Hansard, Tuesday, 11 May 2021

1 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of Sinovac vaccine approval; (b) whether Singapore is still considering to continue qualifying other vaccines that are claimed to be linked to blood clots; and (c) what is the likelihood for a need for another dose of vaccine in a year’s time.

2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is in discussions with Pfizer and Moderna for the need for a potential COVID-19 booster shot to be administered.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 in my Ministerial Statement later today?

Yes, please.

3 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in enhancing road safety, what other measures can the Ministry consider besides licensing cyclists.

4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport given that cyclists are more vulnerable on the roads, how can it be ensured that (i) cyclists are protected against inconsiderate and reckless drivers and (ii) the rights of both cyclists and motor vehicle drivers are deconflicted.

Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 3 and 4 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, more people have taken up cycling since the pandemic started. This is a good development, as cycling is a convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way to travel. The key is to ensure safety – safety for different groups of road users.

Where possible, we will separate bicycles from motor vehicles by providing cycling paths. We are building more cycling paths, within and between towns, from about 460 kilometres today to more than 1,300 kilometres by 2030.

However, it is not always possible to have separate paths for motor vehicles and bicycles. There will be many instances and locations where motorists and cyclists have to share the same road space. To enhance road safety, it is important to have clear rules for motorists and cyclists, and for everyone to follow these safety rules.

For on-road cyclists, there are existing rules under the Road Traffic Act which they must follow. For example, cyclists must comply with all traffic rules, such as adhering to traffic light signals and avoiding the use of expressways and tunnels. They should also ride as near as possible to the far-left edge of the road. This means they should keep to the left on the leftmost lane unless they are turning right or making a U-turn. On single-lane roads, cyclists are required to ride in a single file, so they do not obstruct passing vehicles.

The majority of cyclists follow the safety rules. But there is a minority of errant cyclists who use their mobile phones while riding, refuse to stop at red lights, ride in the middle lane of a major road, including expressways where bicycles are prohibited, and some of them react aggressively when they are called out for their actions. We will enforce against such behaviours. Errant cyclists can face up to a $1,000 fine and a six-month jail term for the first offence, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.

There are also motorists who drive recklessly and endanger the lives of others, including cyclists, and we will take enforcement actions against them too. We should bear in mind that cyclists are more vulnerable than those travelling in motor vehicles. The Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) will review ways to raise awareness amongst motorists on how to share road space safely with cyclists and other users.

Ultimately, there needs to be more graciousness, consideration, as well as give and take on the roads. Other countries have done it and I believe so can we. Beyond enforcement, the more enduring solution is public education. In his written Parliamentary Question, Mr Dennis Tan asked if we have a public education campaign on safe practices for cyclists and pedestrians. Since 2018, LTA has offered the Safe Riding Programme (SRP). This is a voluntary education programme that is free of charge, with both theory and practical components for all active mobility device users, including cyclists. LTA is revamping the SRP and will work with Traffic Police to reach out to road users and encourage public participation. We intend to roll out the new SRP in the next few months.

AMAP is also reviewing if our safety rules need to be strengthened and whether existing penalties need to be increased. For example, it is studying suggestions from the public on whether cyclists should be required to ride in a single file at all times on the roads and if there should be limits on group sizes for on-road cycling.

On whether to license on-road cyclists, there are mixed views from the public. Some are in support of licensing, so that errant cyclists can be more easily identified and punished. Others have expressed concerns that licensing on-road cyclists will increase compliance costs and affect the livelihoods of Singaporeans who are using their bicycles for work and commute. AMAP will adopt a fair and balanced approach in doing its review by consulting widely and hearing from different groups of stakeholders.

Most jurisdictions, like the Netherlands and Denmark, do not license cyclists. Vienna licenses children aged 10 to 12 who ride alone on roads, to ensure they are educated with road traffic rules, but adult cyclists are not required to have a licence. Tokyo requires bicycles to be registered, but the purpose is to deter bicycle theft and not to enhance road safety. Beijing used to register bicycles too, but decided to abolish the scheme in 2004 as they found it to be costly and ineffective.

AMAP will review the practices in overseas jurisdictions and study the different options and trade-offs carefully before finalising its recommendations.

Sir, road safety is a collective effort by the community, requiring each of us, all of us, to play our part. Beyond reviewing the safety rules and penalties, I urge all road users to drive and ride safely, be considerate to one another and, in doing so, make our roads safer for everyone.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. It is good to know that MOT does not intend to license cyclists. I have one supplementary question on enhancing safe cycling in Singapore. PCN and cycling paths across the whole of Singapore will take time to build. Can LTA embark on selective improvements to infrastructure that can enhance safety? For instance, widening of existing shared paths that are already too narrow and also adding more signages and markings on roadways, especially at road stretches with typically higher cyclist traffic and also junctions with blind spots.

Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her supplementary questions. First, to clarify, AMAP is currently still doing its review. It has not come to any landing point at this moment. It is studying carefully the different options and trade-offs.

What I shared earlier in my main reply was to highlight some of the practices in overseas jurisdictions where they do not license cyclists or bicycles, but they have other ways of improving road safety. So, we do need to look at these carefully. I believe where Ms Poh and some members of the public are coming from is that licensing may seem like an attractive idea to improve road safety, but, in practice, and based on the experiences in other countries, whether that is, indeed, an effective way or are there other more effective ways, that is something AMAP is carefully studying.

Sir, I agree with Ms Poh that while we look at how to expand our cycling paths, our Park Connectors, in the meantime, there are also other ways to improve the infrastructure, to improve road safety in our towns for all users. Just to give an example, in Toa Payoh, where I am looking after the town, we are working together with LTA, PUB and also the other agencies to cover up some of the open drains and convert them into wider footpaths. And in doing so, as Ms Poh pointed out, there will be more space for different groups of road users: pedestrians, cyclists. This is an important effort that must be complemented by users putting safety as a priority. The footpaths may be wider, but you must still ride safely and you must still look out for bicycles, other devices and other pedestrians when you are walking along these footpaths.

At the end of the day, I think what is most important is a combination of good infrastructure but also safety consciousness, placing priority on safety for all users.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for that sharing. The most important was on public education and I totally agree with the importance of public education. Would the Ministry consider conducting safety lessons in schools? That is one of the early touchpoints where we can educate our children. But most importantly, in that context, would the Ministry consider working closely with MOE to inculcate this, put it into the curriculum so that our students are given better ideas of safety and road safety in the future?

Sir, I am unable to answer on behalf of MOE on this point. But I just wanted to highlight that, currently, Primary school students do go through activities to teach them about road safety. There is also a collaboration with Traffic Police and LTA to bring our students to the Road Safety Park and to expose them to different aspects of road safety. I think this is something which requires continuous reinforcement along the way.

I am not sure whether we want to put it into the curriculum because the curriculum is already, I think, very heavy with different content. This is something which we can find other ways of raising awareness, not just with students but also with other groups of road users. I mentioned earlier the Safe Riding Programme. LTA is working on this with Traffic Police and I hope that when the revised programme is ready, we can encourage the public to participate in this.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply to my question. I wanted to find out whether it is possible for the deployment of Auxiliary Police officers to help educate cyclists and motorists at this moment and pending the review and improvements to the infrastructure. I have noticed that in certain areas where cyclists like to go to, they normally cycle in a group and occupy the entire left lane. It is causing danger to themselves and also to motorists on the roads. Often, I find there are arguments as to who has the right to the lane.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier; I think education is key. And so, pending the review, is it possible for LTA to look at public education and enforcement, to make sure all cyclists keep in one single row —

Please keep the preamble short.

Yes, thank you. And just to keep to the extreme left lane.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Mr Gan that education and enforcement need to go hand in hand. That is what we have been doing.

Mr Gan may be aware that we have been enforcing adherence to safety rules. And this is a joint effort by Traffic Police and LTA. We do need to recognise as well that when cyclists are on the road, they are more vulnerable compared to those who are travelling in motor vehicles. I also urge drivers to bear in mind that if you are driving past cyclists, please remember that they are more vulnerable on the roads. And I think it is important to also remember that the current rule on a multi-lane road is that it is not against the rule for cyclists to ride on the left-most lane but riding two abreast. They need not be in a single file. This is the current rule. They are only required to ride in a single file if they are riding on a road with a single lane. That is mainly to prevent obstruction to traffic. But on a multi-lane road, and if they are riding on the left-most lane, they are currently allowed to ride two abreast.

There are some on-going discussions with different groups of stakeholders on whether this is a good practice or not.

From one perspective, it does help to enhance safety for the cyclists. I think some cyclists also agree that the group should not be too big, but they say if they are riding in a reasonably sized group, the cars that are driving past, treat this group as though they are one slow moving vehicle. You pay more attention to looking out for them, being more aware of their presence on the road. There are some valid reasons as well why this rule is currently crafted.

But as I have said earlier, AMAP is reviewing, they are looking at the trade-offs. And I think they would consult widely with different groups of stakeholders before coming to the final recommendation.

5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for each year in the last five financial years, what is the percentage of the Net Investment Returns (NIR) and the Net Investment Income (NII) that contributed to the Government's Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC); and (b) what is the estimated percentage of the NIR and the NII to be contributed to the Government's Budget as NIRC for this financial year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from FY2016 to FY2020, the Net Investment Income (NII) and Net Investment Returns (NIR) taken into the Budget as Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) was the maximum 50% allowable under the Constitution. We plan to take in the maximum 50% of NII and NIR for FY2021, in view of the expected overall Budget deficit.

Mr Louis Chua.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is, under the NIRC, I just wanted to understand if it is both the expected real rate of return that is estimated and is it also that of the net asset base.

The second is, in terms of the 2021 numbers, as I understand, there would be the similar 50% that will be taken in 2021 as with 2016 to 2020. In terms of the increase in the absolute NIRC contribution, may I ask the Minister what would that increase be attributable to? Would it be based on the higher rates of return or higher net asset base?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first question is yes. It is a combination of both, obviously. The absolute dollar amount that we get from NIRC will be both a function of the smoothened net asset base as well as the expected long-term rate of return. That is the NIRC framework.

As to the components which contribute to the FY2021 figures, I do not think we have the breakdown today. Because there would be a process based on what the smoothened base is and then, what the expected long-term rate of return is, and there are processes in place, as we have described in this House, to ascertain each of these figures which then are submitted to the President's Office for the President's approval.

Mr Louis Chua, next question.

6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) over the last three years, what average percentage of GST paid by the lowest 20% of households (by income) is offset by all forms of GST vouchers; and (b) what is the breakdown based on one-off versus permanent GST voucher schemes.

Mr Speaker, Singapore operates a comprehensive and progressive system of taxes and transfers to support our citizens in meeting their needs, including housing, education, healthcare, public transport and a safe and secure environment.

The GST Voucher (GSTV) is one permanent scheme that provides support to lower and middle income households and seniors for their living expenses. It comprises an annual cash payout, annual MediSave top-up for those aged 65 and above and quarterly utilities rebates (U-Save) for Housing and Development Board (HDB) households.

In some years, there were additional one-off GSTV special payments. This was the case in the past three years. In 2019, a GSTV – Cash special payment was given to celebrate Singapore's bicentennial and to support Singaporeans who need more help. An additional $20 of U-Save rebate was also provided each year from 2019 to 2021 to mitigate the impact of the introduction of the carbon tax. In 2020, additional U-Save rebates were given to all eligible HDB households to help Singaporeans cope during the extraordinary uncertainty brought about suddenly by COVID-19.

From 2018 to 2020, the permanent GSTV scheme offsets an average of 84% of the annual GST payable by the bottom 20% of Singaporean households, on a per household member basis. So, that is for the permanent scheme.

The GSTV special payments in 2019 and 2020 were equivalent to an offset of 33% of the GST payable by the bottom 20% of Singaporean households, again, on a per household member basis. This is on top of the 84% offset under the permanent scheme. In other words, in this extraordinary year, households in the bottom 20% got more from both the permanent and one-off GST Vouchers than the amount of GST payable.

An enhanced GSTV scheme will continue to be part of the progressive system of taxes and transfers that we have in Singapore, ensuring that lower income households receive more benefits than the taxes that they pay.

I thank the Minister for the answers. Especially in light of COVID-19, I think there is a lot of concern as to inequality, especially if you look at the household income from work, I think it is the lowest 10% that saw the hardest hit in terms of income. So, in terms of the supplementary questions, I have got two.

The first is in relation to the enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme, in terms of the target amount of offset for the households involved, what is the target in terms of how much of the GST that would have been payable and how much of it do you want to offset? And what is the percentage of Singaporeans that will come under this GST Voucher scheme?

The second is also in relation to that. If I look at the cut-off right now, in terms of the assessible income criterion, that is about $28,000, which works out to about $2,300 a month, which is significantly lower than the median monthly income from work of about $4,500. So, I just want to understand, in terms of the scope of this permanent GST Voucher scheme, the amount of help that could be rendered to the middle income households.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Inequality is certainly an issue that the Government is very focused on. We have been tackling this issue through a whole range of measures – Workfare, GST Vouchers, Senior Employment Credit, a whole range of different social support measures – for at least 20 years now. And you can see from the statistics that, in fact, the Gini coefficient in Singapore, post-tax and transfers, has been coming down. So, our measures are working. We will continue to do more to address inequality and social mobility, particularly, given that the concerns of COVID-19 and the impact of the pandemic are being felt disproportionately more by the lower income groups.

As to the enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher, that is something we are studying. We have committed; the Deputy Prime Minister did say when we talked about raising the GST rate, that we will also look at enhancing the permanent GST Voucher, not just providing a one-off offset but enhancing the permanent layer of the GST Voucher. We are studying that and will certainly get back with details when we are ready.

7 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the restricted inflow of workers to Singapore has affected companies in Singapore and their ability and capacity to meet business commitments; and (b) what measures are being considered to mitigate the impact on companies and the products and services they provide to Singaporeans.

8 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from November 2020 to April 2021, how many In-Principle Approvals (IPA) and successful Entry Passes respectively have been granted to Work Permit and S Pass applicants from the construction, marine and process sectors on a monthly basis; and (b) whether the Ministry will expand the list of source countries from where companies in these sectors can employ foreign workers to work in Singapore.

9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the contraction in total employment of non-residents by 181,500 throughout 2020 is also matched by a decline in the total population of non-residents in Singapore in the same period; (b) what are the reasons why non-residents who lose their jobs in Singapore may not be required to leave immediately; (c) how many non-residents who lost their jobs in 2020 have been allowed to remain in Singapore; and (d) how many non-residents who lost their jobs in 2020 have been re-employed in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 7, 8 and 9 together?

Yes, please.

Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Pritam Singh asked about the restricted inflow of workers and what we are doing to support businesses affected by these restrictions.

Businesses have, indeed, been affected, quite badly, particularly with the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors being the hardest hit as they rely heavily on migrant workers for jobs that few locals would want to work in. In 2020, the number of Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors declined by nearly 60,000 or about 16%.

We are very mindful of the manpower crunch that these firms face today. Besides providing financial relief to help them, we are also taking steps to alleviate the manpower shortage. From November 2020 right up to April 2021, we granted entry approvals to an average of 5,100 S Pass and Work Permit holders per month. However, restrictions on inflow of workers from higher risk countries is likely to persist for some time. This is as the size of the inflow coming in has to be reduced when the COVID-19 situation deteriorates in these source countries from where they come from, and we can only increase these inflows when the situation in these home countries improve. Because this is the only way we can ensure the safe inflow of the workers, whilst managing and mitigating the risk of transmission in our community.

So, to help businesses tap on workers from other countries, the Government recently announced that we are increasing the existing foreign worker levy rebates for Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors from $90 to $250 per Work Permit holder per month. This will last from May to December 2021. Employers can make use of these rebates to bring in workers from alternative sources, such as China, where the workers are generally higher skilled and, at the same time, command higher wages.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Building and Construction Authority (BCA) also recently announced a temporary scheme to allow these new Work Permit holders from China to obtain their skills certification in Singapore, since some of the Overseas Testing Centres in China have not resumed operations. BCA and the Economic Development Board will continue to engage firms and we will continue to review if additional measures are needed to help the CMP sectors through this crisis.

In the meantime, we encourage businesses to retain their existing migrant workers and tap on other workers that are already here in Singapore.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the non-resident employment decline in 2020 of 181,500 was matched by the decline in total population of non-residents within the same period. The answer is yes.

He also asked about repatriation arrangements. When a work pass expires or is cancelled, we typically require the worker to leave Singapore in two to four weeks. This depends, of course, on the pass type. Time is given for the employer to arrange repatriation and also for the worker to settle his or her own personal affairs, such as closure of bank accounts and termination of leases.

Each year, about 30% of all work pass holders do not continue employment with their original employer and have their passes expired or cancelled. If the work pass holder is able to find new employment before repatriation, there is no reason for us to purposefully force this worker to return to his home country, for him to incur additional recruitment fees from overseas employment agents, to undergo additional COVID-19 testing and, on return to Singapore, to serve up to 21 days Stay-Home Notice (SHN). Furthermore, making the worker do this unnecessary round-trip would increase the risk of him returning with a COVID-19 infection.

On the other hand, however, if the work pass holder does not find new employment before the deadline, we ensure that his former employer will fulfil its obligation to successfully repatriate the worker.

If we had insisted that the worker had to leave Singapore even though he has already found an employer, we would have had to allow the entry of nearly double the number of workers last year, and this would further strain our SHN facilities. Of course, the alternative would be to compound further the manpower difficulties faced by businesses, as what the hon Member of Parliament Ms Jessica Tan and also Mr Pritam Singh have highlighted.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for replying to the Parliamentary Question (PQ). We have heard about anecdotes of companies applying for entry permits for their workers 30, 40, sometimes almost 50 times for one In-Principle Approval (IPA). It sounds like a large number; and, of course, the companies get frustrated. On the other hand, there is also an acknowledgement that the Government has to control the COVID-19 situation as best it can. So, it is a very fine balancing act.

Nonetheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

First, how long is MOM proposing to extend the IPA of Work Permit and S Pass holders respectively in view of their repeated unsuccessful entry pass applications? I understand MOM extends it one time as a given. That means if the IPA is for three months for the Work Permit holder, MOM will extend it automatically. Is this going to continue?

The second question is: would MOM be amenable to reimburse IPA application fees if, for whatever reason, the applying company decides, "Look, I don't think it is possible to continue with this uncertainty". So, would MOM consider reimbursing the IPA cost if the entry pass just does not come through?

The third question pertains to the second part of my two-part PQ. Some contractors have suggested non-traditional source countries like Vietnam as a potential source for workers. I know there is a long tail to this, it is not a case of just getting a person from any country; there is a whole process of training, and so on and so forth. Would this be something the Ministry would look into?

I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his questions. For the IPA, the In-Principle Approvals, and the entry approvals or the final entry approvals, there are actually two separate independent processes. Obviously, we do receive and we do give out a lot more IPAs than the entry approvals.

One of the key challenges of this pandemic is the fact that the situation is extremely fluid and dynamic. Why do I say it is fluid and dynamic? Because of the source countries where our workers come from, the situation back in many of these source countries – I think you have seen in the news – what we are seeing are successive waves of infection. So, as a result of that, you find that at the point of application of the IPA, as long as it fulfils the requirements of what we have in terms of what is needed for them to come in, we grant the approval. But to regulate the control in terms of the onboarding of these migrant workers coming into Singapore, we do it via the entry approval route. And that is dependent on the risk quota which we are able to accept. It is also a function of certain Not-to-Land (NTL) Restrictions, for instance, that the MTF decides and, at the same time, also a function of how many of these SHN facilities we have available.

Earlier on in the year, we announced the set-up of the Migrant Worker Onboarding Centre, which is a one-stop centre to screen all of them, so as to make sure that it is safe before they go into the community. So, it is also a function of the number of beds that we have. Because of that, you find that the IPAs usually will far exceed the number of actual entry approvals coming into Singapore. So, I hope that part of it is cleared up.

To the Member's point about whether we can grant an extension – depending on the different Pass types, whether it is EP, S Pass and Work Permit – to the IPAs with different lengths of validity, today, the default answer to the point about the renewals and the automatic extension of IPAs – that is what we are now doing. However, we are seeing that because of the backlog of cases – that backlog has increased significantly. As a result, even if you allow for an automatic extension of that IPA, it does not make sense because that extension is going to go months ahead without any certainty as to whether, ultimately, we can grant the entry approvals. That is where the challenge is today. Because we have no way of telling how the pandemic, the control of the situation, the number of infections, the successive wave of infections from many of these source countries where we get our workers from, can actually provide certainty of control of the outbreak of these infections.

So, to that end itself, I guess the long answer to your question is that the extension of the validity of these IPAs is something that we are now reviewing. Because if it is too long again in the future, it does not make sense.

To the second point about refunds and reimbursements, indeed, we are considering that as well. We are trying to find a more nuanced way, so that we can make it a lot easier.

For the diversification of source countries, across the different Ministries – MND, BCA, ourselves, as well as MOT and ICA – we are exploring that collectively and we have started to reach out to counterparts in many of these other source countries, the non-traditional sources, to see how we can onboard them. But, obviously, this would take time because there are also language and cultural issues. These are things that we have to take into consideration.

Ms Jessica Tan.

I thank the Minister for his response. I do have just one supplementary question. With regard to the industries, I know that the marine shipyard, construction and process industries have been most impacted. But I am also concerned about the small and medium enterprises or SMEs in terms of the services and their ability to continue to operate outside of these industries. There are some jobs – especially for Work Permit holders – that many of these SMEs are facing difficulty in terms of the ability to renew the Work Permits for, as well as to get sufficient workers for jobs that they are finding hard to fill, even as they look at alternative sources in Singapore.

So, my question to the Minister is, in terms of the extensions for existing Work Permit holders or S Passes for workers in Singapore, can that be considered, especially for the SMEs, because one or two workers make a big difference for them in terms of their ability to continue to operate?

I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her very, very pertinent and very important question. Indeed, at this particular point in time, we are in crisis mode. So, all the appeals that come from all sectors, we will consider and we will review them. That is the reassurance that we can give.

On top of the appeals to grant extensions, we should also take note of the tremendous slew of measures that the Government has put forth to support SMEs – in the form of Job Support Scheme, the Job Growth Incentive. On top of that, we have got quite a number of other schemes to try and support our entire economy and our industry. So, it is not just one aspect or measure to help the SMEs only. Ms Tan will be comforted to know that the Government has also put in a very comprehensive set of measures to help support them as well.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister confirmed that last year, there was a contraction of about 180,000 in non-resident employment and there was also an outflow of these people from Singapore. Recently, there is also a number that said that there is a shortage of about 60,000 workers in the CMP sectors. So, can I confirm whether there has been a re-entry of 130,000 foreign workers into our country in the last few months?

I thank Mr Leong for his question. If I may sort of couch it this way: net net, in the entire industry itself, from March of 2020, right up till April this year, for the CMP sectors, which include the Work Pass as well as the S Pass, there is an average net outflow of 2,400 workers a month.

If you just take construction alone, the net outflow is about 1,800 per month. For the services sector, which we sort of follow through, we are about 42,000 lower than last year, same period, that means March 2020. So, that represents a net outflow of 3,200 per month. This is just for the services sector.

So, if you add both the CMP sector plus the services sector, the net outflow is about 5,600 per month.

From November last year till April this year, when we started to resume opening up the inflow of workers to address our severe acute shortage in all of our industries, on the average per month – as I have alluded to in my earlier statement – 5,100 workers came in for that few months. We could not sustain that inflow because of the fact that – as I have said – the situation is very dynamic and very fluid. The moment in any of these source countries the infection rates go up, we would have to throttle the number again.

So, I hope that gives Mr Leong a sense of how acutely or how grave the shortage of workers is today in our industry.

10 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of recent cases of gastroenteritis in various education institutions (a) what are the findings from the investigations conducted; and (b) what actions have been taken to manage such incidents and prevent them from recurring in future.

Since the start of 2021, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and Ministry of Health (MOH) have conducted joint investigations into 27 incidents of Gastroenteritis (GE) outbreaks involving more than 800 people. Of these incidents, 18 were associated with education institutions, with 14 in preschools alone. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment", Official Report, 11 May 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 30.]

Despite only being four months into the year, this is reaching the level of 2019, when 18 out of 33 GE incidents in education institutions occurred in pre-schools.

GE is the inflammation of the stomach and intestines, characterised by vomiting and diarrhoea, and can be commonly caused by pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria and parasites. Viral GE can be transmitted from person to person or through surfaces contaminated by an infected person’s vomitus or faeces. GE can also be spread through contaminated food and water.

The joint investigations by SFA and MOH seek to identify the source and cause of contamination, as well as the corrective measures to be taken. The outcome of the investigations depends on factors, such as whether patients seek medical help and testing and whether the source is still present during investigations.

For the recent incidents at education institutions, investigations suggest that poor housekeeping practices in schools and lapses in cleaning, including within schools' in-house kitchens, could have contributed to the GE outbreaks. For instance, ineffective cleaning agents were used to sanitise areas contaminated with vomitus and faeces. Chopping boards and knives for raw meat and cooked food were also found kept together instead of separately, thus increasing the risk for cross-contamination.

Government agencies, including MOH, MOE, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and SFA, are working closely to adopt a multi-pronged approach to reduce GE incidents in education institutions. We are particularly concerned about pre-schools, given that young children are more vulnerable.

We undertake measures, such as issuing guidelines and advisories on environmental hygiene and good food safety practices and health screening of staff and students. We also brief teachers, food handlers and cleaners on good cleaning practices, personal hygiene and food safety practices. SFA will enhance the food safety training framework for food handlers to better equip them with the knowledge and skills to ensure food safety.

Later this year, we will implement the environmental sanitation regime for premises, such as pre-schools, under the Environmental Public Health Act. Premises managers and their appointed environmental control coordinators will have to develop and implement an environmental sanitation programme at their premises in accordance with sector-specific standards. These efforts will strengthen environmental hygiene to help reduce the spread of diseases, including GE.

It is a collective effort to combat GE outbreaks in our education institutions. Education institutions must play their part to keep their students safe by upkeeping high standards of environmental and personal hygiene and food safety at all times. Parents and care-givers should also keep their sick children at home until they recover, so as to facilitate a healthy and safe environment for all students.

11 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are plans to review Singapore's commitment towards a net-zero carbon target and by when; and (b) beyond the targets set out in the Singapore Green Plan 2030, what are the key strategies to halve emissions by 2050, given that industries contribute to approximately 60% of Singapore's total carbon emissions.

Climate change is an existential challenge for Singapore and we take it very seriously. We have continually reviewed and enhanced our climate targets and preparations. Last year, we submitted our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS). This year, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which sets out a roadmap towards sustainable development and net-zero emissions.

Our goal is to peak emissions around 2030 and halve our emissions by 2050. We have put in place a broad-based carbon tax so that companies internalise the cost of carbon, and we will be reviewing the tax trajectory and level, post-2023, to reflect the increased urgency for climate action. We aim for our energy and chemicals sector to be amongst the best-in-class in energy and carbon efficiency globally. We have introduced an enhanced set of Industry Energy Efficiency schemes to give a stronger push for industrial facilities, including those of small and medium-sized enterprises, to be more energy-efficient.

In the long term, to achieve our mitigation aspirations, we will pursue three key strategies. First, we will transform our industry, economy and society to adopt more renewable energy, be more energy-efficient and reduce energy consumption. Second, we will invest in and draw on low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage and low-carbon hydrogen. Third, we will foster international collaboration in areas, such as well-functioning carbon markets and regional electricity grids.

We will continue to raise our ambitions over time, despite our constraints as a small city-state with limited alternative energy resources. How soon we can achieve net-zero emissions will depend on factors, such as global advancement in low-carbon technologies. We are strengthening international partnerships to expand our options to reduce emissions.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for her clarifications. I have one supplementary question. To halve the absolute carbon emissions to 33 million tonnes carbon dioxide by 2050, given that industries account for the lion's share of the carbon emissions, are there strategic plans for the next three decades to: one, switch to cleaner power production plants for our national power grid, such as hydrogen or even biofuels, to replace LNG; and two, shift away from energy-intensive industries, such as petroleum refining, petrochemicals, semiconductors or even data centres?

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. The short answer to her supplementary question is that we will consider all options. Given that this is a very long-term initiative, we need to consider all options that are good for us, in order for us to have the resource, economic and climate resilience going into the future; including meeting our goals on carbon.

12 Prof Koh Lian Pin asked the Minister for Education whether there are coordinated steps being taken at the national level across Institutes of Higher Learning to (i) assemble a Singaporean Core of current leaders in science and education to support and advise the Government in implementing the Green Plan 2030 and (ii) continue to strengthen this core to future-proof Singapore against climate change, sustainability and other emerging challenges and opportunities.

Mr Speaker, there is a strong pool of expert researchers and scientists in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), in particular, our research-intensive Autonomous Universities, who are able to support the implementation of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. This is not confined to a specific discipline or background, as our approach is to draw on the diverse expertise available to support the implementation of the Green Plan. So, all the relevant Ministries involved in the Green Plan will tap on this expertise when they spearhead efforts for their respective domains.

Our researchers' areas of expertise cover a wide range of sustainability-related fields like climate science, waste management and food safety. For example, the National Research Foundation funds the Cooling Singapore project, which is co-led by the Singapore-ETH Centre and the Singapore Management University (SMU). The project studies ways to mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect. Assoc Prof Winston Chow from SMU, a Singaporean expert in Urban Climatology, plays a key role as Principal Investigator.

The Ministry of Education and the IHLs have also been actively building a pipeline of Singaporean and Singapore-based researchers and experts on sustainable development. For example, since the inception of its PhD programme in 2014, the Nanyang Technological University's Asian School of the Environment has trained more than 40 PhD students on topics like sea level rise and other climate hazards. The School also features a blend of research expertise, like Asst Prof Janice Lee, who looks into the impact of land use changes on biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods in Southeast Asia; and Prof Benjamin Horton, who is an internationally-respected expert in sea-level change.

The Government will continue to work closely with the IHLs on the implementation of the Singapore Green Plan and to further develop our manpower pipeline in sustainability-related research.

13 Ms Janet Ang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of Singapore's ambition to become a global trading hub for climate-related services, what is being done to ensure the credibility of carbon products to be traded through Singapore and to reduce Singapore's exposure to the risks of carbon trading.

14 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of Singapore’s import of the first carbon-neutral liquified natural gas cargo (a) what agreement is in place to require the cargo suppliers to provide a statement of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of each cargo; and (b) what mechanisms will be applied to monitor the carbon credits used to offset the GHG emissions of each cargo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 13 and 14?

Yes, please.

As announced under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, Singapore aims to be a leading carbon services and trading hub, as we seek to create new business opportunities and jobs in the green sector for Singaporeans. Our country, Singapore's robust legislative, commodities trading and financial services foundation has put us in a good position to grow an internationally-trusted carbon services and trading eco-system in Asia.

Today, the carbon trading eco-system in this region comprises primarily of the trading of voluntary carbon credits. These credits are used by companies to meet their voluntary corporate climate targets, alongside other decarbonisation strategies.

The main risk for buyers in voluntary carbon credits markets has been on the integrity and the quality of such carbon credits. The Government is working with industry, with international and local experts, as well as environmental groups to address this risk.

First, we are developing a taxonomy and guidelines on the quality of these carbon credits. Second, we are exploring the use of technology to improve the verification of these credits. In December 2020, DBS and Temasek, with Google Cloud, NUS, Verra and the World Bank as partners, launched the Sustainable Xcelerator to improve the efficiency of verifying emissions reductions and sequestration. Third, the Emerging Stronger Taskforce Alliance for Action on Sustainability is also looking at establishing a marketplace and exchange to improve transparency in carbon credit transactions.

Alongside carbon trading, there are opportunities in the carbon services market. For example, we aim to anchor key activities in Singapore, such as in project development, carbon credits trading, financing and measurement, reporting and verification services. We will continue to work with like-minded partners to support the development of an overall well-functioning global carbon market, and build capabilities and capacities to grow our local eco-system.

To answer Miss Cheryl Chan's question, organisations can use carbon credits, alongside other decarbonisation strategies, to mitigate the greenhouse emissions resulting from their operating units or businesses. Today, this is done on a voluntary basis to meet companies' climate targets.

Pavilion Energy has announced that it had imported the first carbon-neutral liquefied natural gas cargo into Singapore in April 2021. Under this commercial arrangement, Pavilion Energy required its suppliers to provide a statement of greenhouse gas emissions of each cargo, measured from the production of the gas to the delivery to end-users in Singapore. Pavilion Energy then offsets these greenhouse gas emissions by retiring a corresponding amount of carbon credits sourced from its portfolio of carbon offset projects in Peru and China. Pavilion Energy has published the amount of emissions it has offset from the two projects, which are certified under the Verified Carbon Standard and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard.

While the Government today does not regulate voluntary offsetting activities, we are working with the industry, international and local experts, as well as many environmental groups to develop – as I have alluded to earlier on – a taxonomy and guidelines on the quality of these carbon credits. The guidelines can then be adopted by companies undertaking commercial agreements in carbon offset activities.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply. I am heartened that we are taking a lot of active actions in terms of what we are doing around carbon credits and how we are going to measure that on an international basis. I have one supplementary question for the Minister.

Given the fact that we are now trying to do all these carbon sequestration with other countries overseas, over time, there will come a challenge between countries putting up their carbon taxes as well as how we are going to exchange this in terms of carbon credits. Is the Minister able to give us an insight on what are Singapore's plans if the carbon taxes do rise to a certain significant sum in other countries, because it does not make economic sense in terms of carbon credit offsets between countries?

I thank the hon Member Miss Cheryl Chan for her very insightful question. Indeed, I think this is a point of concern alongside many, many other competing concerns that we have. Today, we have an Emerging Stronger Taskforce. We have also got an AfA that we have set up to look at sustainability in terms of a broader overall picture not just from the carbon credit, carbon trading and carbon tax's point of view but to see how sustainable they would be on top of our overall energy story in our own country's energy roadmap moving forward for the next foreseeable 10, 20 to 30 years.

I think these are early days. We are happy to take feedback and suggestions and, as I have alluded to earlier in my answer, we are actively sourcing and working with partners not just locally, internationally, but as well as with many of the environmental partners to see how we can nuance this in a very, very good and strategic path to ensure not just our own sustainability but, more importantly, our own resilience, moving forward.

Ms Janet Ang.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response to my Parliamentary Question. There were recent media reports on the sale of meaningless carbon credits by a top US supplier. I originally had two supplementary questions, but the Minister has answered my second one. So, I will just tackle the first one.

How does the Government plan to increase the awareness amongst Singapore companies with this relatively new product? We know Singapore has worked so hard to attain a stellar reputation as a credible and trusted hub and partner. As the Minister has shared just now, I am very excited to hear about all the opportunities as well as the work that we are doing to develop a taxonomy and guidelines and so on. How are we going to engage the companies in Singapore so that they will not be scammed or they can be better prepared as they prepare for their alignment to the Singapore Green Plan 2030?

I thank Ms Janet Ang for her question. I think there are different types of carbon markets today. Suffice to say – I hope I am not over-simplifying them – that, broadly, there are two broad categories. They are the compliance markets and then you have the voluntary markets. The compliance markets are created. They are regulated by mandatory national, regional or international carbon reduction regimes. One of the examples is the European Union ETS, which is the world's first carbon market. Of course, at the international level, discussions are also underway at the UN Conference for Climate Change. Again, this kind of meetings seeks to recognise the use of carbon credits to offset national emissions.

On the other hand, what I have shared with Members earlier on are voluntary markets. They function outside of these compliance markets. They enable companies, individuals to purchase carbon offsets on a voluntary basis to manage their carbon emissions. This is in addition to other decarbonisation strategies. They do not have an intended use for compliance purposes. So, these compliance credits may, in some instances, be purchased by voluntary non-regulated entities. They are not broadly accepted into a compliance regime unless they fulfil a broader perspective. And therein lies the challenge which the hon Member has alluded to.

At our end, we have actually been working with the different groups to see how we can nuance this approach and the key thing is to articulate and communicate this strategy and also educate many more of our companies to embark on this roadmap and to come onto this platform with us. Many of the companies looking to invest in Singapore, particularly from the semi-conductors to even data centres and so on, they have also moved on to source for many of these carbon credits.

I think it is now an opportune moment for us to work collectively together to nuance this approach and, at the same time, bring many of our own enterprises locally, as well as regional SMEs that have decided to sink roots here in Singapore, along with us. So, I thank the Member for highlighting this. It is certainly one of those targets that we not just aspire to do, but we have every intention to fulfil.

15 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) how prevalent are incidents of hazing and bullying in the schools in the past year compared to a year ago; (b) whether the Ministry is aware that such incidents are shared by students on social media platforms; and (c) whether a student's character is one of the criteria used in selecting his/her suitability for a leadership role in school camping activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of bullying and hazing, and works with schools to send a clear message to all students that hurtful behaviour has no place in our schools. The number of bullying incidents reported in 2019 was about two incidents per 1,000 primary students and five incidents per 1,000 secondary students. These remained the same in 2020.

Schools monitor the cyber environment to the best of their abilities, taking both educative, preventive and intervention measures to address any bullying incidents. Schools educate students to be kind and responsible. When schools come across incidents of hurtful behaviour online, they take immediate action to investigate the incident, carry out appropriate disciplinary actions and provide counselling support for the students involved. Peer support leaders also help to keep online spaces safe and positive and alert teachers when needed. All students are taught the safe channels to report serious incidents, inappropriate practices or hurtful behaviours.

Character is a key consideration in the selection process of student leaders and other student helpers for camps. Camp activities are supervised by teachers, and student leaders and helpers are removed from their leadership positions and disciplined if there is wrongdoing. They will also be guided to learn from their mistakes.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for answering the question. I have one supplementary question. I am happy to see that the trend has not increased, as the Minister of State has mentioned. But every single bullying or hazing incident is one too many, especially for schools and where kids are involved. My simple question is: what action has MOE taken against those involved in these incidents and will more mitigation measures be taken to reduce and address this issue and, hopefully, reduce the numbers, going forward?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, every bullying incident is one too many. When there are reported incidents, the disciplinary committee teachers will conduct a disciplinary inquiry. They will pair disciplinary measures with counselling, if necessary, and, if there is a need for disciplinary action, they can take a range of penalties, for instance, from corrective work orders to suspension and, if the student perpetrator is a source of threat and danger to other students, they can consider expulsion, if necessary.

Dr Shahira Abdullah.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question. In light of the recent Ngee Ann Polytechnic case in which male students were urinated on and which a male student came out to say that it was just mindless fun and it was something consensual, would MOE consider teaching consent to youths at a younger age so that they can be better protected from bullying as well?

I thank the Member for her question. There is no place for degrading behaviour in our schools and IHLs, even if the students were to find it fun. I think this is not something that we encourage.

The schools emphasise Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and we are rolling this out starting from Primary schools to Secondary schools and our IHLs. During CCE, our students are taught the values of respect, about care, empathy. They are also taught to recognise boundaries, how to manage personal boundaries and, when their actions overstep them, they are reminded that, should such behaviours be displayed, there can be disciplinary and even legal consequences, if such cases are reported to the Police.

16 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry as sea freight costs are rising around the world (a) how will this affect the prices of exports to Singapore; (b) what impact will this have on our supply chains; and (c) whether the Government will help to mitigate the increased costs by reviewing port charges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sea freight charges have been rising due to the confluence of factors globally, including the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced vessel capacity, imbalance in the supply of containers and volatility in consumer demand. In our engagement with businesses, we understand that some have absorbed the higher freight costs in the near term, while others are considering passing on the costs.

For supply chain resilience, we have adopted a multi-pronged strategy involving import diversification, local production and stockpiling. Import diversification allows us to ensure a continuous supply of goods at competitive prices should any of the sources be disrupted. We have also been working with local companies to strengthen their business continuity plans to better cope with possible supply chain disruptions.

Specific to port charges, ships calling at Singapore pay port charges to the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and to terminal operators for port-related services, such as vessel traffic management and cargo handling. However, Singapore’s port charges, which have remained unchanged during this period, are unlikely to impact sea freight charges, as these are set by shipping lines based on market supply and demand. PSA has also worked with shipping lines and businesses to manage possible shipping delays by better anticipating and minimising congestion at the port.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for her answers. I have two supplementary questions.

First, the Minister of State mentioned about the factors being the container shortages affecting the sea freight prices, going forward. Can the Minister of State share whether that trend is likely to continue, going forward?

Second, how is the Government working with local businesses to maintain supply resilience and manage freight costs? That is quite key, especially in view of Malaysia's latest movement control order (MCO) that we just found out about.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary questions and I would like to assure the House that the Government has put in place very robust strategies to ensure supply chain resilience and also to ensure that we facilitate the movement of our goods efficiently.

I have highlighted the four contributing factors. For example, one of the contributing factors is reduced vessel capacity. Earlier on, Second Minister Tan See Leng also mentioned that some of that could be because of an uptick in COVID-19 cases and because they would have instituted lockdowns and some of this capacity constraints would come about because of that. So, the situation remains fluid and dynamic.

But having said that, I want to reassure the Member that to cushion Singapore's supply chain against the present global volatility, the Government has strengthened our efforts on several fronts, mainly three.

Firstly, for essential supplies, we have adopted a three-pronged approach: first, import diversification; second, local production 30 by 30; third is our stockpiling.

Import diversification is important because it allows us to ensure that we have a continuous supply of goods at very competitive prices should any of the sources be disrupted.

The second important strategy is MPA works very closely with our port operator, PSA, to anticipate and minimise congestions at the port. This is to make sure that we can turn around and facilitate the movement of the goods efficiently and, at the same time, also to minimise the freight costs for businesses.

Thirdly, industrial supplies are critical. So, for industrial supplies, we have been working with our companies based in Singapore on their BCP plans to better cope with possible supply chain disruption.

I will give a quick example of how we are going the extra mile in the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Enterprise Singapore by working closely with MPA and PSA to support our local companies through our trade associations and chambers (TACs). For example, a few months back in anticipation of Chinese New Year, Enterprise Singapore facilitated the discussions between the Meat Traders Association with PSA and the Singapore Logistics Association during the peak Chinese New Year period to better manage the perishable stocks coming in.

We will continue to lend a hand by facilitating conversations between businesses and also the trade and industry associations with the shipping liners and also freight forwarders on how to optimise supply chain flow.

One way we can do that is that the TACs can secure container capacity; also, the second approach is to consolidate the container volume demand amongst key industry players to maximise the container capacity and thereby manage cost.

On the second question regarding yesterday's announcement by Malaysia on its MCO, allow me to quickly recap. One year ago, in March, when Malaysia first implemented their MCO, we were able to work closely with them to secure the continued supply of fresh foods from the country. Most of our wholesalers and retailers received their goods without significant disruptions to their operations.

Malaysia's announcement yesterday on the MCO covers predominantly social activities. Prime Minister Muhyiddin emphasises that all economic activities are permitted to operate during the MCO. Given this, farms and factories in Malaysia will still be able to run and logistics companies can continue to service our imports of goods and services. Hence, we do not expect our supply chain to be significantly disrupted by the MCO at this time. We will continue to monitor the situation, work very closely with our businesses and our counterparts in Malaysia to mitigate any possible disruptions.

17 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Trade and Industry given the rising prices in commodities markets around the world, whether there are steps which the Government can take to ensure that prices for groceries are kept affordable for Singaporeans as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent months, global food commodity prices have risen due to strong global demand and tight supply, with the latter caused by adverse weather conditions and restrictions on food exports by some food-producing countries. As a small and open economy that imports our essential food supplies, Singapore has been affected by these developments. To reduce the impact of rising commodity prices on groceries, we have diversified our food import sources and also provided targeted assistance to lower income households.

Today, we import food from more than 170 countries. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many countries had to deal with food shortages, Singapore was able to ensure the continued availability of most of our fresh food supplies and key essential items. Through our deliberate efforts to diversify our import sources, we were able to keep the prices of food supplies and daily necessities competitive. Such resilience in the essential supply of our food and daily necessities is made possible also because of our excellent connectivity and commitment to keep our ports and key transport operations running even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To help Singaporeans cope with the increase in prices in daily necessities, the Government continues to work with cooperatives, such NTUC FairPrice, on Community Support programmes, such as the price freeze on essential items under their house brand during the period March 2019 to December 2020.

For low-income and vulnerable families, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) continues to provide ComCare Assistance to support their daily living expenses, such as food, clothing, transportation and communications. MSF regularly reviews the ComCare schemes to ensure that the assistance given takes into account changes in the prices of essential items and feedback from stakeholders who work closely with the low-income.

We will always do our best to protect our supply of essential food commodities and keep prices stable. However, these are extraordinary times and it is likely that we will continue to see volatility in the prices of food supplies and essential products due to global uncertainties, such as delays in transportation due to border controls and shortage of shipping capacity.

18 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how are our local communities responding to the observed anti-Asian hate crimes overseas; and (b) how prepared is Singapore in guarding against racist or any form of anti-social sentiment from spilling over into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the recent spate of anti-Asian hate crimes overseas has been troubling. As a multiracial and multi-religious country, we denounce all forms of racism, irrespective of which ethnic community is being targeted and wherever in the world it may take place.

Hate crimes and speech fracture our society and threaten the harmony that we worked hard over generations to build. Repeated exposure to hate crimes and speech deepens feelings of prejudice and distrust, and sows discord between different communities. It can also desensitise individuals and normalise unacceptable behaviour. That is why we must be unwavering in our efforts to prevent hateful and divisive sentiments from taking root in our society.

Here in Singapore, we have a multi-pronged approach to deter hate crimes and speech, while at the same time, working with society to strengthen cohesion and enlarge the common space. Allow me to share three ways.

First, we have laws that prohibit and punish hate speech and we will not hesitate to take swift action against anyone who sows enmity and threatens to undermine our racial and religious harmony. Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to: one, utter words, make gestures, or place any object in sight of a person with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of that person; two, to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race; and, three, to commit acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

Second, we encourage public discourse to promote mutual understanding and respect. And in this, we all have a part to play. That is why we launched BRIDGE in 2017, which is a series of community-driven initiatives to foster a better understanding and appreciation of the diverse religions and races in Singapore. These are driven by community partners who provide safe spaces and opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning and are supported by the Government.

Over the years, we have seen how these programmes bring different communities together to candidly and respectfully discuss sensitive issues of race and religion. For instance, the “Regardless of Race” dialogue series organised by OnePeople.sg addresses current issues on racial harmony, such as xenophobia, that surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another recent example is the Mission:Unite Hackathon that the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) organised in November last year, which invited youths to take action by pitching innovative ideas to nurture a stronger society. The winning ideas included a mobile game that was aimed at developing empathy for diverse communities, by bringing users through life milestones and challenges.

Third, in a world that is increasingly fragmented and polarised, we must be committed to growing the common space in which all Singaporeans can live, work and play together, and share in the experiences that bind us.

In this spirit, MCCY works with other Government agencies and community partners to provide opportunities for Singaporeans to have meaningful interactions with one another.

For example, events organised by the People’s Association (PA) or the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs), as well as arts and heritage, and sports organisations provide opportunities for people of diverse backgrounds to come together.

We are also bringing together Singaporeans by expanding opportunities for volunteerism and co-creation. In the spirit of Singapore Together, we have initiated about 20 Alliances for Action (AfAs), which are action-oriented cross-sector collaborations to tackle complex issues, including an SG Together AfA on Emerging Needs and Volunteerism.

Over the past year, many Singaporeans had demonstrated their readiness to stand together with their fellow Singaporeans in upholding social solidarity, especially when our racial and religious harmony is threatened by hateful sentiments or terrorist acts.

But despite our best efforts, we are not immune to hate or xenophobia. Last Friday, there was an alleged racist attack on 55-year-old Mdm Hindocha Nita Vishnubhai. Mdm Nita said she was brisk-walking from Choa Chu Kang MRT station towards the stadium when she had a run-in with a man who shouted racial slurs at her for not wearing her mask above her nose and then, he kicked her in the chest before running away. Mdm Nita had lodged a Police report and the Police are investigating.

So, while we guard against the virality of COVID-19, it is more important for us to guard against the virality of hate and xenophobia. We should never take the peace and harmony we have today for granted and Singaporeans must take a firm stand against hate speech and crimes, as one united people.

Ms Tin.

I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate the strong stance that the Government has taken in stating that there is no place for any racism or any xenophobic sentiment within Singapore society.

I would like to ask whether there has been an increase in reports or observations of such racist behaviour precipitated by the COVID-19 crisis. Because if this is happening now, I wonder what would happen in future if other crises hit us.

One of the recent cases include an expatriate being aggressively confronted in a park very recently. That is a very public scene. But there may be other such instances that may be more subtle but no less in damage. So, for victims who are subjected to such racial attacks, what kind of recourse may they have?

I thank the hon Member for her supplementary questions. She is absolutely right. COVID-19 has exacerbated feelings of distrust and also feelings of insecurity amongst people all over the world. As I have mentioned earlier, we are not immune to these feelings, where people are worried about their jobs, their health, where lockdowns and concerns about job opportunities have taken form.

But we must not allow that to take root in Singapore. The recent incidents – I mentioned one earlier in Choa Chu Kang; and the Member mentioned the one in Pasir Ris – are symptoms that we have to address very robustly. As I have mentioned earlier in my reply to the Parliamentary Question, there are two ways to do it: one is the legal and law enforcement route, where the Penal Code is there to protect and to bring people to justice; the second one is even more important, which is the community and social aspect, which we must work at. And it is a work-in-progress since the founding of our nation to continue to bring different races and people together.

So, while COVID-19 has taught us to social-distance, we must make sure that we do not socially distance from our different races and our different religions, but we bring people closer together against the forces that threaten to pull us apart.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements, Minister for Health.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19-22, 24-27, 30-32, 34-39, 42 and 44-90 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 23, 28-29, 33, 40-41 and 43 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to update Members on the COVID-19 situation. Minister Lawrence Wong and I will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 19 and Written Questions 19 to 23 from yesterday's Order Paper, and Question Nos 1 and 2 from today’s Order Paper, as well as a question filed by Mr Seah Kian Peng1 for a future Sitting.

Sir, it has been 16 months since our fight against COVID-19 started. I last updated the House in January this year when we rolled out the national vaccination programme.

To date, we have confirmed a total of 61,378 cases of COVID-19 infections, and 31 of them have passed on. The COVID-19 situation remains fluid. Globally, we are seeing surges in daily new cases in several countries. Locally, after half a year of low community cases, we have seen several clusters of infections over the last two weeks – a cluster involving an ICA officer and his family members, one at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), another at Tuas South Community Care Facility (CCF), a cluster at Pasir Panjang Terminal and, most recently, a cluster at our airport terminals.

We have also detected several unlinked cases, 10 in the last week. This suggests that there are unknown cases in our community that caused these infections, which is a cause for concern because, for each unlinked case, there is an unknown source. That is why it is called "unlinked". For as long as we cannot identify the source, there is a risk that they may be spreading the infection.

New COVID-19 variants have also emerged that challenge our knowledge on the virulence and transmissibility of COVID-19. To date, we have detected 10 different COVID-19 variants among local and imported cases. A detailed breakdown was shared in MOH’s press release on 4 May.

Such variations in viral strains are not unexpected. It is in the nature of viruses to mutate. Therefore, we must expect to see new variants emerge from time to time. However, some variants are of greater concern because of their increased transmissibility, severity of illness caused or ability to break through vaccines.

It is also not surprising to discover variant strains in Singapore. We cannot completely shut out our borders, close down the causeways, our seaport and airport because Singapore is not self-sufficient in many things and we need to maintain our supply lines and global connections to survive. The virus will then find ways to infiltrate us.

Sequencing results indicate that the recent clusters at TTSH, ICA and Tuas South CCF were driven by the B.1.617.2 variant that was first detected in India. Three of the recent cases at our airport terminals also tested preliminarily positive for B.1.617.

While the definitive characteristics of this variant remain unknown, the large clusters and rapid transmission we see locally are concerning as they suggest that infections of this strain can spread quickly and widely. This is similar to the overseas situation where resurgence of cases is likely driven also by new variants.

The emergence of several clusters, new variants as well as the rising number of unlinked cases mean the risk of community transmission has gone up. Therefore, we must stay vigilant and tighten our safe distancing measures in the community to slow down and prevent transmission of the virus, even as we make progress in our vaccination programme. We have also tightened our border measures to reduce the risk of importing cases. Minister Lawrence Wong will elaborate on these shifts in his Statement later.

Let me give an update on the cluster at TTSH. The first case of the TTSH cluster was confirmed on 28 April. It was a staff nurse who developed acute respiratory infection (ARI) symptoms that day. She dutifully reported her symptoms. She was immediately tested and, despite the fact that she had completed her vaccination earlier in the year, she was confirmed to be COVID-19 positive. I should point out that this does not mean that she is the first infected case and had brought COVID-19 into the wards. Investigation is still on-going. But her responsible act enabled us to pick up the cluster at TTSH.

Our immediate priority in such situations has been to contain and isolate the infections so that they do not spread to the larger community. Hence, we immediately threw a containment ring around this first detected case, quarantining close contacts and testing everyone who could have been in contact with the individual. This included all staff and patients of the affected Ward 9D. By the next day on 29 April, we had identified three staff and six patients of Ward 9D who were infected.

One of these patients had started to display COVID-19-type pneumonia symptoms at this time too. As he had entered Ward 9D earlier on 20 April, testing and quarantine were, hence, further extended to all staff who worked in Ward 9D from 20 April, as well as discharged and current inpatients and visitors to Ward 9D from 20 April. Testing was also expanded to include all in-patients and all staff working in the main ward block.

After this first round of testing was completed, all other TTSH staff were also screened. For additional precaution, patients and staff from the main ward block were also retested a second time. We then threw a larger ring around TTSH, inviting discharged patients and visitors who were in the hospital during the affected period to also be tested. They are not close contacts and, hence, have a lower risk of infection, but we offered to test them out of an abundance of caution and to give them peace of mind. For every case detected, a large ring was drawn around them for testing and isolation, and we locked down all wards that had exposure to the infectious cases.