auxiliary officers who are subject to the organisational discipline and whose careers are tied to the adherence of these norms.

The Bill also seeks Parliament's approval to extend extensive powers ordinarily held by state employees to volunteers and for the Chief Executive of the NEA to limit these powers accordingly.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party is of the view that the extent of such extraordinary enforcement powers and the degree to which they are limited should be rightfully determined by Parliament and not the Chief Executive of the NEA. Otherwise, Parliament's role is relegated to that of a mere rubber stamp. I have five queries on the potential appointment of volunteers as auxiliary officers for the Minister.

In 2012, the NEA launched a volunteer programme which I mentioned earlier, and trained a group of volunteers from various NGOs, namely, the Public Hygiene Council, Waterways Watch Society, Singapore Kindness Movement, Singapore Environmental Council and the Cat Welfare Society. I understand from the Minister's Second Reading speech that new organisations will now be included in this pool. Can I confirm what criteria must a new organisation fulfil to be considered?

Second, will volunteers be paid? The Pioneer Generation Package allows for every Pioneer Generation ambassador to receive a $10 allowance when they visit each Pioneer. This can come up to be a significant sum for a volunteer and I understand that some volunteers have earned a few hundred dollars a month visiting Pioneers, a sum that goes well beyond defraying the cost of food and transport. Will our volunteers under these amendments be paid? How much will a volunteer receive for each assignment? Is the payout determined by the number of volunteer hours or the number of summons issued or some other determinant?

Third, volunteers with enforcement powers: will it upset our multi-racial community? Apart from the uncomfortable nexus between volunteerism and paid work, has NEA considered the behavioural aspects of volunteer enforcers on the wider community?

With volunteers' extended enforcement powers, neighbours can potentially sign up as innocuous and well-meaning volunteers but who will then have to exercise their enforcement powers to summon some friends and neighbours in some cases while issuing a warning in other cases and then, exercising compassion in yet another series of cases depending on each situation.

The flexibility which enforcement officers are endowed with has a real risk of inadvertently promoting a toxic environment in our communities. It can be construed by non-volunteer neighbours as blatant favouritism or worse, as an attempt by some volunteers to create a power or patronage networks that cannot be effectively policed.

If Parliament is not apprised of how these enforcement powers under this Bill are scoped, there is a real risk that this Bill will become a victim of unintended consequences; consequences that can irreparably harm a harmonious multi-racial society.

Fourth, volunteer numbers and deployment. How many auxiliary officers and volunteers does the Ministry have in mind to assist NEA for the tasks at hand? Does NEA plan to deploy these volunteers and will they be evenly spread out across Singapore or concentrated in areas which attract a large number of volunteers? Can the Minister assure this House that there would be an even deployment of volunteers with the greatly scoped powers across the country to ensure that no areas are left out by a shortage of volunteers?

In the alternative if there are not enough volunteers in one particular area, will there be a corresponding increase in the number of NEA or auxiliary officers deployed to areas where the volunteer pool is small? If this is not done, in all likelihood, there may be pockets of areas in Singapore that remain problematic hotspots. To this end, the Minister should consider a global approach to deployment of NEA officers, auxiliary officers and volunteers with properly scoped powers.

Fifth, NEA volunteers at Opposition Town Councils. Does NEA intend to require volunteers to work with Town Councils to jointly identify problematic areas? If volunteers are drawn from the People's Association's Grassroots Organisations (PA GROs), how are they envisaged to work with Opposition Town Councils? Would there be regular meetings chaired by NEA for the Town Council to share information on problem spots as it would have a better feel of the frequently littered areas and common areas which are potential dengue hotspots?

This is relevant as there are currently no institutional forums like the monthly Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) meetings for the PA GROs and Town Council representatives to meet in an Opposition Town Council, a state of affairs that is compounded by the fact that PA GROs like the RCs are averse to proactively partnering Opposition Town Councils to deliver outcomes to the community at large.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, while the Workers' Party supports the principle of engaging the community to keep our neighbourhoods clean and the Community Volunteers scheme, we cannot support Parliament extending broad and sweeping powers to volunteers without a clear scoping of these powers. Therefore, the Workers' Party recommends that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for review. Otherwise, we will not be able to support the Bill in its current form.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Bill. It is timely in view of the growing problem of littering.

Last year alone, the number of littering fines hit a six-year high of over 26,000. This was a huge 32% increase over 2014. The number of corrective work orders for littering had more than doubled from 688 in 2014 to 1,300 last year. Seven in 10 of these litterbugs, in fact, were Singapore residents. This is consistent with a survey by NEA in 2010 which found that one third of Singaporeans would litter, if they thought they could get away with it.

I find it very disappointing, frustrating and puzzling that a nation which has made so much progress and has such a well-educated population should have so many citizens with such a disregard for their surroundings. It is time for stronger measures to be implemented to drive home the message that littering will not be tolerated.

We must have a sense of urgency to combating littering due to the surge in the number of dengue cases and the emergence of the Zika virus, both of which are transmitted by the Aedes mosquito. Litter, especially plastics and cans, act as receptacles for water from our frequent rains and breed mosquitoes.

The amendment to expand the Community Volunteer (CV) scheme to allow NEA to appoint individuals as CVs will provide a boost to the headcount available for enforcement.

Presently, only members of environmental-related societies or a council gazetted under the EPHA can apply to become CVs. In addition, the amendment to explicitly appoint Auxiliary Police Officers as authorised officers will be useful. With more eyes and ears on the ground, we are taking a step in the right direction to eradicate littering.

Just as our police and traffic police are equipped with cameras and recorders to support their enforcement work, all environmental officers and CVs should all also be similarly equipped. This will prevent abuse by offenders and reduce disputes.

There had been some concerns over the selection criteria for CVs. I hope the Ministry will ensure a stringent screening process to choose suitable candidates. They must have the right public spirit, good communication skills and care deeply about our environment. Adequate training and periodic re-training should also be provided to keep our CVs updated. This, together with the technology used, I believe, would address the concern raised by another Member of Parliament just now.

I would like to make a suggestion regarding offenders who have to perform Corrective Work Orders. They should be made to perform their work orders both at the place of the original offence and in the estates where they live.

The sense of responsibility towards one's environment must also be nurtured from young. Everyone must feel the sense of community ownership and the need to protect one's surroundings, and to keep it clean and liveable.

Hence, I welcome the announcement by MOE to involve our students in the daily cleaning of our schools; it is being done in Japan and Taiwan. Not only will we inculcate the right attitude towards the environment in our young, they will also pick up real life skills. Of course, the tasks must be age-appropriate. Our students will also realise how difficult a cleaner's work can be and refrain from irresponsible behaviour such as littering. They will also learn to respect the work and learn the value of work, regardless of whether they are white or blue collared. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I would like to know how the authorities deal with those high-rise littering units when we cannot ascertain who in the family did the act. Another problem we all encounter frequently is that some HDB residents would leave rubbish in the public space around the rubbish chute, instead of disposing it properly or bringing it to the rubbish collection centre downstairs. I think NEA and the relevant agencies should explore how to solve this problem.

I agree we should give the volunteers enforcement powers. I also feel NEA should make efforts to use technology to improve their enforcement efficiency and avoid human errors as well as unnecessary disputes. At the same time, the enforcement officers could perhaps conduct their duties in plain clothes to achieve better outcomes and efficiency.

Mdm Speaker, recently a foreign friend of mine told me that it is easy to tell whether someone is a Singaporean overseas. One telling sign is that, if you hear someone asking, "Where is the rubbish bin?", then surely this person is a Singaporean! This remark proves that Singaporeans do have a very good habit of not littering. They usually would look for a rubbish bin. Ultimately, what we want is that even when there are no rubbish bins around, we can still keep our environment clean and hygienic, just like the Japanese and the Taiwanese.

(In English): We are capable of creating a new improved social norm where every Singaporean will take an active part to maintain an enjoyable common living space through the amendments of this Bill. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, keeping Singapore clean, green and safe from mosquito-borne diseases is everybody's responsibility. In a densely populated city like ours, community living is all about respecting shared spaces and taking shared responsibility for the environment we live in.

In the area of shared responsibilities, residents can do their part to influence and encourage one another to keep their estate clean, green and safe. The authorities, on the other hand, must do their part to educate the community and enforce the laws when necessary to bring home the message that this Government will spare no effort to make our living environment pleasant for all. Residents are already being roped in as volunteers to help educate the community on environmental issues. However, this Bill has the power to expand the roles of these volunteers to include enforcement powers, which in my opinion should remain the sole responsibility of NEA officers for good reason.

Good neighbourliness is built upon soft skills, communication and care for the common spaces. Allowing a resident to be able to penalise his or her fellow constituents now for alleged environmental infringements goes against what community living is all about.

Madam, some of these alleged environmental infringements are also potential flashpoints for neighbour disputes. I am sure we have seen a fair share of neighbour disputes in our own constituencies involving alleged mosquito breeding, potted plants, cooking smell, cat feeding and so on. Are we going to allow either party to escalate such disputes to a level where a person can take matters into his or her own hand by issuing summons to his neighbours or charging his neighbour for not providing proper identification on demand?

I am deeply concerned that this Bill has the potential to make such disputes end in violence as the summons, deserving or not, will no longer be seen as coming from a neutral party. The potential for such community conflicts to escalate beyond control in this instance cannot be ruled out. This Bill will create confusion by adding another layer of enforcement action undertaken by appointed volunteer auxiliary officers, who are not deemed as agents of the agency in addition to the mandated duties executed by officers of NEA, Town Council and so on. Madam, we are embarking on a slippery road to building more walls instead of bridges in our community if we allow NEA to appoint any volunteer to be an auxiliary officer to assist the agency in the performance of its enforcement functions.

But the fundamental question remains: is there a shortage of manpower at NEA to warrant such a move to arm volunteers with enforcement powers? Is NEA losing the battle with litterbugs and dengue? If it is about manpower, will the agency consider hiring retirees and part-timers on contract basis to assist? I do understand that for some policies to be effective, education and enforcement must go hand in hand. However, using volunteers to educate fellow constituents through enforcement is certainly not the way to go because when the enforcement stops, the mosquitoes will return and so will the littering.

Madam, educating our society to care for the environment as a way of life is vital to winning the war on litterbugs and dengue and other environmental problems we are facing now. I urge NEA to tap on the volunteers to do more in the area of educating the public on environmental issues rather than to do more in the area of enforcement as appointed officers.

While we need effective enforcement efforts, we also need soft skills to make the message stick in the mind of the people. This, I believe, is more effective to combat environmental issues in the long run. I support the Community Volunteer initiative by NEA to keep Singapore clean, green and safe, but we should leave the enforcement to the professionals.

Finally, this Bill will incur extra financial expenditure. I wish to seek clarifications from the Minister on the nature of this expenditure. Will these appointed volunteer officers be paid any honorarium, stipend or payment in kind since they are being called upon to do more now? Madam, I echo the call by my Party Member to send the Bill to a Select Committee for review. In its original form, I do not support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to appoint individuals, including community volunteers, as auxiliary officers of NEA to police and enforce the law on public health offences.

The Workers' Party cannot support the Bill in this form. Without expressed limits to the powers and without a specific regime, this Bill allows the Chief Executive of NEA to turn Community Volunteers (CVs) into functionaries of the state.

I find this objectionable as it goes against the very spirit of involving CVs in public health and in environmental protection. Its effectiveness in resolving public health and environmental issues is highly doubtful. On the contrary, I would argue, it would undermine community ownership for these important issues in the long run.

When NEA launched the CV programme in 2013, it was envisioned that the programme will involve stakeholders, non-governmental organisations to encourage the community to take ownership of the environment and help tackle the littering problem. Volunteers were trained to approach litterbugs and speak to litterbugs as fellow members of a community, as peers, fellow citizens or residents.

Though issued with NEA authority cards, the volunteers could only demand the particulars of uncooperative offenders to hand over the details to NEA officers who will then investigate the cases before prosecution. I believe the limitation of authority was not just meant to safeguard the public interest but prevents any abuse of power or conflicts between citizens. It was also the best way to secure community ownership through the powers of peer persuasion rather than the power to warn and punish.

As a leader of one of the stakeholder NGOs said, "The end game is not about us becoming pseudo police officers. The point is, we are trying to get more people to take more ownership of the environment so that when they see ordinary people asking others not to litter, when we start these conversations, eventually we can create a culture that is opposite of being indifferent." The key words here are "not pseudo police officers", "ordinary people", "conversations" and "create a new culture".

By all accounts, the CV programme has been successful. In less than two years, 259 volunteers engaged 830 litterbugs and only needed to report 10 uncooperative litterbugs. It goes to show that conversations between ordinary people evoking the morality of living in the same community work 99% of the time. Only in 1% of the time did the volunteers have to act like pseudo police officers. If this trend goes on, we would indeed create a new culture of caring for the environment which is why I find it very difficult to understand the necessity of giving the volunteers the full powers of an officer of the state.

What exactly is the Government's justification, given the encouraging success of the CV programme in the first two years? Is it not an overkill to grant excessive powers to citizens to fine fellow citizens on the spot just because of 10 uncooperative litterbugs in the past two years? Should not the Government allow the programme to run for a longer period before making any assessment of the necessity of appointing volunteers as auxiliary officers?

There is a real danger that if the full powers are granted, we will indeed create a new culture; not a beneficial new culture of community ownership of the environmental issues and public health issues, but a new culture of antagonism between fellow citizens. NEA said it would provide the volunteers with the same training that regular NEA officers undergo but we need to understand that volunteers, as much as we should value them, come with a different set of motivation. NEA officers by virtue of their appointment and employment as an officer governed by clear organisational rules and culture will naturally be more circumspect in the use of their powers than enthusiastic volunteers.

Already, a couple of the leaders of the stakeholder NGOs have made public statements that suggest that the new powers could be taken too far. One said that he was keen to see the powers extended to booking those who smoke in non-smoking areas and those who puff illegally. Another said that he would like to see volunteers appointed as Block Ambassadors to police their own blocks of flats. Where and when will volunteer auxiliary officers stop their policing of the community? Today is littering in the neighbourhood; tomorrow is proper recycling in the blue bins downstairs; the day after tomorrow is kids playing football in the void deck; and the next day, what neighbours do in their corridors, even inside their own homes, in the name of dengue eradication. This looks like a slippery slope down the road to a police state where neighbours prey on each other and erode the mutual trust that we have painstakingly built up over the decades.

Mdm Speaker, the Government has been moving away from a system dependent on punitive fines and corrective work orders to one that combines the fines with nudges of community education. It has worked well. There is no evidence that we are experiencing a littering or spitting or illegal smoking emergency. In a 2009 Sociological Study on littering, commissioned by NEA, which I participated in as one of the three sociologists overseeing the study, the study shows only 1.2% of people surveyed admitted to littering most of the time; 62.6% reported that they never littered and the rest said they littered sometimes and know that it is wrong to do so. The overwhelming majority of litterers just need reminding on the social norms. The study recommended outreach and communication strategies aimed at reminding people of the norms and getting specific groups, especially students and youths, to internalise the norms.

The problem with depending heavily on enforcement and the threat of summonses is that people will litter if they do not see officers or other people around. We want them to internalise the norms and not litter even if they are alone. The only way to do this is community education.

We are only second to Japan in keeping our streets clean and sanitary. If we want to emulate Japan's culture of deep social consciousness and strong community spirit, then we need to invest in building that culture over the long term. The Japanese had a 100 years' head-start over us since modernisation began with the Meiji Restoration. We do not want to undermine the development by fostering authoritarian culture of volunteers exercising powers over other citizens in the name of the state.

We need to promote an environment of trust between neighbours, reminding each other to do the right thing, not instil fear and suspicion of each other if your neighbour is going to whip up his summons book because you were not mindful of the norms for one second.

Let us continue to enlist CVs to keep the conversations going, build up a cooperative culture of community ownership of the environment and leave the dirty work of punitive summons to the state officers who are best equipped to do the job.

The Workers' Party strongly supports the CV programme but there is no justification for this Bill in its current form.

Madam, this Bill will allow NEA to appoint auxiliary officers who may include volunteers and give them certain enforcement powers. This will partially help tackle the littering problem in Singapore and is undoubtedly a positive step forward. This, however, cannot be the only focus or the main focus of our efforts towards a clean Singapore. Increased enforcement is important but perhaps, what is more important is a mindset change. What we need to focus on more is ownership of our living space and how everyone has an important part to play.

In January this year, I gained experience as a Town Council cleaner. I worked with Hanif, one of our Nee Soon Town Council's cleaner and through this first-hand experience, it is clear to me that we are a cleaned city rather than a clean city. I picked up so much litter that day: cigarette butts, cotton buds, tissue, condoms, nappies, the list goes on. After spending the morning cleaning an area, it was alarming to go back to the same area a few hours later to find it covered in litter again. The cleaners face an uphill task and almost an impossible task at times.

The increased enforcement action by NEA is resulting in an increasing number of summons issued against litterbugs, up from 19,000 in 2014 to 26,000 last year. These figures I believe are the tip of the iceberg and there are clearly more people who have littered but did not get caught. Again, increased enforcement might help in nabbing more offenders but we need to fundamentally understand why they are littering and make sure we address the root of the problem. We need to remember, as reported by Channel NewsAsia recently, that the survey by NEA in 2010 showed that a third of Singaporeans would litter if they think they can get away with it. I hope this does not just become a cat-and-mouse game with the litterbugs. We need a mindset change and this mindset change is important for our society.

We are often known as a fine society, as in a pay money fine city. I hope that fines are not the only way forward in shaping behaviours. I hope people are not avoiding littering only because they fear the fines or the corrective work order but rather because they know it harms the environment, because they know someone else has to pick up their litter, and because it is morally wrong to litter. I appreciate that this sounds idealistic, but it is possible.

The fundamental issue here is that residents do not feel that they are a part of the community. There is no ownership of common areas. Would you litter in your own house? If you see a piece of tissue paper in your own house, would you ignore it and walk by? The answer is clearly no and that is because you want to make your own house clean and tidy. So, why do we not translate this behaviour to our common areas?

We need to embark on more in-depth educational projects focused on the community instead of our usual nationwide Clean and Green campaigns that the public might be immune to.

Research by the Duke University in the City of Durham in the USA showed that littering of cigarette butts was common at bus stops. So, the researchers decided to focus their efforts on reducing this problem. They realised that large-scale events on anti-littering are not as effective as small community efforts targeted at hotspots of littering. The population at those large-scale events might not necessarily include that target group of people utilising the bus stops. The engendering message is better received by putting in more effort on-site. By using attention-grabbing posters, they were able to counter people's lack of sensitivity to the generic "do not litter" signs. They also passed out portable ash trays to commuters to remind them not to litter.

This is not to say that we should use the same exact methodology to apply to Singapore as our patterns of littering might be different. What I am advocating is we need to go beyond the cliché environmental messaging and get creative.

Another example of successful anti-littering campaign that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned earlier is the "Don't Mess with Texas – Real Texas Don't Litter" campaign in the USA. In 1987, $2 million in tax revenue went to litter-picking and that cost was escalating 15-20% every year. After performing extensive research, they identified who the heavy litterers were. They are a pick-up driver, male, between 18 and 34 years old, who likes sports and country music, has an anti-authority disposition and is not motivated by appeals to civic duty. They were indifferent to the typical messaging about the environment and the cost of cleaning. So, Texas decided to focus on these heavy litterers by appealing to their macho-ness. They realised they could succeed by associating littering with as being unmanly. Resources were pumped into getting popular country singers and athletes to do TV, radio advertisements and highway billboards to influence these litterers. As a result, Texas was able to cut their litter on their highway by 72% in the first six years of their campaign. In terms of spending, they saved a total of US$4.13 million by 1997.

The above is a good example of institutions thinking out of the box. They knew their main culprits of littering would not care about civic duties and were anti-authority by nature. This goes to show that there must be creative campaigns we can do to reduce the rate of littering.

Lastly, as mentioned earlier, research is also important. Quoting the "Don't Mess with Texas" campaign again, "Litter in Texas is a big problem and we have been hard at work researching the cause of litter in Texas, using everything from behaviour and attitude studies to visible litter studies. We have been collecting data and litter to best assess how to approach the problem head-on and determine the most effective method to end litter in Texas forever."

NEA has done research but I hope we can do more. Research should be undertaken to identify timing, frequency, hotspots, type of litter and demographic of litterbugs in a particular estate. Once there are valid statistics on the above, NEA can start to formulate detailed plans on effective smaller scale community projects to tackle the litter problem.

Madam, I strongly believe that our vision of a clean city is possible but we need to focus not just on enforcement but do extensive research and run creative projects at the community level to ensure that people play an active role in this vision and people have a sense of ownership of our living space.

Madam, let me also add that, as someone who has worked in the NGO sector for the past 15 years, this empowerment of volunteers is something that would be welcomed, especially by the animal welfare groups. In fact, it is something that they are calling for and have called for the past few years. This call is also for the community to play a part rather than the Government do everything. This Bill is a positive step forward and, Madam, I support the Bill.

Minister Masagos.

Mdm Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for their interest in the Bill, some are in total support of the Bill. Some are not in total support of the Bill. Allow me to respond to the points raised by them and for those that I cannot, I will do it during the clarification time.

I would like to thank Mr Gan and Mr Png for asking whether the Community Volunteer (CV) programme is meant to save NEA's resources. It is not. The expanded CV programme is to allow more members of the public to participate and take greater ownership in the care of the environment. It is not to supplement NEA's enforcement headcount. It would not help NEA save resources.

As I have mentioned just now, the primary role of the CV is to educate environmental offenders so that they are responsible for binning their trash. That would be our primary goal where littering is concerned. We want to help them perform this role effectively and therefore we need to train our CVs; we need to give them certain powers so that they can perform their duties as volunteers as effectively as possible. Today, CVs do have to provide NEA with the details of offenders for enforcement.

The experience of our volunteers under the existing CV programme found that the majority of litterbugs will comply when approached to pick up their litter without any need for further enforcement action. So, it is already working. Indeed, when we need to enforce, the numbers are very small. Such engagement and education have been effective so far and we will carry on this mode of deployment.

The amended Bill will allow the CV programme to be expanded to allow individuals to join the programme, not just organisations. For a start, what we want to do is to scope it to make sure that when we get newly recruited CVs, we will get them to adopt Bright Spots and then work with the local community to adopt and clean and improve the cleanliness and hygiene of the area through advocacy, outreach and educational activities. That is how they would start; it is not about teaching them to enforce, getting them to enforce, getting them to issue summons and so forth.

As the CVs mature in their volunteering journey, the more experienced ones may even organise their own environmental activities and include enforcement patrols beyond Bright Spots, but this will take time.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also mentioned the idea of empowering civilians with enforcement powers. This is certainly not unique to Singapore; it has been done in many countries. Indeed, in Singapore, Mr Pritam would also know that we have volunteer Police with enforcement powers. So far, they have carried out their duties very well; they are as good as our policemen; they are dressed like our policemen; they carry out police duties; they do not abuse their powers. Why is that so? Because, to the volunteers, it is important for them to uphold their duties, also as Singaporeans, in the intent of the act of the law.

But, unlike the Police Community Support Officers in the UK cited by Er Dr Lee, our CVs are not paid. I know the new version of Police Community Support Officers will also not be paid and that is a great change in the way they are doing things. Our CVs, so far, are those who are passionate about the environment and are willing to step forward to take ownership of the environment. So, volunteering must come from the heart.

I agree though with the Members that good volunteers do not come on their own; we need to manage them, we need to affirm their contribution to the cause. Therefore, training and monitoring will all be part of what we do with the volunteers. It is not just giving them a badge, giving them the powers to do whatever they want and then they start issuing tickets to their neighbours and friends. That is just an imagination of what could go wrong, but I do not believe Singaporeans would do that kind of thing.

We will make a lot of efforts to recognise our CVs. We will show them up in our media, feature them, the good things that they have been doing, For example, in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015, we have been highlighting the contributions of our CVs. But we must explore more ways to make sure that their work is affirmed, valued and recognised by our community.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Gan also mentioned that there should be stringent screening criteria. Indeed, we will do that. We must ensure that we choose suitable individuals who have the right public spirit, good communication skills, as Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has mentioned, to ensure that the work they do is not the same work that our enforcement officers do, just to enforce. They must be able to engage, to communicate and ensure that at the end of the day, they do this because together they can ensure everyone love the environment deeply.

Prior to joining the CV programme, we will properly screen and interview each individual to assess his interest and maturity towards environmental activities. We will monitor what they do; if they have the propensity to issue summons almost every hour, certainly this is not the right kind of person that we should be deploying. In addition, all CVs must be Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents and at least 18 years old.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Gan have also mentioned about equipping body-worn cameras to protect our CVs. NEA has been progressively equipping our officers with body-worn cameras since 2015. These have helped to prevent abuse by offenders, protect our officers from allegations of unprofessional conduct, as well as remind our officers to abide by our operational protocol.

Let me mention again that the main role of the CV is to educate offenders, and the feedback received from our current CVs reflect that majority of the offenders are indeed cooperative; they are our fellow Singaporeans and not criminals. They may have done something wrong, maybe in a momentary lapse of judgement, they may have littered. When someone, a fellow citizen, comes and tells them, "please bin the litter", majority of them will pick it up and do exactly what they have been told.

Notwithstanding this, our CVs will be considered as public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code and exercising the power of enforcement and will be protected under the Protection from Harassment Act from any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or words when they are executing their duties, as I mentioned just now.

Er Dr Lee, Mr Gan, Mr Louis, Assoc Prof Daniel, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Png all mentioned about cultivating a sense of responsibility for the environment. I agree that the cleaning profession is tough and our cleaners face an uphill task in cleaning after us every day. We must have that respect for our cleaners and inculcate a sense of responsibility towards the environment and we, indeed, must begin this from young.

We have been working with MOE to inculcate in our young a sense of responsibility and good habits. We are working with MOE to ensure that by end-2016, daily cleaning by students would be introduced in all our schools, from primary schools to junior colleges. This is one of the things that we are doing in addition to enlarging the space for people to volunteer and encourage people to keep the environment clean because it is their environment and it is their space.

Mdm Speaker, Mr Pritam has asked some questions which I will try to respond to now. What criteria will new organisations need to fulfil? This Act is not about organisations anymore; it is about individuals. We will enrol individuals who want to participate in this scheme. We will interview and screen them and deploy them in groups at Bright Spots so that they can own the space and it may not be where they live. If there are places where we do not have enough volunteers, we will deploy them there, initially paired together with NEA officers to teach them the ropes and over time make their presence felt by the public, so that they too, are a familiar face amongst the community living there and not just a mere face of enforcement out there to make good or issue tickets to people who have committed offences.

Indeed, volunteers, if not managed, may abuse their powers, if not trained, if not supervised, may commit such offences. Therefore, it is important for us to embrace them to make sure they are part of a strong team that can do this work well and pursue their interests in becoming environmental champions.

Can these powers be conferred to the CEO of NEA? I say yes. Because, ultimately, if we have done it wrong, we have to be accountable to Parliament. You can ask Parliamentary Questions; you can file a cut; you can move a Motion. Then, we will divulge every incident that may be in question and be accountable for the act that we have done.

Members have asked how many volunteers we have in mind. We want as many as possible. We want them everywhere, particularly in areas where we want to convert to Bright Spots places where people usually litter or commit environmental offences. We want to put CVs there and make them a common presence for people to be noticed.

When we deploy these volunteers, we will not just be working with organisations. We will be deploying them as individuals who want to work together and be managed by NEA. NEA officers will be around to make sure that initially they are guided, they know their duties, they learn how to be deployed properly and, over time, with experience, we can leave them on their own.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarifications. If I heard him correctly, the Minister was suggesting that the scheme is really an expansion of the existing volunteer scheme and, therefore, the volunteers that come on-board will essentially be pursuing the same approach which they have done for the past three years, which is educative and to compel people to essentially stop doing what they are doing and, in the vast majority of cases, they will not be summoning. If that is the case, is it necessary to have the Act allow volunteers to be extended enforcement powers?

We have been consulting our volunteers on the ground. They tell us that, apart from just being volunteers being deployed, being good citizens, it will be useful, in fact, it would be effective, if they do have those powers. But we are concerned too that they may abuse their powers and, therefore, the synergy between the NEA enforcement officers and these volunteers is going to be key.

As what we are doing today, we have to train them, we have to monitor them, we have to supervise them, to make sure that they are reporting properly, filling up forms as officers should be doing, to ensure that at the end of the day, these powers are there for them to be able to use but not for them to abuse.

Just to follow up with the Minister. So, in the case of summoning, for example, potential law breakers, would there be an NEA officer accompanying the volunteer? And if so, should it not be appropriate that in the current circumstances to just allow the NEA officer to be the one issuing the summons and the volunteer just observing what is happening and assessing what the approach is?

I thank Mr Pritam for the question. That, indeed, will be how we will do it initially. When we deploy the volunteers, especially when they are new, we will deploy them in groups, in bright spots, not everywhere, not anywhere, not anytime, to make sure they are focusing on a particular area that they are trying to own and be part of it. Over time, after being observed and observing the NEA officers, on assessment of the supervisors, people who are experienced, who assess that, yes, this group of people can be left on their own, over time, we will let them do it on their own.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

It is said in the Bill that the Chief Executive will have to do it in writing when giving the authorisation of the enforcement powers to the volunteers and would do it for every individual volunteer. This particular flexibility in which any or all of the powers can be given to any individual volunteer means that there is incredible flexibility on the part of the Chief Executive without clear criteria, without a clear regime, on what kind of powers can be accorded to an individual and on what circumstances? Is there going to be a time-bound timing? Is there going to be a place, and so forth?

Certainly, we expect our Chief Executive of NEA to be a responsible officer, not to just do whatever he thinks he can do because the Act empowers him. There will be processes and procedures that he has to comply with and be answerable to the Minister.

Let me give you an example of what kind of process he has to go through to ensure that he can empower this person. The volunteer must first be appointed by NEA under section 16A as an auxiliary officer. Once appointed, the officer would then need to be authorised by the CEO to exercise the specific enforcement powers under the EPHA and that would depend on what the Ministry wants to enforce or deploy the volunteers for.

Lastly, the Director-General needs to appoint the individuals as authorised officers under EPHA before the individuals can exercise the powers granted. So, there are at least two levels: the CEO and the Director-General. And then, later on, deployment with the NEA officers to ensure that after they are trained, they are deployed properly.

The CEO does not give a blanket power to every auxiliary officer to perform the duties that they want. He will be ascribed to particular areas that we want them to be effective in, in protecting our environment.

Mr Singh, the debate is over. Keep your clarification short and on issues not clarified.

Yes, I will, Mdm Speaker. Just a final question for the Minister. Can I suggest that the Minister allow the process of volunteers following NEA officers to run its course before we consider giving volunteers enforcement powers? Because the fact of the matter is it seems that, as most Members have suggested, the educative approach is really the way forward, and the Minister himself agrees. So, perhaps, we can continue on that line and then re-assess whether powers need to be given to volunteers.

The second and very quick clarification: was there a public consultation done to invite feedback from the public as to whether volunteers should be extended enforcement powers?

After running this programme for two to three years, and looking at and assessing outcomes, we are now doing a little bit more than what we have done in the past which was to merely educate, confine it to just some organisations and not expand it to everybody. The process of allowing volunteers to follow NEA officers has already taken place and that is why we are implementing what we are implementing today.

[(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. (proc text)]

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Yes, Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Workers' Party wishes to record its objection to clause 5.

How many Members wish to have their objection to clause 5 recorded? Please put up your hands.

[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong raised their hands.]

Okay, you can put down your hands. Your objection will be recorded in the minutes.

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

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.24 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a Statement.

This is a very sad case. A young girl has been traumatised and a boy's life has ended prematurely. We must do right by these two young lives.

When Police deal with young persons who have committed offences, their main aim is to rehabilitate them, so that they can go on to lead a crime-free life. That gives them a second chance.

It is tragic that such an incident has taken place. It has been a very trying and distressing period for both families. We are very aware of that and we have refrained from commenting in detail on the matter for two reasons.

One, out of respect for Benjamin's memory and to protect the young girl as well; and, two, because it would be improper to discuss the facts in detail − which will be disputed − prior to the Coroner's Inquiry (CI). Given that a CI is pending, I took advice from AGC on what I can say today. They have advised that I can set out what I am going to in the speech. But I do so with considerable reservations and I will explain later why.

Mdm Speaker, if my voice gives way, I will ask my Senior Minister of State to carry on.

I will now deal with the questions raised by Members by looking at the following: one, what are the facts in this case; two, what is the Police Protocol for interviewing young persons; three, the deliberate falsehoods that have been spread in this case to blemish the Police; some people were doing this, as I will show later; and four, why has my Ministry not commented in detail, until now, on the matter?

First, the facts. I want to emphasise that the facts are as we know them now, at this stage. Whenever I refer to facts, that is the basis on which I refer to them.

There are two aspects to the facts in this case: one, why Benjamin was asked to assist the Police in the investigations; and two, how the Police investigated the case.

On 25 January 2016, a Police report was made. An 11-year-old girl said that she had been molested. Amongst other things, Police retrieved the relevant CCTV footages. A boy in school uniform was identified as the suspect. The boy was later identified as Benjamin Lim. He lived in Yishun. On that day, 25 January 2016, while he was coming home from school, it appears that he made a detour. He went to another block in the neighbourhood, before going home. He seemed to have followed the 11-year-old girl. The two appear not to have met before. He went into a lift at her block, at the ground floor. He followed her in. And he is said to have molested the girl in the lift.

There are CCTV footages showing Benjamin making his way to the other block, Benjamin quickly following the girl into the lift after she entered it and there is CCTV footage, within the lift, showing what happened. Police have these footages.

Benjamin admitted to the Police that he touched a part of the girl's body and that he did so intentionally. The girl has said to the Police that Benjamin touched a part of her body.

After the incident, he stepped out of the lift at the 13th floor. The girl said there was a brief exchange between them when he stepped out of the lift. She did not follow him. CCTV footage then shows Benjamin going down one floor to the 12th floor and then taking the lift down to the ground floor.

It would appear, therefore, that his purpose of him getting into the lift was to follow her and, after the incident, get out and go back.

She reported to her father what happened. The family filed a Police report on the same day, 25 January.

Now, let me turn to the Police investigations. As stated earlier, Police retrieved some CCTV footages. Based on his school uniform, Police identified the boy to be from North View Secondary School.

On the next day, 26 January, Police went down to the school. Five officers went: three from the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) and two from Division. The three NPC officers have detailed knowledge of the community, they interact with the schools, they interact with the community and the teachers. They link up with the school; they make interactions smooth; they answer questions that the school may have. Basically, they facilitate the process.

The Divisional officers assist in the investigation of cases. The five officers were not in Police uniforms. They were not in any attire with the word "Police". They went in plain clothes, in unmarked cars. The officers showed a screenshot of the CCTV footages to the school officials. The boy in the screenshot was identified to be Benjamin Lim. A school official then brought Benjamin to the Principal's office. One Police officer spoke with Benjamin. Some of the school's educators were present. The officer spoke with Benjamin about the incident. The other four Police officers were not present.

After the interview, Benjamin was advised to call his mother by the Principal. And he called his mother. When he finished conversing with his mother, the Police officer spoke with the mother. He told her that Benjamin will be brought back to Ang Mo Kio Police Division to give a statement. Benjamin was then brought back to the station in an unmarked car with three officers.

One of the officers alighted along the way. That left two officers in the car: one to drive and the other to look after Benjamin. At Ang Mo Kio station, an officer recorded Benjamin's statement. This was done by the officer at his workstation, in an open plan office.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to hand out a sketch and picture showing the layout of the office, please?

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mdm Speaker, there are four pages. The first page shows the overall layout of the office and the particular workstation where Benjamin was interviewed is circled. The second page shows a specific photo of the workstation as well as the passageway in between the workstations. The third page shows a sketch of the specific workstation. Members will see, L1, L2 and L3. L1 is where the interviewing officer sat, L2 is where Benjamin sat, and L3, within the same cubicle was where another officer sat doing his own unrelated work. The fourth page shows a photograph of the chairs in the cubicle in question.

As Members can see, Benjamin was interviewed in a typical open office setting and another officer unrelated to the case was nearby doing his own work. There were other officers at their respective workstations. Benjamin was not handcuffed at any time. He requested to be given some time to collect his thoughts about the incident. His written statement was taken at a quarter past 12, after he said he was ready.

Benjamin was cooperative throughout. He was offered food and drinks after the interview and he declined that. After the interview, he was placed in a Temporary Holding Room which was secured. This was pending his mother taking him back. He was alone in that room. Police then recorded a statement from the mother who was at the station.

Benjamin was then released on bail. He left the Police station with his mother and sister. Time spent by Benjamin in the Police station was about three and a half hours which included the time Police spent taking a statement from the mother. That was the last contact between the Police and Benjamin.

What happened after Benjamin and his mother left the Police station? Based on investigations, the following is what we know. They went home. Benjamin had lunch. He played games on his phone. Sometime later, his mother told Benjamin that he would not be going to the school camp that was to start the next day. That was after a telephone conversation between the mother and a school counsellor. The Minister of Education will provide more details on that conversation. At about 4.20 pm, Benjamin was found dead at the foot of his block. These are the facts.

Now, let us ask a question: if Benjamin had not taken his own life, what would have happened in this case? Let me give Members some statistics, which will show what usually happens.

Over the last five years, from 2011 to 2015, a total of 7,196 young persons have assisted Police in investigations. Of these, 70%, that is, seven out of 10 were either warned or placed in a Guidance Programme or had no further action taken against them. About 15% were charged. Another 15% of the cases are under consideration.

Charges are usually only brought against young persons when there are aggravating factors, such as when the offence is of a serious nature like rioting, or if the young person is a repeat offender, or has breached the terms of a conditional warning, for example, by failing to complete the necessary Guidance Programme.

As the statistics show, the Police's approach to young persons is, wherever possible, to try and avoid criminalising the conduct. It is better to give young people a second chance and help in their rehabilitation. It is likely that on the evidence available to us, Benjamin would have received no more than a warning. He is unlikely to have been charged in Court. Police would have taken into account his age, the fact that this is the first time and while all molests are taken seriously, the nature of the specific molest in any case has to be considered.

The nature of the alleged molest in this particular case can be characterised as being less serious in a range. That is based on CCTV footages. I would, however, caution that the statistics I have given and the relatively tolerant approach that the Police take towards young persons should not be seen as a licence for young persons to commit offences on the basis that seven out of 10 will not be charged.

Let me now deal with the second of my four points. The Police Protocol for dealing with young persons. Police adopt an expedited process for young persons: to interview them and release them as quickly as possible to their parents. In this case, Benjamin was released to his mother within four hours of being brought to the station. Where suitable, a young person will be placed on a programme to help him. An example is the Guidance Programme. The focus is on diversionary supervision and counselling. Young persons will usually be students. The Police guidelines are for the school to be kept updated on the progress of the case. That will allow the school to monitor and support the student.

Do we need to amend the Protocol for interviewing young persons? I have asked my Ministry to review the Protocol. One suggestion that has been made is to video-record interviews of all minors. We have announced last year that we are studying the matter of video recording. We will make further announcements when we have worked through the legal and other issues.

Another suggestion that has been made is that we extend the Appropriate Adult Scheme to all young persons being interviewed. We have the Appropriate Adult Scheme to provide assistance to suspects who have mental and intellectual disabilities. The role of the Appropriate Adult is to assist these persons to communicate more effectively with the Police. Police have said in their statement of 1 February that they will consider this point during the review.

The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) has contacted us and offered to give us their views. We will engage them and get their views. But I will caution against rushing to conclusions at this stage. If there is something we can do better, we will do so. In the review, the following three broad points will be taken into account, in addition to other factors. Those three points are: one, what happened in this case; two, the types of young persons who get picked up; and three, how can we reduce systemic risk.

Let me deal with the three points. First, the experience in this case. Are there any specific indications in this case that the processes need to be changed? I have set out the facts that we know, facts which we believe are accurate. There is nothing so far on the evidence to suggest that Benjamin was mistreated by the Police. I have set out how the investigation was done. At this stage, we cannot say that the interview was the specific reason for the suicide. Suicide often involves a very complex set of factors. One has to look at the facts carefully, consult experts to try and get an assessment as to what happened.

Police will also consult psychologists and other relevant experts. Some people have asked: why did we need to take him out of the school? Could we not have waited until Benjamin got home?

Mdm Speaker, we need to be clear about how we expect Police to investigate cases in general. Let me explain. When Police went to the school, they did not know who he was or his history. An accused person unknown to the Police could well have engaged in other molest, and until then, maybe no one had reported. If the Police wait, and he molests someone else in the meantime, then the question would be: why did the Police not move in faster?

When an incident happens, as a general rule, I am sure we want the Police to move in quickly. Every year, we pick up more than 1,300 young persons – students and also others. What do Members think the public's attitudes will be if it was the victim of the molest who had committed suicide? Police would be expected to have moved quickly. This will become clearer when I deal with my next point: the types of young persons we pick up.

Young people get picked up for a wide range of offences, from rioting, sexual assault, physical assault to even murder. Some, obviously, involved in very serious offences. Police need to move quickly, arrest, investigate, before the others, including other gang members, destroy evidence.

Should we make distinctions based on the types of offences involved? What about gang riots? What about deliberate arson or Unlicensed Money Lending cases? What about those which are more security related; say, a 14-year-old, who was radicalised and wants to go out and kill?

Internal Security Department (ISD) has interviewed some in that age group. And to prove the point, two weeks ago, we stopped a 15-year-old radicalised boy from Indonesia. He had wanted to go and fight in the Middle East. So, let us take this seriously.

Let me now turn to the third point. We must reduce systemic risk where possible. We cannot assume that all Police officers will always follow protocols. There will be some who will be tempted to take shortcuts. We have to ensure that we have a system that minimises the risks. I say minimise, because there is no system in the world that I know of which eliminates the risks completely. This factor of needing to minimise the risk will be taken into account when we review the Protocol.

In this context, Police will look at past experience, the thousands of young persons who have been investigated. Members can see that there are many aspects to this issue, many questions which need to be carefully considered. The current Protocol had considered these, but we will review again. This is not a situation where we should have knee-jerk reactions or come to hasty conclusions. Any of our children could have been in Benjamin's position and any of our daughters could have been in that 11-year-old girl's position. We will approach the review of the processes with that perspective.

Mdm Speaker, let me add another point. My Ministry has the responsibility for the Protocol that is in place. And ultimately, responsibility is with me, as the Minister. It is not with individual Police officers. Their responsibility is to act according to the Protocol in place. In this case, on the facts that have been given to me, I believe that they have carried out their duties faithfully and properly in accordance with the rules and the Protocols. If there are questions about the Protocols, I will answer, as I am doing now. If there are issues with the Protocol, the responsibility is mine. Let us not attack the Police officers who cannot defend themselves. They are doing their job every day in difficult circumstances.

Madam, now let me turn to the deliberate falsehoods that have been put out to tar the Police unfairly. This is the third of my four major points.

There have been a number of inaccurate statements that have been put out. We say "inaccurate", based on the facts the Police have. Some of the inaccurate statements are as follows: (a) that the Police were not in plain clothes when they went to the school to identify Benjamin, effectively alleging that the Police were lying to Singaporeans when they put out their statement of 1 February; (b) allegations that Benjamin was interviewed and intimidated by five Police officers; (c) that he must have been coerced to make an admission to an offence that he did not commit; and (d) some have even suggested that the girl might not have been molested and might have made a false Police report.

A number of these falsehoods have been put out by The Online Citizen (TOC). It has gone on a planned, orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods and has published about 20 articles or so, as part of its campaign. One example of the falsehoods, as I had said earlier, Police have said on 1 February that they went down in plain clothes, yet TOC published an article on 5 February saying that Police wore attire stating the word "Police". The suggestion is that the Police were lying to Singaporeans.

They supposedly relied on a posting by a lady, Mary Anne Pereira. She had stated that her son saw Police officers in Polo T-shirts with the word "Police". Police checked with Ms Pereira. She says she had gotten it wrong. She got her dates mixed up. She is wrong because the Police went to the school in plain clothes on 26 January. She has taken down her post.

People make many statements online. They can be mistaken. That is why there is a Court process to establish the truth. The overall narrative and impression conveyed by the various TOC articles are: (a) Police were lying; (b) Police intimidated the boy; and (c) Police put pressure on him to confess to a crime that he did not commit, allegations, implications which are false, practically leading people to conclude that Benjamin committed suicide as a result.

I have prepared a table, listing some of the articles and the falsehoods, unfounded implications which they convey. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like the Clerks to distribute this table after my Statement, not now.

Yes, please.

It is sad to see this level of dishonesty and politicisation of this matter. Where the Police are wrong, we must and we will take action. But we should not allow deliberate, dishonest attacks. I have asked my Ministry to study how the Police and other institutions can respond in future to such falsehoods.

Others have also commented on this matter. Many of them are honest, reasonable people, who have genuine questions. But as I read the commentaries, it seems that many based themselves on a misperception of the facts which I had referred to earlier. That brings me to my fourth major point: why has my Ministry not commented substantially, particularly to correct these inaccuracies, until now?

Mdm Speaker, I told my Ministry, earlier on, that we should refrain from commenting too much, or in detail, on this matter. I decided that for two reasons: (a) out respect for the family, to give them some space and time to grieve; and (b) there will be a Coroner's Inquiry (CI). That is the right forum for the relevant facts to be dealt with. I think Members will know when I keep quiet, usually there is a good reason; a good legal reason.

Let me touch on both reasons. A family has lost a 14-year-old boy. They issued a statement, an open letter, signed by Benjamin's father. That statement contradicted some of the things Police had said on 1 February and made some additional points which the Police disagreed with. The family also suggested that Benjamin had been coerced into admitting to the molest. The Police could have immediately rebutted the family's statement. The Police could have set out their version, like what I have set out today. The Police could have released the CCTV footages, which would show, quite objectively, what happened inside the lift. They could have referred to the open plan office; they could have referred to him making a detour from school to home and going into the lift with the girl. They could have shown that he went up; the incident took place; he then got out and ran back down.

But is that the right thing to do? To have a public trial by media, at this stage; rebut the family in public and add to the family's grief? The answer, in good sense, is clearly no. We can understand that the family, in their grief, may genuinely believe some things, and, perhaps, even assert them in public. But we chose not to respond. These matters can be dealt with at the Coroner's Inquiry. And even at this stage, I have decided that we should not release the CCTV footages of what happened in the lift, out of respect for Benjamin's memory and to help the young girl as well.

Police have also continued to engage the family. When Police spoke with Benjamin's family last week, his father told us that the family felt pressured by the public and media attention. Photographers and reporters have been loitering around their house. He asked for privacy and explained that he would like his family to be kept out of the spotlight. He asked that we inform the media of this and tell the media that the family did not want their identity, names, pictures published. The family even asked for the entire Coroner's Inquiry proceedings to be held in private.

Attorney General's Chamber (AGC) will give their request careful consideration. Ultimately, it will be up to the Court to decide. Yesterday, the father spoke with a Police officer. He repeated those requests. Now, let me deal with the second reason why we did not comment in detail, until today.

The CI will, to the extent possible, try to establish the cause of Benjamin's death and the facts. All Coroner's Inquiries in Singapore are held in public, unless the Court decides that some part of it should be in private. For example in this case, it can be argued that the identity of the 11-year-old girl should not be revealed. She is a young victim who has been deeply traumatised, and it could be argued that the CCTV footage of what happened within the lift should be viewed in private as well, for the sake of Benjamin's memory and for the young girl. Once the Coroner announces his findings, both facts and conclusions, then people can offer their criticisms, viewpoints, comments on what the Police did, what my Ministry did, or did not do. That is the official version of the facts, after people are cross-examined on the stand.

Sub judice principles set out what can and cannot be said when a Court hearing or Inquiry is pending. The various pronouncements, suggestions, statements which imply and allege that five officers interviewed him, that the Police pressured and intimidated Benjamin into wrongly admitting to guilt and that these must have been amongst the reasons why he committed suicide; all these allegations possibly infringe the principles of sub judice, apart from being highly improper at this stage, prior to the Coroner's Inquiry. The Coroner decides on the scope of the Inquiry based on the Coroner's Act. Some of these issues may be raised at, or become relevant, at the Inquiry.

Police came out publicly on 1 February – six days after the incident, five days after they went to the school – to say there would be a Coroner's Inquiry once Police investigations into the death were completed. They made it public. And Police said in their statement that all relevant facts would be presented, and where the family would be able to raise all questions that they may have. This is Singapore. There is no such thing as a cover-up. Yet, some, like TOC, continued making accusations, insinuations, speculating on the facts, well after that.

As I have said, it is understandable when the family said some things. But TOC and its ilk should not engage in this, prior to the Coroner's Inquiry. TOC also used some other tactics. They tried to get the Police to comment on allegations relating to this case and further assert that since the Police and the Ministry were not responding, therefore, the Police must be guilty of the various allegations, assertions that have been made. The Police, out of respect for the Coroner's Inquiry process, were right in not responding.

It is surprising that even a lawyer, Mr Thio Shen Yi, has made some comments which should never have been made. He has said five Police officers spoke to Benjamin. That is false. He has said that five officers took Benjamin to the Police station, that is also false; and that Police should have behaved in a less intimidating way. He seems to make the assertion of intimidation, based on his other statements which are themselves false. His statements practically imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation.

Mr Thio has a duty to be fair to the Police officers. He need only to have referred to the Police statement of 1 February to know that many of the assertions he is making are untrue. And without knowing anything about Benjamin, his mental make-up, his family background, one cannot reach such conclusions that he was intimidated and that is why he took his life.

A lawyer should know that it would be useful to get some expert evidence. For example, get assessments from psychologists. My officials and I personally have spoken with the former Chief Psychologist of IMH, Prof Long. He told us you look at the following things amongst others.

People sometimes take their lives when they reach a point of hopelessness; they give up on life. What were the possible reasons Benjamin gave up on his life? This may involve having to look at, one, his mental state before the incident – depends on a variety of factors, surrounding circumstances and the time period could stretch some way back, even years. One has to also consider what were the stressors in Benjamin's life before the incident. What led him to engage in this incident? If the behaviour was not normal, what was going on in his mind? Two, you look at the events on the day, including his conduct during the incident and the interview. And, three, the events after the interview, including his various interactions. So, there were many aspects to look at and it would not be accurate at all at this stage to fix on any one particular point and say with certainty that that was the reason why the suicide took place.

Mdm Speaker, I have focused on Benjamin's case. Mr Thio and others have also referred to other issues, early access to counsel being one of them. On early access to counsel, there are reasonable arguments both ways. Our position on early access to counsel has been made clear previously. We had arrived at this position after thoroughly considering the matter and taking into account all the relevant factors. I am prepared to explain again our reasons and thinking behind this position in due course at a more appropriate time. Today, I would like to keep discussions to this case.

Next, let me say about the discussions today. I have gone into some detail. We have the following set of circumstances. Assertions which go to the integrity of the Police Force have been repeated several times, including untrue factual assertions, and Members have filed many Parliamentary Questions (PQs). In these circumstances, not everyone will know why the Government has not responded and people may misunderstand if the Government did not respond. Thus, I decided, with some regret, and considerable reservation, and after consulting the AGC, that we will have to set out the facts and discuss the matter.

Amongst other things, public confidence in the Police Force must be maintained. The law is as follows. The rules of sub judice generally preclude discussions which may prejudice proceedings, but public officials like myself can make statements if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest, even if there is a hearing pending. I have myself commented on some occasions in the past, when a case is pending. When I have done so, I had carefully considered the legal position and kept within the principles of sub judice.

TOC and some others have ignored the pending Coroner's Inquiry and have made wild allegations in this matter. It is in the public interest that we clarify the position. As to what happens to the people who have made those allegations, I will prefer not to comment today.

As we go forward, from time to time, there will be other incidents in the future. The incidents will raise legitimate public queries. We must have a clear proper framework to deal with them, such that when an incident happens, first the facts have to be established. We must avoid jumping to conclusions. We must also avoid attacking institutions and individuals based on those hasty conclusions. We must allow the facts to be established first. This is Singapore. There are proper processes for all facts to come out.

Second, if there are going to be public hearings, we should not prejudice or prejudge the hearings. There can be a full, open discussion, once the hearings are over. Even prior to the hearings, there can be legitimate discussions on general principles and approaches but it has to be done with some care. We will relook at the law to see how we can try and achieve this better.

The discussion today that we are having in the House should not become an automatic precedent for the future. I think Members will agree that the facts that I have set out should ideally be first dealt with at a proper inquiry and people must have the ability to test those facts, and police officers may have to be cross-examined. The Judge will make the finding and then we can discuss. We should not get into this mode.

I have addressed the following points today, Mdm Speaker. I have outlined the facts of the case as we know them. I have set out the Police procedures. I have set out some of the untrue statements that have been made about the Police. And I have explained why we had not seen it right to discuss this matter earlier and, at the same time, why at this stage, I decided that we will discuss it.

If I may say this in conclusion, Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day, every life matters. It matters to the Police, it matters to the Government and it matters to all of us.

Mdm Speaker, Minister Ng will now speak on the support that schools provide for students under investigations. After which, Madam, with your permission, we will both address clarifications that Members may want to seek. And with your permission, Mdm Speaker, in the interest of clarity and expedience, may I request that Members raise clarifications relating to my Statement first, followed by those relating to Minister Ng's Statement. Thank you, Madam.

I give my permission. Acting Minister Ng.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this Statement.

On 26 January, I was deeply saddened when I was informed that Benjamin Lim, a student from North View Secondary School had passed away. This passing of a young life is a tragic affair. We cannot even begin to imagine what a difficult and painful time this must be for Benjamin's family, friends and schoolmates. We extend to them our deepest and sincerest condolences.

In the wake of Benjamin's death, there were questions and concerns raised about whether the school had done enough to look after Benjamin's interests and whether the school should have allowed the Police to take Benjamin away without his parents' consent or an accompanying adult. Such public concerns and good intentions are fully understandable. However, I have chosen not to publicly respond earlier for the same reasons as the Minister for Home Affairs and Law. I will do so now as the role played by our schools in the Police investigations has become a matter of public interest.

Mdm Speaker, each year, on average, our Secondary schools deal with 1,350 arrest cases involving students. Such arrests involve theft, mischief by fire, wilful trespass, sexual offences, rioting and, in some cases, endangerment to life.

Some of these are serious crimes. Our schools have been working closely with the Police so that such behaviour can be curbed effectively and to ensure that these students are able to be guided back onto the right track through early education, intervention and reform.

When a suspect happens to be a student, our schools have dual responsibilities towards the student and also to cooperate with the Police in the interest of public safety and security. Schools will always treat the interests and well-being of their students as a key priority. Some members of the public have suggested that the schools' duty of care extends to shielding students from the Police and not releasing them to the Police without their parents' consent. This sounds plausible, but it is not so straightforward. The Police carry out an important public function to uphold the law and keep Singapore safe and secure. It is reasonable, and indeed expected, that our schools cooperate with Police investigations.

In discharging their functions, the Police will decide if the interview with a student suspected of committing a crime or an offence should be conducted in school or at the Police Station. The prerogative lies with the Police, not with the Principal or the school staff.

Our schools provide a safe, nurturing and conducive environment for learning. Our schools will always take appropriate steps to look after their students' interests and well-being, but they cannot do so in a manner that will obstruct the Police in their investigations.

The following steps are carefully taken and consciously carried out when a student is asked to assist the Police in their investigations. First, the teacher or staff will be discreet when bringing the student to meet with the Police. They will ensure that no undue attention is drawn to the student.

Second, the school leaders will first ascertain the student's physical and emotional well-being before letting the Police speak to the student. The school leaders will also request that the number of Police officers speaking to the student be kept to a minimum.

Third, to afford greater assurance to the student, the school leaders or staff will request to be present if an initial interview is to be conducted at the school.

Fourth, should the Police decide to bring the student to the Police station for further questioning, the school will request that the Police first contact one of the student's parents to inform them of the situation and where the student will be brought to. The school will also ensure that the student has something to eat or is not hungry.

Fifth, the school will request that the student not be handcuffed and be escorted to the Police vehicle discreetly, with minimal exposure to other students and school staff. However, the Police retain final discretion to use handcuffs, depending on the circumstances of each case.

Sixth, after the student is released by the Police, school staff will keep in touch with the parents of the student to render support and work out any follow-up steps to look after the well-being of the student.

Seventh, when the student returns to school, the school will closely monitor the well-being of the student.

Lastly, the school will protect the confidentiality of the student's identity and the on-going Police investigations.

These eight steps are not new to our schools. In Benjamin's case, the school worked with the Police to ensure that the relevant steps were taken.

In particular, when the Police first arrived and requested to speak with the student, the Principal sent a member of his staff to the canteen to look for Benjamin. This was done discreetly and Benjamin was quietly brought to the Principal's office.

The Principal spoke with Benjamin and informed him that a Police officer would be speaking with him. The Principal also assured Benjamin that he and his staff would stay with him throughout the meeting.

Thereafter, one Police officer entered the room to speak to Benjamin. At the end of the meeting, when Benjamin was required to go to the Police station, the Principal told Benjamin to call his mother. The Principal also ensured that Benjamin's mother knew where Benjamin would be taken to. The Principal also gave instructions to the school counsellor to give Benjamin's mother a call on the same day to check on Benjamin's well-being.

At this juncture, Mdm Speaker, let me respond to two concerns raised by members of the public. The first concern is that the school did not send anyone to accompany Benjamin to the Police station. I can understand this concern. However, it is not the practice of the Police to allow teachers or school staff to be with the student in the Police car. Furthermore, current Police Protocols do not allow other persons to be present when the student is undergoing questioning at the Police station.

Post-questioning, the student will be released back to the direct care of his or her parents. Nevertheless, the school's care for its student does not stop here. As I have mentioned, the school staff will get in touch with the student's parents to render support and work out any follow-up steps to look after the student's well-being.

This leads me to the second concern relating to the decision for Benjamin not to attend the school camp. This camp was to be held on 27 January, the very next day after Benjamin was asked to assist the Police. The camp would have required Benjamin to be away from home for three days.

As such, when the school counsellor called Benjamin's mother on the afternoon of 26 January to check on Benjamin's well-being, the counsellor also raised with Benjamin's mother if it would be better for Benjamin to remain with his family during this difficult period. His mother agreed and, hence, it was decided that Benjamin would stay at home.

Throughout the conversation, the school's motivation was to care for Benjamin's well-being.

Mdm Speaker, our Principals and school staff care for and are committed to our students. Our students are at the centre of their purpose and mission. I know that they hold this commitment close to their hearts and discharge their responsibilities every day with professionalism. In this, I stand fully behind my Principals, teachers and school staff.

I have, thus far, focused on what our schools do when the Police come to investigate one of their students. This is only part of the overall picture. I would like to share with the House the overall approach adopted by the Police and schools to address juvenile crime.

To steer our students away from crime, the Police and schools collaborate on various programmes and activities to educate students on the law, as well as to let them understand the consequences of crime, and help students who need specific Police support and intervention to extricate themselves from illegal activities or groups.

There are also regular engagement sessions between the Police and school leaders and discipline masters. These sessions provide both sides the opportunities to clarify related issues, including those pertaining to Police Protocols.

Through these closer ground collaborations, the Police and our schools work towards a holistic solution to educate, prevent and address the issue of youth delinquency.

Coming back to Benjamin's case, I would like to mention one additional point. The death of any single student has an immense impact on the entire school community. When news of Benjamin's death reached the school on the evening of 26 January, the school leaders and staff were shocked and distraught. There was absolutely no way that they could have foreseen what would happen.

The following day, the school leaders and staff attended Benjamin's wake. Knowing how much Benjamin cherished and treasured his co-curricular activities with the National Police Cadet Corps (NPCC), the school arranged for his NPCC friends to write notes of condolences and fond memories of him to share with Benjamin's family.

Just as Benjamin's passing is mourned by his family, the school community and many others are also mourning. Teachers and counsellors will continue to provide support to Benjamin's classmates and friends.

Whilst I know that nothing that I say today will bring Benjamin back, it is of utmost importance that we all learn from this tragedy. We must always, always do our very best to reach out to those who may require attention and do whatever possible to prevent such terrible incidents from happening.

Once again, my colleagues and I would like to express our sincere condolences to Benjamin's family, friends and schoolmates.

Lastly, Mdm Speaker, I would like to share with the House that MOE is also participating in the Police review mentioned by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law. Where needed, we will adapt and refine our school processes to align them with the recommendations arising from this review, including, if the review so concludes, the presence of a school staff as an Appropriate Adult at the Police station.

We have a bit of time for clarification. Please raise your clarifications for the Minister for Home Affairs first, and then for the Minister for Education. Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs who indicated earlier that seven out of 10 of the youths who are involved in Police investigations eventually go away with warnings or are just put under the Guidance Programmes. The Minister also indicated that, every year, more than 1,300 youths are picked up for various offences. Can the Minister elaborate on the impact of youth crime on public safety and the challenges in dealing with youth crimes?

Mdm Speaker, when we pick up 1,300 on average, you can imagine the range of offences which I have described. Although not common, we have had murder; we have had physical assault; we have had young people being picked up for gang riotings. If my memory serves me right, about maybe over 500 were picked up for rioting in the last five years, rioting involving serious gang activities. We have young people involved in unlicensed moneylending activities, particularly arson. I think almost all Members would have come across that and how your residents fear for their safety. So, it presents a wide range of challenges.

At the same time, our own research and approach show that, at a young age, the criminality or criminal conduct can, with the right approach, be limited in time or limited by age. That is why we send a very large number − again, if my memory serves me right − about 600 per year to Guidance Programmes where, in return for not proceeding with a charge, they have to undergo a six-month Guidance Programme, about 20-over sessions where they are taken through the need to understand the nature of the act involved, including the criminality, the impact on the community, how to manage themselves better in their social interactions. This is a programme that, in a way, of course, involves the AGC and MSF. The recidivism rate is only about 11%. That means 89% go on to lead crime-free lives.

That is the fundamental Police approach − not criminalise, move them on to a crime-free life but, at the same time, when the incident happens, we have to move. A few years ago, we had a case of a 13-year-old boy raping his domestic helper. You have to act.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs. Was the Police of the view that the offence, as founded upon the facts that the Minister has set out, was sufficiently grave and urgent that it could not and did not schedule for a later interview with the boy and his parents?

I thank the Member for the request for clarification. But I have gone into this in my Statement and suggested that we approach it with the facts known to the Police at that point in time. When they went down to the school on 26 January, they did not know who the boy was. They did not know what his antecedents were. Some may have been reported; some may not have been reported. If he had committed another molest, Members would be asking me, "Why did you not go down faster?"

As a matter of principle, I think all Members will agree with me that when an offence has been committed, you want the Police to move as quickly as possible. But we have the right Protocol on how a visit to a school should be handled. So, the Police went in plain clothes. There is a Protocol worked out with MOE. You saw what happened here. The boy was brought to the Principal's office; he was interviewed in the presence of the educators and then, he was brought back to the Police station in an unmarked car. So, as little possibility of publicity as possible. But move, we must. Unless as a society, we say that regardless of what happens, we should never go to the school. I do not think Members will think that is a right approach.

I thank both the Ministers for their Statements which reflect the solemn nature of this incident. My question or clarification is in relation to the Police Protocol: was there a need for five officers to go down to the school? I appreciate that three of the five were from the NPC, but was there a need for three NPC officers?

I asked this clarification because I believe that the fundamental rationale for intervention where a youth offender is concerned is rehabilitation, to rehabilitate the youth. And importantly, in order to rehabilitate, one has to rehabilitate in his or her own peer group. For that purpose, it was the school or one of the peer groups was the school. Therefore, was there a need to come to school in such numbers, and in order then for him to return to school to give him the best chance at rehabilitation? So, it is a question on Protocol and it is a question on Protocol going forward.

I thank Mr de Souza. I think the question is not so much focused on why five. Because I agree with Mr de Souza that the focus should be on rehabilitation and the impact on the boy. Therefore, you focus on how many spoke with him. One officer spoke with him. The three officers who went down from NPC were the bridges between the Police and the school. When they go down, the school is familiar with these officers. They are able to know who to go to, who to speak with. There are regular interactions between the NPC and that school, not just that school, but schools in the neighbourhood and the communities. They are the bridges. They open the doors, they speak with the Principals, they speak with the teachers and they say, "This matter needs to be investigated, our officers from division are here". They smoothen the path. They were not present when the boy was interviewed. In fact, only one of the officers from the division was present. They went in unmarked cars in plain clothes. So, let us focus on what happened with the boy. He was interviewed by one officer.

I am not saying that one is always the right number. I think the point is, he must be interviewed in a way that is conducive for a fair, neutral approach to obtain the facts and to obtain the truth. I think that must be the fundamental aim. How you approach it is something that ground officers should be given the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis. I am not going to go into it and say, "It should have been five or it should have been three or it should have been four". I think those are ground decisions that we should leave to the officers. But we should look at it and we will certainly look at this case. What did the boy see? He saw one officer at first and then three brought him back, one left the car so there were only two which is the minimum number that you will need in a car. And then he was interviewed by one officer in the division. So, you look at those facts.

I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his explanation so far. I have two questions. One of them both Ministers can jointly answer. The first question is, will the Minister set the time frame or give a rough estimation as to when the Ministry hopes the reviews regarding the interview and handling of minors in Police custody will likely be completed.

The second question is addressed to both Ministries; or both Ministers can jointly consider answering this: let us say in a scenario where the Principal or the Police has already informed the parent of a pupil who is under investigation that the Police have come to the school, will MOE or indeed MHA consider allowing a suitable member of the staff to accompany the pupil, the minor, to the Police station until at least the parents turn up, or until the pupil is released from the Police station? I am not talking about the situation where the pupil is under interview, not at that stage. But what I am talking about is basically a member of the staff or allowing the parents to be at the Police Station but not during the interview so that, at the very least, there is some handing over between the school and the parents.

Madam, shall I ask my other two questions to the Minister for Education later? Or should I ask them now?

You can ask them later.

Thank you, Madam.

I thank the Member for his two questions. On the first point as to when the review would be completed, I have told my officials that we should start the work but we should hold back on any decisions until after the Coroner's Inquiry. Let the Coroner's Inquiry go through, let there be a finding, we will take reference from that. The second thing that we need to do and that is why I do not want to rush into it, is also maybe consult the stakeholders. I do not really want to start consulting stakeholders before the Coroner's Inquiry.

So, we will review it and that will really cover the Member's second point because in a sense, the Member's point is, can there be an adult accompanying the young person from school until he gets to the Police station? I think we will have to review those as part and parcel of this process. I have said earlier in my Statement that we will consider the suggestion of the Appropriate Adult scheme but I also pointed out the many considerations and why it is not so straightforward and some of the people involved would not be considered vulnerable either. I gave you a range of cases and I gave you three major reasons why one should take a pause before rushing to conclusions. So, those things have to be considered.

I want to assure Members and Mr Tan on one thing. The reason why I gave you the statistics about 70% flowing through as it were without a charge, some of them after investigations are not guilty, but some of them would, in Police's view be people who have committed an offence. But why is it that seven out of 10 are not charged? It is, therefore, not a Police versus a young person situation. The Police look at it as a stakeholder in a community to try and make sure the young person gets rehabilitated. That is why we place a lot of emphasis on the Guidance Programme.

We are very pleased with the results of the Guidance Programme at 89% success rate; but 11% recidivism. That means you have really moved the young person from one path to another path. As Mr Tan would know from practice, many of those who turn up in prison in their early 20s would often have had minor infractions in their teens. The experience of criminality is a very strong indicator of subsequent life of crime. A life wasted. So, for us, the way we want to approach it is, lives saved.

So, we will look at all suggestions to see how our process can be made better. But I do want to emphasise this, on the facts today, I cannot say that it was the processes that led to this tragic result. I have given you the facts that we have got to consider, but that does not mean that we sit back and say we do nothing. We will review and we will consider the point.

Madam, I think I have answered the questions on behalf of the Acting Minister for Education.

I thank the Minister for Home Affairs for his Statement. Losing a child is every parent's worst nightmare and every parent wants their sons and daughters to be safe. Yesterday, website The Online Citizen (TOC) quoted Benjamin's father as saying, "If not for social media, especially TOC, the case would have died down a long time ago." But the Minister said that Benjamin's father wanted to be out of the spotlight. Can the Minister help explain why the TOC article paints such a different picture of Benjamin's father?

First of all, the suggestion that this case would have died down long ago is ridiculous because there is going to be a Coroner's Inquiry. That is what normally happens when there is an unnatural death and an announcement was made on the 1 February, as I said, that is six days after the Police started investigating; on the sixth day. So, that is just absurd. But I am not saying that the father is saying absurd things; I do not want to assume that what I see in TOC is what the father says. But any such suggestion would be absurd.

What I can say is what the father said to us. On 24 February last week, he had told us in the presence of a number of officers that the family would prefer to keep the Coroner's Inquiry private. They felt pressurised by the media. They would appreciate if Police could inform the media not to publish the family's pictures or names, and I elaborated upon that in my Statement.

Mr Lim, the father, confirmed that yesterday with the Police. He told us yesterday that the family's earlier set of requests remained. He continued with the request that the media not harass him, that the family's privacy be respected and that the Coroner's Inquiry be held in private. That was yesterday, the same day the Member referred to this article coming out. Many possible explanations; I have not sought to ask why. Is it the case that the father is saying different things to different people? Or is it the case that, as usual, you cannot believe what you read on TOC? I do not know. Or could there be some other explanation? Your guess is as good as mine.

I would like to express my condolences to the family of Benjamin Lim. I also thank the Ministers for taking this case seriously to issue the Statements. My question is about the Appropriate Adult scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that it could be an imperfect scheme, I would like to ask the Minister to consider extending the scope of this current scheme. Currently, it covers persons with mental and intellectual disability only. In regimes like in the United Kingdom, the scope covers young people who are less than 18 years of age and also vulnerable adults who might have mental wellness issues or even dementia or other learning disabilities. So, I would like to ask the Minister to consider this.

The second question is: the current Appropriate Adult scheme in Singapore is manned by volunteers and run by charities. I think the scheme is important enough for the state to allocate some resources to ensure that at least people who are trained, not just trained for a short while only, people who are professionals, can operate the scheme on a sustainable basis. This is for Minister's consideration, please.

I assume on the second question, what the Member is really asking is whether we will pay for it. Yes, that is something that we would look at. I cannot give a guarantee on that but we will certainly look at.

On the first point, I have already said that both in my Statement and in answer to Dr Tan's question, that the review would cover this particular aspect as whether an Appropriate Adult should be present when young persons are interviewed. But I have taken some considerable pains to point out why it is not a straightforward issue and what are possible issues that might arise.

We have to balance between the need to move quickly, investigate, particularly when it is a serious crime, a terrorism-related issue, and balance that against the need for the young person to have some support. I have mentioned the systemic risk could be minimised as well. We will try but I just want to be very open, clear and transparent about our considerations as we look at this.

Madam, I have been in the Police Force for 20 years and I know public trust and public confidence in the Police are crucial for the Police to be effective. Can the Minister elaborate on his assessment of TOC's motivations, conduct and coverage of this tragic event?

It is quite clear from my Statement what I thought of the coverage. I think it is a calculated, cynical attempt to tar the Police using falsehoods. And I have said what should happen hereafter is not something I should be commenting on today.

Madam, as a parent of two teenagers, I deeply empathise with the families of both the deceased and the victim. For the Minister for Home Affairs, I understand the urgency the Police had in interviewing the deceased, but could the Police not have waited another half an hour or one hour until Benjamin's father or mother came to the Police station or the school before starting to interview him? Like what the Minister mentioned earlier, this is his first offence. He did not have any prior record, and as a 14-year-old whom I still regard as a child, he must have felt quite frightened to be there being interviewed by the Police without a significant adult present.

The other question: there are many speculations, accusations and unverified accounts on social media sites. In future, will the Ministry be more responsive and open to sharing more information in both print and online news media so as to make verifications or to dispel the accusations that are floating around?

I think the first question essentially raises the question whether we should have an Appropriate Adult present. What I have said is we had considered a lot of that very carefully previously and I have explained in my Statement the considerations. And I have said that we will review. We will do a review. We will look at the findings in the Coroner's Inquiry. We will consult stakeholders and we will decide. I have explained why we should not have knee-jerk reactions. I think I should express, as the Minister for Education has expressed, our condolences to Benjamin's family. And equally, we share the grief of the family of the 11-year-old girl because they are also grief-stricken. I think they all have the same feelings. As I said in my Statement, either child could have been a child of any of us. We got to approach it with that perspective.

At the same time, whether the Police should wait for the parents or somebody else to accompany, whether there should be someone else present, I think these are the same type of questions that Ms Denise Phua and Mr Dennis Tan have raised and which I myself have raised in my Statement. We will review it.

On the second point as to whether we will release more information, I have spent quite a bit of time explaining why in this case we actually decided not to go into the facts. I think it would be unseemly for this matter to get to a stage where there are series of allegations and counter allegations, and statements and counter statements with the families, the commentators, the Police – you will have a "free for all". That is precisely what legal proceedings are destined to avoid. We will have a proper process for finding out the facts. Otherwise, who is to say my truth is superior to your truth? I think we were right, we were observing the law but others were not so careful. In fact, they were cavalier and which has then required us to come out today and clarify.

I thank the two Ministers for their statements and condolences to both families. On the same track as what Member Intan has asked with regard to online reports, I think we cannot ignore the fact that the online media play a very important part in communication. In situations like that where it is very emotive and sensitive, while I totally understand the stance of handling the information very carefully and the sensitivity of sharing the information, is there a way that information, at least some information can be shared with online news sites in a way that would help, at least, not continue to fire these emotions in respect of the families? I know it is a very hard balance. The other thing is also, should online websites obtain and verify information of this nature before they post such articles?

I thank Ms Tan for that. But that sort of reverses the onus. It is not for them to make the allegations and then for us to respond. The law is the same on reporting before a pending hearing or inquiry; whether it is a physical world or online world, the law of contempt is the same. Everyone should observe it. Just because you are online does not mean that you get a free pass and you can say what you like.

So, we start with what is the law. As I said, you can raise some general issues; you can raise the issue of policy, whether in the media, physical media, print media, broadcast media or online media. What you cannot do is to make allegations of fact when those facts could be the subject matter of dispute or have to be found in an inquiry or would necessarily be part of what an inquiry would have to decide. It is even egregious when they are a bunch of lies.

I think the starting point is people who want to express their views have to be responsible and the law requires them to be responsible. We will be as open as is legally possible. Where it is possible, we will publish the information.

We will now proceed to clarifications on the Statement made by the Minister for Education. Any questions pertaining to that? Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs for the Statements. We understand that the Police is doing a review, but while Police is doing the review, would MOE consider assigning an MOE staff to accompany a student if he is brought back to the Police station from school, even though MOE staff may not be able to be in the same Police car or during the interview at the Police station. The mere presence of an MOE staff at the Police station before the parents arrive will give much assurance to the student while he is under Police custody.

I thank the Member for the suggestion. We are currently reviewing the whole process. It is currently premature to position one way or the other.

If you look at the process of the school, they would ensure that the well-being of the student is first taken care of when the Police moves the child or student to the Police station. And in the process, there would be no further contact between the school staff and the student. So, in the process of movement, the Police will be with the student in the Police car. And when they reach the Police station, the Police will have the interview process away from any waiting room.

At the end of the interview, when the parents are there, the handing over of the student will be to the direct care of the parents. So, the school staff essentially will have no contact with the student in the current Protocol.

In the review, we will be working with the Police to see what the review outcomes may be. If the Appropriate Adult accompanying is part of any recommendation, MOE will certainly consider getting our staff to be with the student.

A question for the Minister to let me understand the Protocol a bit better: at the moment, do the Principals of the schools have any discretion at all to decide whether or not to release their pupils for questioning by the Police in school or to the custody of the Police? If they do have such discretion, perhaps the Minister could share with us what are some of the guidelines for this discretion.

The second question is more of a suggestion for the current review: would the Ministry consider requiring the Principals to inform the parents of any pupil immediately upon the arrival of the Police at the school to interview the pupil or to take the pupil into custody, rather than to advise or inform the Police to inform the parents?

I thank the Member for the questions. In the current process, the Principals under the law have no such discretion. When the Police invite or take someone for an interview, it is up to the Police to decide where and when the interview would take place. But over time, the schools and the Police have worked together to ensure that the well-being of the students are taken care of.

On the second part, each incident is unique and at what stage the Principal would get the student to call the parents will all be contextualised. In this particular instance, where the interview was in a calm manner, the whole eight-step process could carry through as how I have articulated. But in certain instances and context, you would understand that the real ground processes may be somewhat more flexible.

And also, in answer to the Member's earlier question, the Minister for Home Affairs has pretty much answered most of it. I would just like to emphasise that we are open to review and adapt our processes where needed to make sure that the students could be accompanied if the review conclusions allow us to do so.

I thank both Ministers for the clarifications. Firstly, my condolences to the family of Benjamin Lim for the passing of their son. My question is this: for MOE, how many times in the past three years has the same Protocol been applied in the schools? Secondly, in terms of the impact to the students, has there been any adverse impact to students and their parents? Has MOE received any feedback or comments from parents with regard to this Protocol, where Police comes to the school to do investigations?

And thirdly, what measures are in place in schools to help students, I think "rehabilitation" is the key word used earlier, rehabilitate and integrate back into school life once investigations are over? I am sure in this era of social media, friends will talk and if it goes around, there will be other implications.

And, specifically, for this particular case, did the school interview friends? I suppose in schools, cyber bullying is one aspect; other aspects are rumours and other things that go round in social media or on Whatsapp or social media platforms. Was there such evidence that this may have happened that led to his choice of actions?

Mdm Speaker, let me take the last question first. At this stage, we do not yet know the reasons for Benjamin's decision to end his life, whether it is social media or other factors> It is premature to make any conclusions. So, I will just leave it as that.

For the statistics: over the last three years or so, across all the different schools, we have close to 1,500 per year. So, it is about 4,500 over three years. It is not a small number. These processes that we have adopted are practised and refined over this period of time.

What about the rehabilitation and re-integration process?

When the school takes the student back, the balance between confidentiality and rehabilitation is a very delicate one. The counsellors, some are trained with the National Institute of Education (NIE) and some of them are even ex-teachers. They would be able to contextualise their approaches to counselling according to the needs of the students, depending on the severity of the case, how emotionally impacted the student may be. All these would be factors that the counsellors would have to take into consideration and make his or her judgement to tailor the counselling.